Keystone

[onejayhawk]

Put the energy & effort into addressing our roads and bridges. They're terribly neglected. We don't need this project nearly as much as our infrastructure needs addressing

Why not both?

It's not like Keystone would take tax money from anything. If anything it would also reduce stress on infrastructure.

J

[GwynnInTheHall]

Why not both?

It's not like Keystone would take tax money from anything. If anything it would also reduce stress on infrastructure.

J

not really and if you think so, please provide how it would actually do what you say it will if not, well then....keep on being you.

[onejayhawk]

not really and if you think so, please provide how it would actually do what you say it will if not, well then....keep on being you.

Say what?

Keystone XL does not cost any money.
They just want a permit.
Infrastructure can be done at the same pace with KXL as without KXL.
However, fewer trains means less wear and tear.

Can you keep up with that?

J

[GwynnInTheHall]

Say what?

Keystone XL does not cost any money.
They just want a permit.
Infrastructure can be done at the same pace with KXL as without KXL.
However, fewer trains means less wear and tear.

Can you keep up with that?

J

Keep up?

I had to leave Rotojunkie for 2 years just to let YOU catch up to me.

Let ignore the fact you make shit up just to prove an indefensible point.

Let's also ignore the fact you haven't bothered to read or comprehend what I've said thus far.

Of course it will cost money to monitor the pipeline or are you advocating we leave that up to Trans Canada since their record for doing so is so incredibly good.

Or should we NOT be proactive and allow the devastation of a breach or spill to occur and Then deal with it afterward **are you willing to have this run through YOUR property?** Of course you aren't.

This pretend addition to the economy might actually prevent any action by congress** there's an ironic sound bite** because they'll say, look we've added 50 jobs!!!!! and go back to their impeachment proceedings.

I have said in my prior posts--This is much ado about nothing as long as Trans Canada inspects and monitors the piepleine effectively which they have NOT done to date. It adds NOTHING to our economy so we are essentially assuming all the risk for Nada

Trains, Planes and Automobiles was a good flick I'm sure that's where you were going with this..............

PS. It's nice to see I have had such an impact on your life that you STILL have me quoted after 2 years..............And that Idiocracy thing....you gotta be feeling right at home by now, Lectrolytes.......

PSS. I hang out with a bunch of eclectic intellectuals so my sense of humor is a bit different than yours and my skin far thicker...should you find yourself getting upset at anything I post please use your index finger to pull those panties out of their bunch....

[onejayhawk]

The job issue has been covered. It isn't neither 40000 or 50. The first is only during one phase of construction. The second uses the narrowest possible definition.

From a spillage point, pipelines are MUCH better than railcars.

Monitoring is something that has not been discussed, but ti does not seem to be a large issue. Some detail would help.

That about covers your post. Not much to dance about.

Like Yogi Berra, you have a way with words.

J

[TranaGreg]

...
From a spillage point, pipelines are MUCH better than railcars.

Monitoring is something that has not been discussed, but ti does not seem to be a large issue. Some detail would help.
...
J

I don't have a dog in this fight - I can see the merits of both positions - but I do find it an interesting discussion. And since the tankers that destroyed that Quebec town passed less than a mile by my home, I do feel that the first discussion point needs to be safety - personal and environmental.

FWIW, there already has been some detail posted - from JJ's earlier link re: the Michigan spill from 2010 ...

On Sunday, July 25, 2010, at about 5:58 p.m. EDT, a 40-foot pipe segment in Line 6B, located approximately 0.6 of a mile downstream of the Marshall, Michigan pump station, ruptured.[1] The rupture in the Enbridge Energy pipeline caused a 1,100,000 US gallons (4,200 m3) spill of diluted bitumen or heavy crude oil originating from Canada (Alberta and Saskatchewan) into Talmadge Creek in Calhoun County, Michigan, which flows into the Kalamazoo River. The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) later estimated the spill to be in excess of 1 million US gallons (3,800 m3) [clarification needed].[2] On 29 July 2010, the Calhoun County Health Department asked 30 to 50 households to evacuate, and twice as many were advised not to drink their water.[3]

Though alarms sounded in Enbridge's Edmonton headquarters at the time of the rupture, it was eighteen hours before a Michigan utilities employee reported oil spilling and the pipeline company learned of the spill. Meanwhile, pipeline operators had thought the alarms were maybe caused by a bubble in the pipeline and, while for some time it was shut down, they also increased pressure for periods of hours to try to clear the possible blockage, spilling more oil.[4]

NPR reported that "NTSB investigators determined that the six-foot gash in the pipe was caused by a flaw in the outside lining which allowed the pipe to crack and corrode. Now, in 2005, Enbridge actually had learned that this section of pipe was cracked and corroding. ... That same 2005 internal report pointed to 15,000 defects in the 40-year-old pipeline. And Enbridge decided not to dig up this [Talmadge Creek] area to inspect it."[12]

In 2013, in opining on the Keystone XL pipeline proposal, the EPA recommended to the State Department that pipelines that carry tar sands oil should no longer be treated just like pipelines that carry any other oil.

Both rail & pipelines come with major risks. Both need serious regulation to ensure safety - maybe that's the part of the issue which isn't being discussed. If Enbridge or anyone else become aware of 15,000 defects in their pipeline ... well I would want to know what their legal obligations are to maintain their infrastructure (not just cleanup after the fact, but proactively ... that study identifying the 15,000 defects was 5 years before the spill).

[GwynnInTheHall]

I don't have a dog in this fight - I can see the merits of both positions - but I do find it an interesting discussion. And since the tankers that destroyed that Quebec town passed less than a mile by my home, I do feel that the first discussion point needs to be safety - personal and environmental.



Both rail & pipelines come with major risks. Both need serious regulation to ensure safety - maybe that's the part of the issue which isn't being discussed. If Enbridge or anyone else become aware of 15,000 defects in their pipeline ... well I would want to know what their legal obligations are to maintain their infrastructure (not just cleanup after the fact, but proactively ... that study identifying the 15,000 defects was 5 years before the spill).

This is the point I was making. If there is NO spill or issue with the pipeline, then who really cares--it won't move the needle one way or another. However, given Trans Canada's record with pipeline issues and the degree of devastation which might occur should there be an accident AND the cost of oversight on the inspection and maintenance of the pipeline again, which should be mandatory given their record, is it really worth the risk for essentially bringing nothing to OUR country and it's people?

[Pogues]

15,000 defects in a 40 year old pipe? And the reports are only 50 jobs created after the pipeline is put in place on a 327 mile pipeline, through that terrain?

Either the estimate is a bit low for maintenance on the pipeline, or Trans Canada company runs with a teeny crew for maintenance.

[TranaGreg]

Obama just got taken off every Albertan's christmas card list. Then again, he probably wasn't on any anyway.

[Lucky]

It's no more than a political issue. It hasn't been an economic issue in years.

The vastly increased production from the Bakken and the Eagle Ford, as well as gas plays throughout the country, have essentially made the Canadian tar sands irrelevant. Over that last six years, other pipeline systems have been developed, in addition to rail. Tar sand is difficult and nasty to work with, anyway.

Nonetheless, it has become a symbol for the right (and the left). There are people who strongly favor (and oppose) Keystone who don't really know what Keystone is. They just know that it is good (or bad). The republicans see it as an issue upon which they must defeat the President, damn the cost. We have so few days for Congress to get business done, and they spend so much time on this. I wonder how much the whole process has already sucked out of the economy, and whether approving the pipeline would ever make up that difference. And still, we get to go through the veto process next week.

So it goes.

[Moonlight J]

Oh no, where will the economy find those 35 permanent jobs that this veto just canceled out?

[chancellor]

Obama just got taken off every Albertan's christmas card list. Then again, he probably wasn't on any anyway.

Dunno. As Lucky noted, that ship has probably sailed anyway. And I suspect the Albertans will just build an internal pipeline to a certain west coast Canadian port and export to China/Japan.

[Lucky]

I don't think I have ever seen the word "Albertans" until today. Obviously, it makes sense. They wouldn't be Albertoids. Or Albertisians. They might be Albertisans. Or Albertites.

We residents of Denton self-identify as "Dentonites".

[GwynnInTheHall]

I don't think I have ever seen the word "Albertans" until today. Obviously, it makes sense. They wouldn't be Albertoids. Or Albertisians. They might be Albertisans. Or Albertites.

We residents of Denton self-identify as "Dentonites".

A guy named Lucky should know it's pronounced Albertson.

[chancellor]

We residents of Denton self-identify as "Dentonites".

Those of us from northeastern Wisconsin just go by "Packer fans".