Keystone opponents:Which is worse a 1.4 million spill or 3,000 barrels

Discussion in 'Politics' started by healthmyths, Dec 28, 2011.

  1. healthmyths
    Online

    healthmyths Gold Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2011
    Messages:
    15,231
    Thanks Received:
    2,044
    Trophy Points:
    245
    Ratings:
    +3,850
    The Exxon Valdez held twice the amount of oil Keystone pipeline carries..
    1.4 million barrels versus 700,000 barrels.

    When the Valdez spill was from 257,000 to 750,000 barrels.
    The accident occurred 22 years ago and in the USA no other accident has occurred.

    So at any one mile of the 2,147 miles the oil travels in the pipeline.
    Dividing 700,000 barrels by 2,147 miles that means 326 barrels are in one mile of pipe!

    The Alyeska 700,000 barrels per day pipeline'slargest 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.[157] Approximately 16,000 barrels (2,500 m3) of oil leaked out of the hole before the pipeline was shut down.[152] After more than 21 hours, it was restarted.[158]

    So which is a bigger risk? ONE supertanker carry 1 million barrels each day running the risks of: 1) bad weather delaying 2) bad weather causing accident 3) ship collision?
    4) Ship fire?

    Versus at most 16,000 barrels??

    Which is worse?
     
  2. Inthemiddle
    Offline

    Inthemiddle BANNED

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2011
    Messages:
    6,354
    Thanks Received:
    674
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings:
    +674
    I wonder if I should even reward this kind of intentional stupidity and absence of logic with a reply pointing out its flaws. But I can't help it.

    Your argument commits what I like to call the worse flood fallacy. It poses an undesired event next to an even less desirable event, and concludes that the first is actually desirable. For example:

    Would you rather have a six foot flood or ten foot flood? Obviously you don't want a ten foot flood, so we agree to have a six foot flood.

    This fallacy, is in fact, a form of the complex question, in that it wrongly assumes an affirmative to the unasked "Do you want any flood at all." It is also a form of the false dilemma. I've made the habit of identifying this special type independently not so much for the difference in form in the way it is applied here or elsewhere. But to identify the special kinds of subject matter in which it is often employed, namely that of catastrophic events.

    I'd also like to point out that in the larger scheme of things, this argument further is illogical, committing fallacy of hasty generalization, in assuming all opponents of the Keystone project hold opposition for fear of an oil spill.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  3. bripat9643
    Offline

    bripat9643 Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2011
    Messages:
    67,833
    Thanks Received:
    8,081
    Trophy Points:
    2,030
    Ratings:
    +27,367

    I won't claim your stupidity is intentional. It's obviously congenital. Apparently you believe that if the pipeline isn't built that the oil will just stay in the ground. The implacable truth is this: Canada will get that oil to market one way or another. It can either go by pipeline to the Gulf coast refineries, or it can go by pipeline to Vancouver and then by tanker to other refineries. There is no third option palatable to imbecile turds like you. If the later option is selected, then the risk of a catastrophe is many times greater than the gulf pipeline option.

    You see, everything in economics involves a trade off. If you want an advanced industrial economy, then you have to handle moderately dangerous substances like crude oil and coal. If you want the economy to grow, you have to allow people to retain most of the income they earn. If you want new life-saving drugs, you have to allow drug companies to make profits on them.

    There is no such thing as the "worse flood fallacy." Life is almost completely about making a choice between various alternatives. Some are more attractive than others. Some involve more risk than others. What you call a "fallacy" is the fundamental condition of all living things.

    Turds like you just can't seem to get it through your heads that everything has a cost.
     
    Last edited: Dec 28, 2011
  4. uscitizen
    Offline

    uscitizen Senior Member

    Joined:
    May 6, 2007
    Messages:
    45,941
    Thanks Received:
    4,791
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    My Shack
    Ratings:
    +4,807
    The accident occurred 22 years ago and in the USA no other accident has occurred.

    Now that is plainly false.
     
  5. bripat9643
    Offline

    bripat9643 Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2011
    Messages:
    67,833
    Thanks Received:
    8,081
    Trophy Points:
    2,030
    Ratings:
    +27,367
    Whether it's true or false is irrelevant to the issue discussed in the OP. However, there have been no tanker spills in U.S. waters since that accident.
     
  6. Inthemiddle
    Offline

    Inthemiddle BANNED

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2011
    Messages:
    6,354
    Thanks Received:
    674
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings:
    +674
    Right, so for whatever reason you felt the need to throw a hissy fit, you still failed to address anything in the post you quoted. I was talking about the logical fallacies in the OP. I understand that logic is not exactly your strong suit. So I'd advise you to avoid those discussions, so you don't come across quite so foolishly in the future.
     
  7. Seawytch
    Offline

    Seawytch Information isnt Advocacy

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2010
    Messages:
    28,998
    Thanks Received:
    3,962
    Trophy Points:
    280
    Location:
    Peaking out from the redwoods
    Ratings:
    +7,043
    How do the people in the states it affects feel? It should be up to them.
     
  8. kwc57
    Offline

    kwc57 BOHICA Obama

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2009
    Messages:
    12,155
    Thanks Received:
    2,301
    Trophy Points:
    255
    Location:
    Oklahoma City, OK
    Ratings:
    +2,788
    Actually, it's called risk mitigation. Look it up. Problem, we have to move oil from point A to point B. Between the two options given and based on previous experience, which presents the least risk? Businesses do this every day.
     
  9. kwc57
    Offline

    kwc57 BOHICA Obama

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2009
    Messages:
    12,155
    Thanks Received:
    2,301
    Trophy Points:
    255
    Location:
    Oklahoma City, OK
    Ratings:
    +2,788
    It would come right thru the middle of Oklahoma and we are eager to have it and the jobs it brings along with all the other pipelines currently crisscrossing our state.
     
  10. healthmyths
    Online

    healthmyths Gold Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2011
    Messages:
    15,231
    Thanks Received:
    2,044
    Trophy Points:
    245
    Ratings:
    +3,850
    OK.. so you assail the "logic" of asking "which is a greater risk".
    The risk being how much damage is done to water versus land.
    The risk of NOT being able in 24 hours to shut down a 2,147 mile pipeline releasing
    700,000 into the end terminal..huh????
    Or the risk of a tanker in the Arctic seas breaking up and horrors of horrors turning polar bear cubs black!!! OH the humanity!!!

    Where in either case is the greater statistical chance AND the damage with:
    ONE which runs the risk of happening EVERY DAY i.e. tanker crashes..
    OR
    two a pipeline that might leak in one mile of a pipeline releasing 3,000 barrels?

    That seems to logical people a no brainer... that is if you have a brain!!!
     

Share This Page