Anyone who disputes this .. have lost touch with reality...

[gnarlylove]

Anyone seeking a genuine reply to the first post in this thread, read this article

Clearing Our Heads About Keystone

It offers a multi-faceted critique responding to the false dichotomy which has been created by "the crude is going to market one way or another." Of course if you don't care about ecology, then, yes, profit will dominate your thinking and it will naturally say that "we will and must burn this fuel, therefore lets take the safest route." Too bad this is a loaded question fallacy.

 

[edthecynic]

American Petroleum Institute officials say approval of the full pipeline could “support 42,000 jobs” and “put $2 billion in workers’ pockets during its construction.” -

Even if the american petroleum institute is correct on their numbers (and why in the world should we doubt them????) that means taxpayers are spending $1.8 billion to put 2 billion in workers' pockets.

Is that the best deal for taxpayers that you can come up with?

And so YOU'd prefer another Exxon Valdez oil spill occurred in Prince William Sound, Alaska, on March 24, 1989, when Exxon Valdez, an oil tanker bound for Long Beach, California struck Prince William Sound's Bligh Reef and spilled 260,000 to 750,000 barrels (41,000 to 119,000 m3) of crude oil. It is considered to be one of the most devastating human-caused environmental disasters. The Valdez spill was the largest ever in U.S. waters until the 2010 Deepwater Horizon oil spill, in terms of volume released. However, Prince William Sound's remote location, accessible only by helicopter, plane, and boat, made government and industry response efforts difficult and severely taxed existing plans for response.
The region is a habitat for salmon, sea otters, seals and seabirds. The oil, originally extracted at the Prudhoe Bay oil field, eventually covered 1,300 miles (2,100 km) of coastline, and 11,000 square miles (28,000 km2) of ocean.
Exxon Valdez oil spill - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Remember Exxon Valdez was ONLY going to Long Beach Ca. only 3,300 miles!
Remember any future 1 million tanker is going to be going to China over 4,000 miles.
On the open ocean not hugging the coast line as Exxon Valdez will do. And the ability to contain any oil will be more difficult the farther out to sea the spill occurs.

So again.. YOU tell me would you rather the risk of 1 million barrels floating one mile or 700 barrels in one mile of Keystone?
That simple.
Which do you think will cost more to clean up???

Again, the oil products passing through the Keystone XL will be exported on tankers like the Exxon Valdez so you have not in any way eliminated that risk but only ADDED the pipeline risks to the tanker risks.

 

[healthmyths]

Even if the american petroleum institute is correct on their numbers (and why in the world should we doubt them????) that means taxpayers are spending $1.8 billion to put 2 billion in workers' pockets.

Is that the best deal for taxpayers that you can come up with?

And so YOU'd prefer another Exxon Valdez oil spill occurred in Prince William Sound, Alaska, on March 24, 1989, when Exxon Valdez, an oil tanker bound for Long Beach, California struck Prince William Sound's Bligh Reef and spilled 260,000 to 750,000 barrels (41,000 to 119,000 m3) of crude oil. It is considered to be one of the most devastating human-caused environmental disasters. The Valdez spill was the largest ever in U.S. waters until the 2010 Deepwater Horizon oil spill, in terms of volume released. However, Prince William Sound's remote location, accessible only by helicopter, plane, and boat, made government and industry response efforts difficult and severely taxed existing plans for response.
The region is a habitat for salmon, sea otters, seals and seabirds. The oil, originally extracted at the Prudhoe Bay oil field, eventually covered 1,300 miles (2,100 km) of coastline, and 11,000 square miles (28,000 km2) of ocean.
Exxon Valdez oil spill - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Remember Exxon Valdez was ONLY going to Long Beach Ca. only 3,300 miles!
Remember any future 1 million tanker is going to be going to China over 4,000 miles.
On the open ocean not hugging the coast line as Exxon Valdez will do. And the ability to contain any oil will be more difficult the farther out to sea the spill occurs.

So again.. YOU tell me would you rather the risk of 1 million barrels floating one mile or 700 barrels in one mile of Keystone?
That simple.
Which do you think will cost more to clean up???

Again, the oil products passing through the Keystone XL will be exported on tankers like the Exxon Valdez so you have not in any way eliminated that risk but only ADDED the pipeline risks to the tanker risks.

And AGAIN... YOU are forgetting WHERE they will be exported FROM RIGHT???

You tell me which has more chances of bad weather?
Going 4,000 over the Pacific Ocean to China OR
leaving the gulf of Mexico at Houston to Panama canal 2,800 miles!

Thinking rational if ONE million barrels travel 1 mile on the open ocean to China has a spill which has more damage?
VS 700 barrels flowing in one mile of pipeline monitored and any leaks fixed in less then 2 hours!

 

[gnarlylove]

health, your assuming this oil from tar sands absolutely must and will go to market. This is false. It doesn't have to, and if we so choose, can stop accepting tar sands crude at any time. Will we? Not with discussion that doesn't even offer this as an alternative.

The pipeline cross numerous streams and ground water. If there is a leak there isn't a promise this will be found out ASAP (as we saw happens with BP in Alaska in 2008). SO if this leak occurs near a stream, it could contaminate a much larger area than we can imagine.

 

[edthecynic]

And so YOU'd prefer another Exxon Valdez oil spill occurred in Prince William Sound, Alaska, on March 24, 1989, when Exxon Valdez, an oil tanker bound for Long Beach, California struck Prince William Sound's Bligh Reef and spilled 260,000 to 750,000 barrels (41,000 to 119,000 m3) of crude oil. It is considered to be one of the most devastating human-caused environmental disasters. The Valdez spill was the largest ever in U.S. waters until the 2010 Deepwater Horizon oil spill, in terms of volume released. However, Prince William Sound's remote location, accessible only by helicopter, plane, and boat, made government and industry response efforts difficult and severely taxed existing plans for response.
The region is a habitat for salmon, sea otters, seals and seabirds. The oil, originally extracted at the Prudhoe Bay oil field, eventually covered 1,300 miles (2,100 km) of coastline, and 11,000 square miles (28,000 km2) of ocean.
Exxon Valdez oil spill - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Remember Exxon Valdez was ONLY going to Long Beach Ca. only 3,300 miles!
Remember any future 1 million tanker is going to be going to China over 4,000 miles.
On the open ocean not hugging the coast line as Exxon Valdez will do. And the ability to contain any oil will be more difficult the farther out to sea the spill occurs.

So again.. YOU tell me would you rather the risk of 1 million barrels floating one mile or 700 barrels in one mile of Keystone?
That simple.
Which do you think will cost more to clean up???

Again, the oil products passing through the Keystone XL will be exported on tankers like the Exxon Valdez so you have not in any way eliminated that risk but only ADDED the pipeline risks to the tanker risks.

And AGAIN... YOU are forgetting WHERE they will be exported FROM RIGHT???

You tell me which has more chances of bad weather?
Going 4,000 over the Pacific Ocean to China OR
leaving the gulf of Mexico at Houston to Panama canal 2,800 miles!

Thinking rational if ONE million barrels travel 1 mile on the open ocean to China has a spill which has more damage?
VS 700 barrels flowing in one mile of pipeline monitored and any leaks fixed in less then 2 hours!

What makes you think Panama is China???? From Panama the oil will travel over the Pacific a greater distance to China without even counting the distance from Houston to Panama. The Houston to Panama route puts in jeopardy both the Gulf and the Pacific coasts of the US and the BC to China route only the Pacific coast of the US. Why do you hate the US?

 

[mamooth]

As Keystone gets all the news, Enbridge quietly expands.

 

[gnarlylove]

Same with natural gas pipelines, mamooth. They are appearing virtually undetected. Constitution Pipeline is a big one but there are some all over the US. Thanks for alerting me to this, unthinkable! Infrastructure is being built to maintain world domination but someday outdated ways cannot prevail.

 

[healthmyths]

health, your assuming this oil from tar sands absolutely must and will go to market. This is false. It doesn't have to, and if we so choose, can stop accepting tar sands crude at any time. Will we? Not with discussion that doesn't even offer this as an alternative.

The pipeline cross numerous streams and ground water. If there is a leak there isn't a promise this will be found out ASAP (as we saw happens with BP in Alaska in 2008). SO if this leak occurs near a stream, it could contaminate a much larger area than we can imagine.

And these LEAKS per an expert are on pipelines 30 to 70 years old.
Keystone has so many redundant and thousands of monitors that no leak will go undetected for more then 2 hours..
Here read what a manager for the pipeline has said:
I contacted a Keystone Lead Project manager with this question: "Will the loss of 5,714 barrels a day through the 1% pinhole go undetected for 2 weeks."
Answer:
"Ok. First, modern pipelines have more redundant protections on them than an airplane or spacecraft.
Part of that protection is the testing of the fabrication,
part of it is protective coatings,
part of it is an induced current for cathodic protection, and the monitoring can detect hundreds of barrels that go missing (even smaller if it happens quickly).
In other words, the situation you described would be detected within a couple of hours.

All of the recent leaks were in 40 to 70 year old pipe. This old pipe had lesser monitoring, old decayed coatings, and fewer tests of the fabrication.
The cathodic protection was retrofitted onto the system.
When the leaks are investigated, nearly all of them started at locations where a third party damaged the pipe coating, and didn't notify anyone. "


Keystone XL Pipeline will be equipped with more automated shut-off valves placed at shorter intervals than most, if not all, other existing crude oil pipelines in the U.S.
These shutoff valves will be placed every 20 miles along the pipeline route, and extra valves will also be placed, where required, to protect water crossings and other areas of higher consequence. They can be closed remotely on either side of the line, isolating a damaged area within minutes of detection.
Puncture Resistance
Our standards for steel are incredibly high. The steel TransCanada is using on the Gulf Coast and Keystone XL pipelines is high-quality carbon steel with special features that reduce corrosion and enhance strength and pliability. In fact, we are required by the special conditions to ensure that the steel used in the pipeline can withstand impact from a 65-ton excavator with 3.5-inch teeth. This puncture resistance will provide additional protection from third-party damage, which is one of the most common causes of pipeline failures.

Again no guesses here simple facts versus YOUR guesses, your hyperbole and especially old fashion out of date information!

55,000 miles of crude oil pipes and you are upset over 1,700 miles that have all the above protections!
First, gathering lines are very small pipelines usually from 2 to 8 inches in diameter in the areas of the country in which crude oil is found deep within the earth.
It is estimated that there are between 30,000 to 40,000 miles of these small gathering lines located primarily in Texas, Oklahoma, Louisiana, and Wyoming with small systems in a number of other oil producing states. These small lines gather the oil from many wells, both onshore and offshore, and connect to larger trunk lines measuring from 8 to 24 inches in diameter.

Trunk lines include a few very large lines, such as the Trans Alaska Pipeline System, which is 48 inches in diameter. The larger cross-country crude oil transmission pipelines bring crude oil from producing areas to refineries. There are approximately 55,000 miles of crude oil trunk lines in the U.S.

 

[gnarlylove]

Thank you for that information. At best the leak concern is peripheral to me. My main argument centers around the fact that if we continue to tie ourselves to crude and other fossil fuels, we simply won't create a sustainable future for youth like myself and the children; instead we will be forced into frantic re-structuring of the humanity's energy systems. If this is a right approach, then I'd rather be blind (quoting incubus).

Moreover, like I said, assuming this oil is going to market one way or another means the pipeline has strong advantages. I am well aware. But that oil does not need to go to market. But it is because so many people don't give a fuck about the future, they only care about today and tomorrow. It's also because our institutions demand profit be the only consideration, otherwise you are ousted from making decisions. Even when major public support exists to nip this in the butt, profits outweigh democracy.

If you don't think human climate disruption is an issue, then you would be right, lets go ahead and finish the pipeline. But this is long been demonstrated as fantasy. The reality is we are marching rapidly towards greater climate disruption that will greatly alter humanity's activities whether we want to or not. Either we can begin to gradually address it now or we can wait until it greatly impacts the US before we do anything.

Once great impacts occur in the US, even if we immediately stopped the devastation will only get worse. That's because CO2 and other greenhouse gases do not disappear once we stop polluting them. In fact, the science says CO2 will remain in the atmosphere for 1000 years. On the other hand, methane, a much more potent greenhouse gas dissipates in about a decade.

 

[healthmyths]

As the EPA defines it: “Terrestrial carbon sequestration is the process through which carbon dioxide from the atmosphere is absorbed by trees, plants and crops through photosynthesis, and stored as carbon compounds in biomass (tree trunks, branches, foliage and roots) and as organic matter in soils.”
A carbon sink is any system that stores more carbon molecules than it releases.
A carbon source is any system that releases more carbon molecules than it stores.

Millions
Acres Land use Total CO2 sequestered in millions of tons.
651 forest 133.455 billion 410,060 pounds(205 tons) of CO2/450 trees per acre X 651 million acres or 133.455 billion tons of CO2
https://www.americanforests.org/assumptions-and-sources/ 651 million acres time 58.8 tons equals..38.2 billion

587 grassland .645 billion
1.06 metric tons of carbon per acre per year. http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment...ources_and_publications/carbon_sequestration/
587 million acres at 1.06 tons equals 645 million tons.

442 cropland .265 billion
Cropland sequestration per acre is .6 tons or 265.2 million
http://teeic.anl.gov/er/carbon/apptech/terrapp/index.cfm

Total of 134.9 billion tons of CO2
USDA ERS - Major Uses of Land in the United States, 2002

The USA emits 5,433,057,000 tons of CO2 per year.
List of countries by carbon dioxide emissions - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So what is the problem? Our land use stores All 5 billion tons of CO2 emitted and still has the capacity for 129 billion more tons!

 

[healthmyths]

Anyone who disputes this .. have lost touch with reality...

Has

OK... based on the below answers that I checked I was correct and you are wrong.
Question:
So I thought I'm sure about this and my instincts say that: "If anyone has seen them .." would be right but then again when I said it like: "If anyone have seen them .." I started thinking which one would be the right one.
Can you please guide me through which is the right one and why? P.S. English is not my first language.

2 ANSWERS
answer 1..
It's "if anyone has", because "anyone" functions as third person singular. It probably just seems right to use "have" because you would for any other number or person.

Answer 2...
If you break the word down as "any one", you can tell which is correct:
if any one has seen them
grammaticality - "Anyone has" or "anyone have" seen them? - English Language & Usage Stack Exchange


NEXT????

 

[ABikerSailor]

Has anyone bothered to check out the FACT that the XL pipeline will end up traveling around 200-250 miles over the Ogalala aquifer?

You know................the one that supplies water for South Dakota, Nebraska, Oklahoma, New Mexico, Colorado and Texas?

Tar sands oil SINKS IN WATER. If a pipeline happened to leak anywhere along the route where the crosses the aquifer, it's going to pollute the drinking water for the center of the country?

That's where we grow most of our crops.

 

[ScienceRocks]

Same with natural gas pipelines, mamooth. They are appearing virtually undetected. Constitution Pipeline is a big one but there are some all over the US. Thanks for alerting me to this, unthinkable! Infrastructure is being built to maintain world domination but someday outdated ways cannot prevail.

Either us, Russia or China. Choose your horse I choose research into making fusion work for the betterment of all mankind!

 

[Kosh]

Same with natural gas pipelines, mamooth. They are appearing virtually undetected. Constitution Pipeline is a big one but there are some all over the US. Thanks for alerting me to this, unthinkable! Infrastructure is being built to maintain world domination but someday outdated ways cannot prevail.

Either us, Russia or China. Choose your horse I choose research into making fusion work for the betterment of all mankind!

Sure why not develop something that could wipe out the planet with one bad mistake or malicious intent. Sure why not back something that has create a horrible by product that is far worse than the pollution in the air right now.

Your against Climate Change yet are for this:

 

[ScienceRocks]

Same with natural gas pipelines, mamooth. They are appearing virtually undetected. Constitution Pipeline is a big one but there are some all over the US. Thanks for alerting me to this, unthinkable! Infrastructure is being built to maintain world domination but someday outdated ways cannot prevail.

Either us, Russia or China. Choose your horse I choose research into making fusion work for the betterment of all mankind!

Sure why not develop something that could wipe out the planet with one bad mistake or malicious intent. Sure why not back something that has create a horrible by product that is far worse than the pollution in the air right now.

Your against Climate Change yet are for this:

Do you have any clue what you're talking about? So you're against nuclear and fusion? wow...

Most civilized first world nations are putting resources into developing it. There's zero chance of what you say ever occurring.

 

[Old Rocks]

Thank you for that information. At best the leak concern is peripheral to me. My main argument centers around the fact that if we continue to tie ourselves to crude and other fossil fuels, we simply won't create a sustainable future for youth like myself and the children; instead we will be forced into frantic re-structuring of the humanity's energy systems. If this is a right approach, then I'd rather be blind (quoting incubus).

Moreover, like I said, assuming this oil is going to market one way or another means the pipeline has strong advantages. I am well aware. But that oil does not need to go to market. But it is because so many people don't give a fuck about the future, they only care about today and tomorrow. It's also because our institutions demand profit be the only consideration, otherwise you are ousted from making decisions. Even when major public support exists to nip this in the butt, profits outweigh democracy.

If you don't think human climate disruption is an issue, then you would be right, lets go ahead and finish the pipeline. But this is long been demonstrated as fantasy. The reality is we are marching rapidly towards greater climate disruption that will greatly alter humanity's activities whether we want to or not. Either we can begin to gradually address it now or we can wait until it greatly impacts the US before we do anything.

Once great impacts occur in the US, even if we immediately stopped the devastation will only get worse. That's because CO2 and other greenhouse gases do not disappear once we stop polluting them. In fact, the science says CO2 will remain in the atmosphere for 1000 years. On the other hand, methane, a much more potent greenhouse gas dissipates in about a decade.

Actually, CH4 doesn't just 'dissapate'. It is oxidized into CO2 and H2O. And the more CH4 there is in the atmosphere, the longer it's life span there, because of the depletion of the hydroxal radical.

METHANE CYCLE IN ATMOSPHERE | Environment of Earth

During this oxidation process, the effectiveness of CH4 as a GHG is about 100 times that of CO2. The figure of CH4 being about 25 times effective as CO2 comes from it's total effectiveness in the span of a century. Considered in the span of a decade, it is about 100 times as effective.

So, when we say that there is 1.8 ppm of CH4 in the atmosphere, we are stating that that is the same as an additional 180 ppm of CO2. And, because we have raised the amount of CH4 from under 0.8 ppm to over 1.8 ppm, we have effectively added the equivelent of 100 ppm of CO2.

 

[Old Rocks]

Same with natural gas pipelines, mamooth. They are appearing virtually undetected. Constitution Pipeline is a big one but there are some all over the US. Thanks for alerting me to this, unthinkable! Infrastructure is being built to maintain world domination but someday outdated ways cannot prevail.

Either us, Russia or China. Choose your horse I choose research into making fusion work for the betterment of all mankind!

I would very much like to see economic fusion developed. However, until that is the case, we need to be developing clean energy technologies. Wind, solar, geothermal.

 

[ABikerSailor]

Same with natural gas pipelines, mamooth. They are appearing virtually undetected. Constitution Pipeline is a big one but there are some all over the US. Thanks for alerting me to this, unthinkable! Infrastructure is being built to maintain world domination but someday outdated ways cannot prevail.

Either us, Russia or China. Choose your horse I choose research into making fusion work for the betterment of all mankind!

I would very much like to see economic fusion developed. However, until that is the case, we need to be developing clean energy technologies. Wind, solar, geothermal.

Yep, because climate change is real, and is currently having a very negative effect on the planet right now.

And...................I really don't want to see the XL pipeline be built, because it's going to spend around 200 - 250 miles traveling across the Ogalala aquifer, which is what supplies the water for almost all of the Midwest.

Tar sands oil sinks in water, and if the pipeline burst or started leaking in the aquifer, you can kiss the drinking water for the middle of the country goodbye.

 

[gnarlylove]

Same with natural gas pipelines, mamooth. They are appearing virtually undetected. Constitution Pipeline is a big one but there are some all over the US. Thanks for alerting me to this, unthinkable! Infrastructure is being built to maintain world domination but someday outdated ways cannot prevail.

Either us, Russia or China. Choose your horse I choose research into making fusion work for the betterment of all mankind!

I would very much like to see economic fusion developed. However, until that is the case, we need to be developing clean energy technologies. Wind, solar, geothermal.

It was probably Matthew who showed this to me but here it is anyway: Taylor Wilson: My radical plan for small nuclear fission reactors | Talk Video | TED

By the way, thanks Old Rocks. SO that info is a bit more alarming and thus resisting Natural Gas is all the more relevant. Too bad the gov't is doing it under our noses without the population knowing. Know where I heard? Business media, bloomberg businessweek. What a sham of a democracy we live in!

 

[healthmyths]

Facts and rationality never got in the way of a Liberal or an environmentalist.

Keystone is the hot-button topic du jour. They are having a field day with it and the only way to defeat it is to appeal to emotional irrational fears.

you know, h… i'd say that it's kind of bizarre for the right to not give a flying whatever about our environment.

so maybe before you dismiss everyone who hasn't been sucked in by multi-national corporations, the discussion should at least be had.

i think that's the problem with the right… the totally dismissive way anything that's socially responsible is treated.

You have NO problem with the risk to millions of square miles of ocean from 1 million barrels of OIL floating on the ocean for 4,000 miles BUT
you have a problem with 700 barrels traveling 1,700 miles in a secured pipeline that doesn't move on dry land?

It appears of ALL people who supposedly support our environment anyone supporting shipping 1 million barrels in a tanker are the worst!
Where is YOUR concern about millions of square miles?