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

eminent domain sucks socks. You want the government tearing through your backyard?

It affects a lot of communities and individuals:

http://friendsofnelson.com/

Also, deforestation is a really bad habit that we should probably knock out.

Triggered Native wrote:

You are missing the point. The fact that there is a chance that the oil can leak and affect the water is enough. And what's worse is that they are doing this to one of the most exploited groups of people in the entire country historically. The question is would they put the pipeline through a predominantly white area? Maybe or maybe not but, you can't just say it's okay to keep exploiting us.

The answer to this is simple.

I would let the oil companies build the pipeline with ridiculous live 24/7 computer monitoring. If it leaks at all, you shut it down. If they complain that's too expensive, then they can use the trains. Oil companies should not be allowed to build a pipeline that leaks.

Trains can also derail.

-Rojo

random6 wrote:

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

I love conspiracy theories and heard a guy on talk radio say that as well.

Running Bear 14:40 wrote:

Coddled... how?

Let's see... Gov't payouts, advantaged college admissions, easy scholarships, the list goes on and on.

[

I would let the oil companies build the pipeline with ridiculous live 24/7 computer monitoring. If it leaks at all, you shut it down. If they complain that's too expensive, then they can use the trains. Oil companies should not be allowed to build a pipeline that leaks.

That's not very good policy. If you're looking a BETTER alternative to trains, you shouldn't make the BETTER solutions harder to obtain.

The current admin and GOP controlled Congress would deem this to be over regulation and not business friendly.Bottom line seems like a lot of risk with minimal reward for Merica.

rojo wrote:

Triggered Native wrote:

You are missing the point. The fact that there is a chance that the oil can leak and affect the water is enough. And what's worse is that they are doing this to one of the most exploited groups of people in the entire country historically. The question is would they put the pipeline through a predominantly white area? Maybe or maybe not but, you can't just say it's okay to keep exploiting us.

The answer to this is simple.

I would let the oil companies build the pipeline with ridiculous live 24/7 computer monitoring. If it leaks at all, you shut it down. If they complain that's too expensive, then they can use the trains. Oil companies should not be allowed to build a pipeline that leaks.

Trains can also derail.

-Rojo

You are wrong allow this pipeline will get the US no closer to the mythical energy independence via fossil fuels only.Our daily diet is 18-19 mbd our daily production maxes at about 12mbd. Oilly dirt from Canuckville is NOT going to fill that void. You want to right off the Middle east oil czars - set aggressive renewable goals and tax the hell out of imported oil. The Orange Czar should be trashing petro companies who invest in foreign oil reserves just as much he is trashing US companies for export their production facility.

"I would let the oil companies build the pipeline with ridiculous live 24/7 computer monitoring. If it leaks at all, you shut it down. If they complain that's too expensive, then they can use the trains. Oil companies should not be allowed to build a pipeline that leaks."

______________________________________________________________________

I completely agree! And let this be a total "Win-Win situation where a guaranteed Mega Rent is extracted from the oil companies who want to build through their territory, which then is approved in Federal court and signed by the Governor of the State. They benefit and the oil companies benefit and it can be made super-safe and computer controlled - easy.

Yo Buffalo, good point. This thread on energy infrastructure is occurring with no reference to the present state of things. For starters, 2014, 2015, and 2016 were the 3 hottest years on record. This past July was the hottest month ever recorded in the history of meteorology. The following month, August, tied it. Around that time, a thread here on the boards discussed the wicked heat & humidity of XC season, with coaches & runners offering tips and strategies to beat the heat. One of the Brojos said that when temps hit the high 90's he couldn't, and I paraphrase: "imagine going outside." It seems likely that future high school XC may become a winter sport, particularly in the South. As we debate pipelines, the poles are in fact melting. In the Arctic, thawing permafrost is releasing thermogenic methane, which traps 34-times more heat than CO2.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2010/jan/14/arctic-permafrost-methane

As I write, it's the Arctic night in northern regions, when minimal daylight and plunging temps cause extensive sea-ice to form. Only this winter, that isn't happening:

http://www.businessinsider.com/arctic-sea-ice-collapse-winter-extent-2017-1

The present sea-ice collapse may be just an anomaly. Ice may return robustly next winter. But this instability is exactly what computer models and climatologists have foretold for decades. Of course, now we live in a country of "Alternative facts" where government scientists have in recent weeks rushed to make back up copies of their research, fearful that Fake 45 would destroy it. Just yesterday, he placed a gag-order on the EPA. Ideology won't trump the laws of physics. New infrastructure projects that increase our dependency on fossil fuels are ill-advised (but now--also par-for-the-course.)

24/7 video monitoring of a 1000 mile pipeline? Sounds totally feasible and inexpensive. Google pipeline leaks. The oil companies have proven over and over that they build to maximize profits over environmental concerns. They aren't building these things to NASA specs.

Who will monitor in your scenario? Who will enforce the regulations? You surely don't think the oil companies will. Read up on the history of our next SoS if you think they respect more serious rules like international sanctions. It'd have to be the government that monitors, which will mean more of those pesky regulations.

Coddled...What a joke..natives don't receive government payouts nor do they receive 'easy' scholarships. I am not Native but lived on a reservation for several years. The poverty levels, and lack of electricity and running water are on par with a third-world country. Try spending some time there and see how 'coddled' they really are.

It's perfectly logical to oppose pipelines on the grounds that they facilitate the development of high carbon fuels that might otherwise not be feasible.

The problem with this grounds for opposing a pipeline is that it isn't actually the legal ground for denying permission to build a pipeline. If a private company acquires the right of way to build a pipeline, that company has a RIGHT to do so if it meets certain criteria. In particular the government is supposed to consider the local environmental impacts. So that's things like cutting a big right of way through forests (which can mess with animal migration) or the potential for leaks. It doesn't include the fact that the construction will facilitate a business that could, down the line, lead to more greenhouse gas emissions. If that were the rule, then you could theoretically deny a building permit for any new structures built by an oil company, because it all facilitates the production of greenhouse gases.

What a lot of people were upset about was the Obama administration's dishonesty regarding these pipelines. The administration couldn't outright say that it was trying to stymie oil production, because that's not a legal basis for denying permission to proceed, so it pretended that there were largely unspecified other issues that still needed to be considered, which is BS.

It is mostly symbolic. The idea is that we should not be investing money/making it easier and cheaper to use the dirty, nonrenewable energy sources.

The argument is that we do not need any more oil infrastructure. There will be a time in the relatively near future when we will run out of oil. Solar and wind power have no emissions and they will never run out. It is very short sighted to not invest in these alternatives right now. We still need oil but any new energy investments need to be made in clean renewable sources.

18 wheelers are no use you need a 16 wheeler.

Seriously what the feck is wrong with you people and the bs expressions you come out with. Why not just say lorry.

Us cowboys won the war against the Indians.

And victories have consequences.

There are some surprisingly good argument here. But there are also a lot of "from the gut" type responses.

You have to be a critical thinker and look at the source of your "news" to understand arguments. Also remember that the people making these decisions about pipelines are not the people living at the location of the pipeline. They are people who can afford filtered water and can afford to be far away from the issues that may be caused by oil spills. They also stand to make a lot of money from the pipeline.

Building a pipeline has risks for the environment and the people nearby. This is an indisputable fact. From there you may argue that the risks are worth it or not.

Umm, check your facts. Large pipelines have had 24/7 monitoring for decades. Been a standard for a long time. When a leak is detected (ie low flow or low pressure) the line is shutdown. The issue is that the oil in between shut off valves could leak out until the line depressurizes.

http://blog.transcanada.com/ten-safety-features-of-keystone-xl-you-might-not-know/

You're points 1 and 2 are true, but it doesn't mean it makes sense for the US or populations along the pipeline for reasons that many have already stated on the first page.

I worked assessing, characterizing, cleaning up, monitoring contaminated sites too. A spill can be localized, and relatively easy to clean up. But it can also happen in a particularly bad location, like into waterways for the current spills in Canada that have been mentioned in this thread. I have personally worked on projects for spills with contaminant plumes in the aquifer of 3,000 feet and growing in one case, directly affecting numerous drinking water wells in one small town. And a larger spill where the current plume is 4 miles long under a town of over 2,000 people, most of whom are being supplied by trucked in water. You can believe the people in that town are and have been pissed.

Did you notice the pictures were taken from a Jet flying over the Arctic? Did you notice that they are basing their claims on satellites that were launched into orbit above the planet? Have you noticed that a lot of the climate scientists quoted in the research are constantly flying around the country and taking boats to Antarctica or Greenland to do their blessed research? My point being that the very people telling us that the end is near and that we need to turn away from our fossil fuel consuming lifestyles use fossil fuels with impunity in their daily lives. They are a bunch of hypocrites. They tell everyone else that they need to eliminate fossil fuels from their lives / their jobs, etcetera and yet they have no problem living these fossil fuel intensive careers.

Obama did more than any previous president to combat climate change, but in the end, world greenhouse gas emissions under his tenure increased dramatically due to his anti-business policies in this country fueling explosive growth in places like India and China as manufacturers shifted production from this country to Asia. Greenhouse gas emissions in this country have been falling since the Bush administration, so you would be better posting your environmental rant on the Chinese or Indian equivalent of letsrun than on this message board.