Keystone XL Pipeline: Why I Support It

[Flagg]

So I don't have any articles to post but I can't think of any other forum to post this in. Anyway here goes:

I support the Keystone XL pipeline for one reason and one reason only. Saving human lives. The fact is that this garbage oil is going to be extracted, and it's going to be shipped across the US. The problem now is that it's being shipped by rail. And recently these trains full of this shit oil have been exploding and killing people. Pipelines are safer, produce less greenhouse gasses compared to shipping by rail, and don't explode wiping towns off the face of the earth.

If I had my way the tar sands oil would stay in the ground and there would be no reason to even build a pipeline. But despite what the NIMBYs and hardcore environmentalists say, that's just not going to happen.

Just my 2 cents as someone who has opposed the pipeline for a very long time and has recently changed his mind. Human life is more important than blind environmentalism. Discuss.

[Lagmonster]

Here in Canada, the environmental activists are facing the fact that the Lac Mégantic tragedy did to the rail/pipeline debate what Columbine did to the gun debate: destroyed support among the ambivalent majority. It was so bad that at one point, there were conspiracy theories suggesting that pro-pipeline sorts had staged the accident (or others like it) in order to make rail look bad.

The truth is that I have no idea which mode's 'worst case' is worse. I've seen discredited reports claiming that train accidents produce less spillage on average than pipe accidents, and discredited reports claiming that trains kill more people than Hitler. My suspicion is that Public safety is probably better with pipelines, whereas Environmental safety is probably better with trains. In a best-case scenario though, between the pipe that never leaks and the train that never crashes, the pipe wins: It's cheaper and less obtrusive.

That said, I'm fervently pro-train where it comes to most transportation, and rigorously anti-truck. I would like to see long-haul trucking go away in favour of expanded rail.

[Darth Tanner]

and discredited reports claiming that trains kill more people than Hitler

That I've got to see.

One question from someone who hasnt followed any of the debate but if the argument against the pipe is that it will despoil the environment why not have the pipe follow the railway, it would be cheaper to build in any case.

[Flagg]

Here in Canada, the environmental activists are facing the fact that the Lac Mégantic tragedy did to the rail/pipeline debate what Columbine did to the gun debate: destroyed support among the ambivalent majority. It was so bad that at one point, there were conspiracy theories suggesting that pro-pipeline sorts had staged the accident (or others like it) in order to make rail look bad.

The truth is that I have no idea which mode's 'worst case' is worse. I've seen discredited reports claiming that train accidents produce less spillage on average than pipe accidents, and discredited reports claiming that trains kill more people than Hitler. My suspicion is that Public safety is probably better with pipelines, whereas Environmental safety is probably better with trains. In a best-case scenario though, between the pipe that never leaks and the train that never crashes, the pipe wins: It's cheaper and less obtrusive.

That said, I'm fervently pro-train where it comes to most transportation, and rigorously anti-truck. I would like to see long-haul trucking go away in favour of expanded rail.

I tend to agree with you about long-haul trucking vs rail, but not to play backseat moderator I'd like to focus on the discussion on the tar sands pipeline.

[Irbis]

Pipelines are safer, produce less greenhouse gasses compared to shipping by rail, and don't explode wiping towns off the face of the earth.

Funny about that...







Yeah, I mostly agree with you, but pipelines aren't that rosy either. 3 months ago, one bad weld on tiny pipeline caused explosion and subsequent fire that raised air temperature to flash burns level, melting steel roofs in most of the village, pretty much destroying it.

[Lagmonster]

Yeah, I mostly agree with you, but pipelines aren't that rosy either. 3 months ago, one bad weld on tiny pipeline caused explosion and subsequent fire that raised air temperature to flash burns level, melting steel roofs in most of the village, pretty much destroying it.

The problem is that the average person has no fucking clue how to evaluate risk. Which is why significant tragedies (9/11, Chernobyl, Columbine, Lac Mégantic, etc.) get stuck in society's collective craw for so long - one major bad event makes people ignore risk assessment and just keep playing the worst case over and over as the standard against which all future considerations should be measured.

You want to actually know what the best choice is? Go talk to an actuary who advises major insurance companies. I will NEVER make bets against a seasoned actuary.

[Sea Skimmer]

Large fires and explosions aren't typical of crude oil pipeline breaks, its natural gas and refined product pipelines that give you the big fireballs all the time, and can self ignite from the force of break in some cases. Normally. The same normally for rail tanker traffic. The problem is the North Dakota fracking oil has been found to have far more volatile chemicals in it then about any other oil in the US-Canada, making it possible for it to explode as it did at Lac Mégantic. Though even then it had to be ignited by the red hot dragging brakes of certain cars, a plain derailment still would have been unlikely to ignite it, or at least not instantly. Problem is if it ignites, its bad enough that Canada is considering regulating the trains as explosives.

[Glocksman]

If the information I'm basing my opposition on is wrong, I'm sure someone here will let me know.

I'm against it not for environmental reasons, but for refinery capacity reasons.
From what I've read, the XL oil will be refined on the Gulf Coast and then exported.

US refineries already operate at 90%~ capacity and there's little slack in the system.
We've seen in the past how incidents at a single refinery can cause huge jumps in prices regionally, and I'd prefer not to add any additional strain.

[Irbis]

One question from someone who hasnt followed any of the debate but if the argument against the pipe is that it will despoil the environment why not have the pipe follow the railway, it would be cheaper to build in any case.

Not really, you don't want to dig the pipeline near the train tracks to not weaken their foundations from one side, and from the other, vibrations from heavy trains would be bad for pipe and welding. I suspect it would be more expensive.

[Sea Skimmer]

If the information I'm basing my opposition on is wrong, I'm sure someone here will let me know.

I'm against it not for environmental reasons, but for refinery capacity reasons.
From what I've read, the XL oil will be refined on the Gulf Coast and then exported.

US refineries already operate at 90%~ capacity and there's little slack in the system.
We've seen in the past how incidents at a single refinery can cause huge jumps in prices regionally, and I'd prefer not to add any additional strain.

Except the US already does that, and US refineries are still importing crude from Venezuela, Nigeria and the Mid East to refine to do it. Crude cannot be legally exported from the US but large areas of Latin America and Africa depend on importing gasoline from the US, and that isn't going to change anytime soon. It basically can't unless Venezuela stops being run by idiots and finds billions and billions of dollars to refine its own crude and meet that demand via export. Given the downward trend of Venezuela's limited refining industry, and its absurdly subsidized gasoline prices, I don't see this happening.

Keystone XL will just mean more US and Canadian crude is being used to make that export gasoline. Opposing the pipeline on that ground makes no sense. It will actually have a stabilizing effect on crude and gasoline prices in the US because US-Canadian crude is less subject to random price swings from Mid Eastern dickery. Almost all the money in oil is in control of crude supply, it is almost impossible to make money on the refinery operation anymore, many refineries operate at a loss, even super colossal ones with massive cogeneration plants to recoup energy costs, and this is why not just the US but much of the world operates at a bare minimal of refining capacity, or just outright has to import bulk refined fuel.

Only real way past this is going to natural gas, which needs only limited processing, or electricity to power vehicles. Crude prices are just too high to make investing in new refineries or massive expansions attractive, nor ever likely to be that low again. The only good thing is US demand for gasoline has actually dropped slightly, and is likely to very slowly go down in the future even without a major shift in vehicle design. Amazing what not producing 20mpg cars can do.

[Glocksman]

If the information I'm basing my opposition on is wrong, I'm sure someone here will let me know.

I'm against it not for environmental reasons, but for refinery capacity reasons.
From what I've read, the XL oil will be refined on the Gulf Coast and then exported.

US refineries already operate at 90%~ capacity and there's little slack in the system.
We've seen in the past how incidents at a single refinery can cause huge jumps in prices regionally, and I'd prefer not to add any additional strain.

Except the US already does that, and US refineries are still importing crude from Venezuela, Nigeria and the Mid East to refine to do it. Crude cannot be legally exported from the US but large areas of Latin America and Africa depend on importing gasoline from the US, and that isn't going to change anytime soon. It basically can't unless Venezuela stops being run by idiots and finds billions and billions of dollars to refine its own crude and meet that demand via export. Given the downward trend of Venezuela's limited refining industry, and its absurdly subsidized gasoline prices, I don't see this happening.

Keystone XL will just mean more US and Canadian crude is being used to make that export gasoline. Opposing the pipeline on that ground makes no sense. It will actually have a stabilizing effect on crude and gasoline prices in the US because US-Canadian crude is less subject to random price swings from Mid Eastern dickery. Almost all the money in oil is in control of crude supply, it is almost impossible to make money on the refinery operation anymore, many refineries operate at a loss, even super colossal ones with massive cogeneration plants to recoup energy costs, and this is why not just the US but much of the world operates at a bare minimal of refining capacity, or just outright has to import bulk refined fuel.

Only real way past this is going to natural gas, which needs only limited processing, or electricity to power vehicles. Crude prices are just too high to make investing in new refineries or massive expansions attractive, nor ever likely to be that low again. The only good thing is US demand for gasoline has actually dropped slightly, and is likely to very slowly go down in the future even without a major shift in vehicle design. Amazing what not producing 20mpg cars can do.

Then if it's engineered properly, I don't have any opposition.
Thanks for the reply.

[Losonti Tokash]

I'm opposed to it not just because the increased pollution that will result from the exploitation of the tar sands (which will kill more people around the world than the trains ever could), but because of the borderline criminal behavior of TransCanada. Won't sell your property? Too bad, they're friends with the governor and they'll get it through eminent domain. Native tribe that refuses to let them build on your sovereign land? Too bad, they'll do it anyway and say they're not obligated to respect tribal sovereignty.

[Flagg]

I'm opposed to it not just because the increased pollution that will result from the exploitation of the tar sands (which will kill more people around the world than the trains ever could), but because of the borderline criminal behavior of TransCanada. Won't sell your property? Too bad, they're friends with the governor and they'll get it through eminent domain. Native tribe that refuses to let them build on your sovereign land? Too bad, they'll do it anyway and say they're not obligated to respect tribal sovereignty.

I agree with you 100%. The problem is that the tar sands oil is gonna be drilled up anyway and if it's not shipped by pipeline it will be shipped by rail which has proven to be far more dangerous than pipeline. I'm not saying transcanada aren't cunts, that natives aren't getting fucked, or anything like that. But the facts are simple and it's a numbers game. That shitty oil will be used by the Chinese and Europeans whether there's a pipeline or not. Those people are going to die whether there's a pipeline or not due to global climate change. But we CAN prevent deaths due to train derailments by building that pipeline. Will it spill and cause environmental damage? Probably. In fact almost certainly. But I value human lives more than property. It's just math dude. Shitty fucking math.

[Lagmonster]

I often have to advise people to fight the fights they can win, not the fights that they feel need fighting. Occasionally we have to deal with people who want to be involved in agribusiness decisions, but their only purpose is to piss on ALL the options, because their only agenda is to end the consumption of meat entirely (and so business options A, B, or C all appear equally horrendous). It doesn't help, and will simply get you ignored by the people who need to make decisions on how to handle other, irreversible decisions.