Oil pipeline questions, not political:

[GH85Carrera]

The strangest argument I hear against the pipeline is the environmental one. The ground is full of pipelines and electrical easements now. The new pipeline is not a new concept. It is the same as many other pipelines already in use.

The trains are not nearly as efficient at moving oil as a pipeline. If they were no one would want to build the pipeline. They only build pipelines because the save the companies a lot of money.

[cairns]

The American people, overwhelmingly, want the pipeline built. It will be approved by Congress in January.

Transporting oil on a pipeline is infinitely safer and far better for the environment than using Burlington Northern. But you won't hear that from the owner of that corporation or the politicans who take his largesse. Much less the environmental groups they've snowed.

BTW who owns the Burlington Northern Santa Fe corporation and who would have a vested interest in seeing that the pipeline is never built? I forgot.

[GWN7]

My old boss, Warren

Here's a map of the existing xl pipeline and the proposed new pieces that everyone is complaining about. The old pipeline which is in use is about 30 years old.



Now here's a map of all existing pipelines. Where were the protesters when these were all built?

[sammyg2]

Originally Posted by GH85Carrera

The strangest argument I hear against the pipeline is the environmental one. The ground is full of pipelines and electrical easements now. The new pipeline is not a new concept. It is the same as many other pipelines already in use.

The trains are not nearly as efficient at moving oil as a pipeline. If they were no one would want to build the pipeline. They only build pipelines because the save the companies a lot of money.

This is a re-post but i still like it:

The largest spill ever on the trans alaska pipeline was caused by ............ drumroll ......a wacko environmentalist.
Yes, a guy who was protesting about a potential oil spill caused one to prove his point, cuckoo cuckoo.
On February 15, 1978 leftist sabotage caused a hole in the pipe which was repaired and back in service 21 HOURS later.


The second largest spill? A drunk alaskan native shooting at the pipeline with a high powered rifle. That one took 60 hours to repair.

Seems to lead to an obvious solution, allow the drunk natives to shoot the environmentalists instead of the pipeline.

[cmccuist]

I've been building pipelines here in the kingdom for awhile now. We bury them almost exclusively. The lines are coated with fusion bond epoxy and we put cathodic protection the whole length of the buried lines. There are also corrosion monitoring systems and leak detection. We put sectioning valves every 30 km to mitigate the consequences of a leak or rupture.

If the lines run near populated areas, the wall thickness is increased. We sleeve the lines and bury them deeper if they run under roadways.

There are other concerns even after the welding is done. The line will need to be chemically cleaned and hydrotested. That water has to come from somewhere (wells?) and has to be disposed of safely (evaporation ponds).

For us, getting the LUP's (land use permits) is a big deal even though Aramco owns all the corridors and land around the refineries. It's going to take a lot of paperwork to get this built. The Alaskan pipeline had some good support amongst the locals, but still took about three years longer than originally scheduled due to environmental challenges. Some of those challenges had real merit (permafrost won't support a pipeline that's heated). Some of the challenges were just bitter tree huggers.

I imagine this pipeline will keep a lot of welders, fitters, crane operators, and lawyers busy for many years to come. If the senate will ever passes the bill!

[widebody911]

I like how these are not cited in terms of environmental damage but rather how many hours it took to get the pipeline back up and running.

I couldn't find the specific incidents cited in your apocryphal FW:FW:FW: style story, but here is an actual List of pipeline accidents in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Originally Posted by sammyg2

This is a re-post but i still like it:

The largest spill ever on the trans alaska pipeline was caused by ............ drumroll ......a wacko environmentalist.
Yes, a guy who was protesting about a potential oil spill caused one to prove his point, cuckoo cuckoo.
On February 15, 1978 leftist sabotage caused a hole in the pipe which was repaired and back in service 21 HOURS later.

The second largest spill? A drunk alaskan native shooting at the pipeline with a high powered rifle. That one took 60 hours to repair.

Seems to lead to an obvious solution, allow the drunk natives to shoot the environmentalists instead of the pipeline.

[GH85Carrera]

This was far worse than a pipeline leak.

Lac-Mégantic rail disaster - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[Jolly Amaranto]

Originally Posted by widebody911

I couldn't find the specific incidents cited in your apocryphal FW:FW:FW: style story, but here is ...

This appears to be the sabotage incident listed on that page.

[porwolf]

Originally Posted by GH85Carrera

This was far worse than a pipeline leak.

Lac-Mégantic rail disaster - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Yeah. but why does Canadian oil have to be piped through the US to be sold eventually to other countries?

[GH85Carrera]

NAFTA?

They want to sell it somewhere and it is a lot easier to go south than to either of their own coasts. And shipping in the gulf does not stop for the winter freeze.

[porwolf]

Originally Posted by GH85Carrera

NAFTA?

They want to sell it somewhere and it is a lot easier to go south than to either of their own coasts. And shipping in the gulf does not stop for the winter freeze.

Easier to go south, yes, from a solely corporate cost standpoint. But what about using (or abusing) eminent domain laws for the benefit foreign business interests and the inevitable local, domestic, pollution that goes along with it.

[GH85Carrera]

That same oil is come south right now. It is just coming via trains. More pollution, more environmental damage from the current way than pipelines.

[porwolf]

Originally Posted by GH85Carrera

That same oil is come south right now. It is just coming via trains. More pollution, more environmental damage from the current way than pipelines.

Let the trains go through Canada to their refineries and their port cities.

[sammyg2]

Originally Posted by widebody911

I like how these are not cited in terms of environmental damage but rather how many hours it took to get the pipeline back up and running.

I couldn't find the specific incidents cited in your apocryphal FW:FW:FW: style story, but here is an actual List of pipeline accidents in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

That's because it was all cleaned up with no long term residual damage. Bummer, huh?

I don't know why you couldn't find stories I posted, it really wasn't that hard.

The largest oil spill involving the main pipeline took place on February 15, 1978, when an unknown individual blew a 1-inch (2.54-centimeter) hole in it at Steele Creek, just east of Fairbanks.[162] Approximately 16,000 barrels (2,500 m3) of oil leaked out of the hole before the pipeline was shut down.[154] After more than 21 hours, it was restarted.[163]

The steel pipe is resistant to gunshots and has resisted them on several occasions, but on October 4, 2001, a drunken gunman named Daniel Carson Lewis shot a hole into a weld near Livengood, causing the second-largest mainline oil spill in pipeline history.[164] Approximately 6,144 barrels (976.8 m3) leaked from the pipeline; 4,238 barrels (673.8 m3) were recovered and reinjected into the pipeline.[165] Nearly 2 acres (8,100 m2) of tundra were soiled and were removed in the cleanup.[166] The pipeline was repaired and was restarted more than 60 hours later.[167] Lewis was found guilty in December 2002 of criminal mischief, assault, drunken driving, oil pollution, and misconduct. He was sentenced to 16 years in jail and ordered to repay the $17 million cleanup costs.[168]

Trans-Alaska Pipeline System - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[sammyg2]

More details, the ***hat walked.

FAIRBANKS, Alaska — A Fairbanks man who told federal investigators he blew a hole in the trans-Alaska pipeline in 1978 and was assisted by an accomplice has been acquitted of lying to the FBI.

A Fairbanks jury on Thursday found Phillip Martin Olson, 62, not guilty of three counts of lying to federal investigators, the Fairbanks Daily News-Miner reported.

Prosecutors did not have the option of charging him with sabotage of the 800-mile line because the statute of limitations had run out.

Instead, they charged him with lying to the FBI, which they said cost the agency time and money investigating the claims.

Assistant U.S. Attorney Joe Bottini said by email that he was surprised by the verdict. He believed the evidence was strong, Bottini said, but he respected the jurors’ decision.

Questions about who was responsible for the explosion and leak have lingered since the incident occurred less than a year after the pipeline began moving oil 800 miles from Prudhoe Bay to Valdez, Alaska. No one was ever charged.

A pilot on Feb. 15, 1978, spotted crude oil spurting from the pipeline. About 12,000 to 14,000 barrels, or up to 588,000 gallons of crude, hit the ground by the time workers sealed the hole the next morning.

Investigators determined that a bomb had been placed inside the insulating layer of the 48-inch pipe.

An informant told the FBI in November that Olson had bragged about setting off the explosion. Agents interviewed Olson in November and January, and he implicated another man, identified in charging documents as C.D., as an accomplice.

The other man denied involvement. Olson was charged in May with lying.

The pipeline also was breached in 2001. Daniel Lewis was convicted of oil pollution, criminal mischief and other charges for firing a hunting rifle into the pipeline on Oct. 4, 2001. The hole allowed 285,000 gallons of oil to leak near Livengood. Cleanup costs exceeded $13 million.

Lewis was sentenced to 16 years in prison.

Fuel Fix » Man who claimed Alaska pipeline sabotage acquitted of lying to FBI

[sammyg2]

Originally Posted by porwolf

Easier to go south, yes, from a solely corporate cost standpoint. But what about using (or abusing) eminent domain laws for the benefit foreign business interests and the inevitable local, domestic, pollution that goes along with it.

Maybe you could go away for a while and come back when you've learned a little about the subject at hand.
Yeah ,that'd be great.

[Iciclehead]

Originally Posted by porwolf

Let the trains go through Canada to their refineries and their port cities.

I would suggest you educate yourself.

Short answer is that Canada already refines more oil than it consumes, the product would have to be for export to a consuming nation....like the US....and the product would need to be shipped and that distribution network does not exist and would need to be built

The refineries that have the capacity for processing the heavier crude are in the US, it is also closer to demand.

I, by the way, am fully engaged in building a new, Canadian refinery check it out at nwrpartnership.com. I do not support Keystone as it ties us further to an unreliable southern neighbour, but rather am a supporter of local refining and processing and East/West shipment.

As for own production, you guys are still importing about 7 mmB/day, of which about 3 mmB from Canada....and that scenario is likely to continue for a bit.

I am presuming from your political leanings that you would rather buy from Venezuela and the ME than Canada.

Dennis

[red-beard]

Originally Posted by porwolf

Yeah. but why does Canadian oil have to be piped through the US to be sold eventually to other countries?

We've covered that, but you aren't reading the comments. The refineries which can handle the oil are in Texas. It will DISPLACE more expensive oil that is brought in by other means. AND it is already being transported here. This is reducing the distance and change the mode of transport.

[porwolf]

Originally Posted by red-beard

We've covered that, but you aren't reading the comments. The refineries which can handle the oil are in Texas. It will DISPLACE more expensive oil that is brought in by other means. AND it is already being transported here. This is reducing the distance and change the mode of transport.

Then Canada should build refineries that can handle their oil and expose their people to all the refineries exhaust crud and the damage from inevitable pipe line leaks. What is wrong with that?

[Porsche-O-Phile]

Because then you'd be pissing and moaning that we've "outsourced" jobs.

Is there anything at all that will make your kind happy? Actually don't bother answering - we all know the answer to that one already - it's rhetorical.

We need the fuel. Like it or not that's the fuel we use, largely because people like you and NIMBYs don't want nuclear, don't want hydro, don't want natural gas and we don't have the infrastructure in place to use anything else right no on a large enough scale to support how we live and how our society functions.

For one I'd love to see us get off of oil too but until a widely available alternative becomes available and is in place we do what we have to in order to get it so we can function as a society.