Can someone tell me how a pipeline isn't good for the environment?

Basically it's high likelihood of a few small spills (when a truck crashes and spills)Or the smaller likelihood of a single catastrophic spill if something happens with the pipe. AThat's my understanding at least. People are worried about the catastrophes, especially the people who live in the vicinity of the pipeline, or whose water source is in the vicinity of the pipeline.

a little confused wrote:

I don't understand how an oil pipeline wouldn't be good for the environment. The oil is coming out one way or the other. So it's just a matter of what is most efficient and safe way to transport it. Wouldn't an oil pipeline be much better for the environment than using rails/18-wheelers where their could be accidents?

What am I missing here?

Or is the argument that if there is no pipeline then they won't extract the oil?

kid history wrote:

I work in the oil industry. Native Americans have traditional held oil companies at ransom for large payouts. It's extortion. That natives' standoff over the Keystone is no different -- once the payout hits a magic number, all their opposition will go away.

I love it. It's "negotiating" when you try to push the risk off onto the locals, and then it is "extortion" when they say "no, you have to compensate us for use of our land and the risk that such use entails."

this looks pretty bad for the environment to me

https://www.google.com/search?q=pipeline+leaks&rlz=1C1AVNE_enUS614US614&espv=2&biw=1745&bih=885&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjsiMmcxt3RAhUl34MKHc0iCKgQ_AUIBygC

The Wikipedia article documenting US pipeline leaks should be required reading for anyone engaged in this argument. Check out the number of accidents and gallons spilled in 2016 alone:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_pipeline_accidents_in_the_United_States_in_the_21st_century#2016

tom waits wrote:

The Wikipedia article documenting US pipeline leaks should be required reading for anyone engaged in this argument. Check out the number of accidents and gallons spilled in 2016 alone:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_pipeline_accidents_in_the_United_States_in_the_21st_century#2016

Natural gas pipeline incidents are very different from crude oil. The main danger is from an explosion.

It is true that transporting crude oil by pipeline is preferable to truck, train and barge both economically and environmentally. If built to the highest standards and properly maintained and operated, you should never have a spill on a pipeline. There are thousands of miles of pipeline in the US that have never had a spill over decades of operation. The problem is that the oil industry is a boom and bust industry thanks to OPEC manipulation. When there is a boom, there is a rush to get new capacity and to shove as much crude through the pipeline as possible to get it to the refinery. This results in spills due to poor construction and operator error. When there is a bust, pipeline companies skimp on maintenance and operational safety.

Shutting down pipeline expansion just moves crude to truck, train and barge. The hope of environmentalists is that the increased cost of non-pipeline transport will stop production in the tar sands due to the current low oil price. This may be an effective strategy for the near term as long as OPEC flounders about making production cuts and US shale producers effectively offset those cuts. But eventually, OPEC will have no choice but to get serious about production cuts as most of the members need to get the price of oil back above $60 to be able to fund their national budgets.

The main democratic opposition to this pipeline is mainly due to the fact that oil from tar sands is more of a green house gas producer than others and less to do with fears about leaks. The truth is this oil is going to be mined eventually unless the world suddenly loses it's demand for oil and gas. Truth be told, no place in the US or Canada can produce oil as efficiently as the Saudis (they have the highest yield reserves in the world) which has it's own set of issues (namely our military's involvement in the middle east). By choosing not to allow the Keystone pipeline, the democrats indirectly chose to keep our country more dependent upon fuels from the Middle East. You either can improve our energy independence by relying upon fuels from the Americas or you can be more environmentally minded and keep us more involved in the middle east.

The main democratic opposition to this pipeline is mainly due to the fact that oil from tar sands is more of a green house gas producer than others and less to do with fears about leaks. The truth is this oil is going to be mined eventually unless the world suddenly loses it's demand for oil and gas. Truth be told, no place in the US or Canada can produce oil as efficiently as the Saudis (they have the highest yield reserves in the world) which has it's own set of issues (namely our military's involvement in the middle east). By choosing not to allow the Keystone pipeline, the democrats indirectly chose to keep our country more dependent upon fuels from the Middle East. You either can improve our energy independence by relying upon fuels from the Americas or you can be more environmentally minded and keep us more involved in the middle east.

Not native but lived/worked on the Navajo

Reservation for several years...

A couple thoughts:

Natives are not getting rich off oil/gas/coal. They remain the poorest group in the country. In Navajo nation, up to 40% lack either running water or electricity. They consume far less natural resources than the average American.

Navajo lands have historically been exploited/leased well below market value for coal and uranium mining. The adverse health affects of uranium and coal persist to this day.

Natives are more concerned about the health of land and the environment than the average American. Many would sacrifice (limited) economic development rather than risk environmental damage, which is a concept many Americans would find hard to grasp.

The proposed pipeline is yet another attempt to use Native lands for economic gain, with little benefit to the tribe, and with significant risk of damage to Native land and health.

I thought the REAL problem was that Warren Buffet was going to lose money if his railroad wasn't transporting the oil.

" I'm not saying this makes it OK, or that it shouldn't be cleaned up (hire my company to do it!), but a spill in nowhere, KS doesn't instantly render all of the massive Ogallala as unusable water. Some comments above imply that would be the case.

Read more:

http://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?thread=8026304&page=1#ixzz4WnB94gZE

"

A spill in "nowhere, KS"? No one really gets to decide where the spills will occur along the 2,000 miles of pipline.

It has been clearly argued the environmental costs of the pipeline.

What are the benefits? What is the margin on the oil and when is it paid for, including extraction and construction costs? Usually oil is sold for cents on the dollar once you calculate costs.

Pipelines are cheaper than railroads. If you reduce the cost of shipping oil, you'll increase the profit margins of oil producers. Bigger profits cause more production. More production means more carbon in the atmosphere (not good for the environment).

Precious Roy wrote:

It is true that transporting crude oil by pipeline is preferable to truck, train and barge both economically and environmentally. If built to the highest standards and properly maintained and operated, you should never have a spill on a pipeline.

"If built to the highest standards". You are assuming that a company worrying about the bottom line is going to make sure the pipeline is built to the highest standards and uses the best available preventative measures. They typically only meet the minimum allowable requirements.

I heard an official in North Dakota talk about the pipeline, urging congress to move forward. He said something along the lines that the after review of the original plans for the pipeline project, the USACE requested that they upgrade to make the pipeline double walled as a preventative measure, which they have since agreed to. But again, it was only because they were asked to later. Not exactly building it to the highest standards.

My question is why did they not propose to use a double walled piping system in the first place? Shouldn't this be standard for the industry along with all the bells and whistles for interstitial monitoring and alarms? It is with underground storage tanks. Why should pipelines that contain exponentially more oil that transverse thousands of miles be held to a lower construction standard than your local gas station? What else did they propose that was passed through that was at the minimum allowable standards?

Pipelines are more efficient and do have less spills than other modes of transportation, but when they do leak, it is big. If they want to install a pipeline, they should not have to construct to the minimum allowable safety standards, it should be to the highest safety standard at the time.

There are lots of levels to answer this question at ranging from the dirtiness of tar sand oil, or using oil as a fuel period in this day and age.

I am going to stick to the literal question, why is a pipeline bad for the environment? As an Alaskan, I can say with experience that pipelines have constant leaks. They expand, contract, corrode and need constant maintenance. Maintenance frequently requires stopping the flow of oil which means the money stops. Stopping and starting oil flow in a pipeline is a major deal. There is a lot of pressure not to do this over time, and funding for it dwindles as the oil volumes start to decrease. Remote pipelines can leak for long periods without detection. Just google pipeline leak and you will see all the news stories that constantly come up. I see that a story came out hours ago that a pipeline in remote Canada just leaked 200,000 gallons. Try to fix that. The native populations in these areas are screwed forever now. Water done. Cancer rates up.

At the higher level, we don't really need oil to power our cars and heat our homes now if we invest in the right technologies. Why build a pipeline when we can put our money into a real, cleaner solution?

sorry for ya wrote:

It's just something Republicans favor because it benefits the rich oil industry. Electoral votes don't come for free. It's funny they'll go to court for 10 years to fight over a neighbor that builds a fence that obstructs the view on their personal property but put a pipe thru a thousand miles of land and it's no big deal. Who cares if it's nimby.

Including much private property of moderate to conservative rural people-- eff THEM however, they learn the hard way. Doesn't matter how long your family worked the farm-- forget about Injuns!

Mr S.S. wrote:

My alternative facts say that tar sand is perfectly safe to wash with and even drink in small quantities.

W-w-w-whaaat?

jorvack wrote:

A spill in "nowhere, KS"? No one really gets to decide where the spills will occur along the 2,000 miles of pipline.

It has been clearly argued the environmental costs of the pipeline.

What are the benefits? What is the margin on the oil and when is it paid for, including extraction and construction costs? Usually oil is sold for cents on the dollar once you calculate costs.

the point of the nowhere, KS example was just to demonstrate that oil spill effects are highly localized, even if the crude reaches the aquifer. From an immediate impacts to human health perspective, pipeline releases are "better" than rail releases. Generally larger, but also more likely to occur in a non-populated area and below the ground, compared to a rail or truck release that is usually in a populated or trafficked area and will immediately expose those nearby.

I'm not in favor of either DAPL or the KXL expansion, even though it would likely benefit me personally. The total costs, including the continued disenfranchisement of Native Americans and the additional CO2 are not worth it.

we need to transfer our energy systems away from fossil fuels. increases in co2 level are caused by man and this is leading to accelerated climate change that we won't be able to adapt to.

Bring Back the 880 wrote:

Well, there are others that just don't want the pipeline running through their backyard.

Yes. It's easy to not get why people protest the building of this. But then picture a pipeline being built and maintained in your neighborhood and it seems a bit more understandable.

Perd Hapley wrote:

The total costs, including the continued disenfranchisement of Native Americans and the additional CO2 are not worth it.

I'll be the first to say it: I don't care about the Native Americans. They are the most coddled group in today's society, which is really saying something.