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

[healthmyths]

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?

 

[Inthemiddle]

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.

 

[bripat9643]

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.

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.

 

[uscitizen]

The accident occurred 22 years ago and in the USA no other accident has occurred.

Now that is plainly false.

 

[bripat9643]

The accident occurred 22 years ago and in the USA no other accident has occurred.

Now that is plainly false.

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.

 

[Inthemiddle]

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.

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.

 

[Seawytch]

How do the people in the states it affects feel? It should be up to them.

 

[kwc57]

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.

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.

 

[kwc57]

How do the people in the states it affects feel? It should be up to them.

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.

 

[healthmyths]

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.

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.

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!!!

 

[Sallow]

The accident occurred 22 years ago and in the USA no other accident has occurred.

Now that is plainly false.

How much more do the Citizens of the United States have to endure to keep the Robber Barons of the energy sector filthy rich?

Wars? Corrupted Environment? Corrupted Political System?

Enough already. We need to use our resources to come up with alternatives..not exploit the old tech.

 

[kwc57]

The accident occurred 22 years ago and in the USA no other accident has occurred.

Now that is plainly false.

How much more do the Citizens of the United States have to endure to keep the Robber Barons of the energy sector filthy rich?

Wars? Corrupted Environment? Corrupted Political System?

Enough already. We need to use our resources to come up with alternatives..not exploit the old tech.

Sallow,

I used to enjoy your posts, but they've turned into nothing more than moronic, hyper partisan, childish talking points. I know you can do better than that. If what you said is how you really feel, then do the right thing. Get off the grid. Anything that requires the products produced by the energy robber barons, divest yourself of them. No more electricty, no more gas or oil to heat your home, no more internet or TV that requires energy, no more cars, etc. Be a man and step up. Don't enable those robber barons anymore by buying their products.

 

[Sallow]

The accident occurred 22 years ago and in the USA no other accident has occurred.

Now that is plainly false.

How much more do the Citizens of the United States have to endure to keep the Robber Barons of the energy sector filthy rich?

Wars? Corrupted Environment? Corrupted Political System?

Enough already. We need to use our resources to come up with alternatives..not exploit the old tech.

Sallow,

I used to enjoy your posts, but they've turned into nothing more than moronic, hyper partisan, childish talking points. I know you can do better than that. If what you said is how you really feel, then do the right thing. Get off the grid. Anything that requires the products produced by the energy robber barons, divest yourself of them. No more electricty, no more gas or oil to heat your home, no more internet or TV that requires energy, no more cars, etc. Be a man and step up. Don't enable those robber barons anymore by buying their products.

You've got a monkey in your avatar.

Says it all.

 

[kwc57]

How much more do the Citizens of the United States have to endure to keep the Robber Barons of the energy sector filthy rich?

Wars? Corrupted Environment? Corrupted Political System?

Enough already. We need to use our resources to come up with alternatives..not exploit the old tech.

Sallow,

I used to enjoy your posts, but they've turned into nothing more than moronic, hyper partisan, childish talking points. I know you can do better than that. If what you said is how you really feel, then do the right thing. Get off the grid. Anything that requires the products produced by the energy robber barons, divest yourself of them. No more electricty, no more gas or oil to heat your home, no more internet or TV that requires energy, no more cars, etc. Be a man and step up. Don't enable those robber barons anymore by buying their products.

You've got a monkey in your avatar.

Says it all.

No dipshit, I have a smoking, sailor monkey in my avie. True story.

 

[Bern80]

How do the people in the states it affects feel? It should be up to them.

I was in Valdez last summer. 21 years after the incident occured. Would they wish for it to happen again? Probably not. Then again there's a lot of things we all wish would not happen. But just because you wish no one ever got shot by accident or on purpose doesn't mean you ban guns. As far as how Valdez is doing today. It is doing quite well. Exxon paid a hefty price for that spill and ended up basically building the town. Most all of the upgrades to the harbor area were on their dime I believe. There are still traces however of the spill. We did occassionally get shrimp in our traps with oil spots on them.

 

[Bern80]

The accident occurred 22 years ago and in the USA no other accident has occurred.

Now that is plainly false.

How much more do the Citizens of the United States have to endure to keep the Robber Barons of the energy sector filthy rich?

Wars? Corrupted Environment? Corrupted Political System?

Enough already. We need to use our resources to come up with alternatives..not exploit the old tech.

It isn't 'old tech'. The technology for producing improves all the time, making it more efficient and yes, CLEANER. It is the cheapest to produce and thus cheapest to consume most efficient form of energy currently available. THAT is why those producing it are getting rich. They have something that everyone wants that's relatively cheap compared to other ways of doing the same things. To me it's actually astounding given everything that goes into making it, that a gallon of gasoline cost about $3.20 a gallon here.

 

[healthmyths]

How do the people in the states it affects feel? It should be up to them.

I was in Valdez last summer. 21 years after the incident occured. Would they wish for it to happen again? Probably not. Then again there's a lot of things we all wish would not happen. But just because you wish no one ever got shot by accident or on purpose doesn't mean you ban guns. As far as how Valdez is doing today. It is doing quite well. Exxon paid a hefty price for that spill and ended up basically building the town. Most all of the upgrades to the harbor area were on their dime I believe. There are still traces however of the spill. We did occassionally get shrimp in our traps with oil spots on them.

What I'm trying to get evidently the irrational Luddites to understand
is that which is a greater risk of occurring and if did occur which causes most damage?
.. 1 million barrel tanker each day carrying as much as Keystone
365 days on the ocean has GREATER risks tanker will crash
700,000 barrel/day pipeline travels 2,147 miles mostly underground and even if a leak occurred in a one mile length.. less then 3,000 barrels would spill in that one mile.

1,000,000 barrels versus 3,000 barrels ...hmmm which does more damage!
daily chances of tanker colliding, bad weather, leaking... versus pipeline..hmmm!

But the irrational illogical anti-Keystoner wants to argue non starters.. we'll we shouldn't or we need less dependency.. NO SH..T!
But that is for tomorrow.. today those anti-keystoners drive gas guzzlers also!

All that is accomplished is the anti crowd make themselves feel good!!!

 

[Navy1960]

The OP of this threads original question seeks to mitigate a potential spill by using the amounts of oil that a Super Tanker carries vs. the Keystone pipeline. A couple of things come to mind here, first the OP suggests that there has been no spill in this nation since the Exxon Valdez , correct me here but I seem to remember one called BP that is still costing the Gulf Coast millions in terms of lost revenue to it's fishing and tourism industries. One other thing that comes to mind as well, is the Exxon Valdez spill did not occur over a fresh water drinking source that served an entire state which the original Keystone XL pipeline was designed to do. So the logic of the original OP is somewhat flawed. That said, it takes very little oil to contaminate water and this study from the USGS is a good one to understand that.

Crude oil from a pipeline rupture in 1979 contaminated a shallow aquifer near Bemidji, Minnesota. After initial cleanup, about 110,000 gallons of crude oil remains in the subsurface. This site thus provides a unique opportunity to study a contaminant plume where the location, amount, and timing of the spill are precisely known. The study focuses on how crude oil spreads in soil vapor and ground water. Models have been developed to describe the controlling physical, chemical, and biological processes. These models can be used to evaluate remedial strategies for oil spills, including intrinsic bioremediation.
Crude Oil Contamination in the Subsurface: Bemidji Site: USGS Toxics Program

All that being said, it occurs to me that the state of Neb. and TransCanada have both come to an agreement to move the pipeline away from the fresh water source that was the initial cause for concern here. This to me indicates a willingness on the parts of those that ar emost involved with the project to do what it takes to not only protect the environment but also see to it that this project is completed and a by-product of its construction would be the creation of many much needed jobs. So in short, given the fact that there are envirnomental concerns and we can demonstrate that we are capable of being good stewards of the environment alongside being strong economic engines then there should be very little political invlovment here other than to say, " how soon can we get this done". Lastly, one more thing to consider here, in doing both, we show that we hold our environment sacred and finally start walking down the path that we need to walk down to rid ourselves of our need for foreign sources of energy. In other words. we can't pick and choose where we get our energy from, we need it all here locally and that includes the oil that flows from Keystone XL.

 

[JDzBrain]

How much more do the Citizens of the United States have to endure to keep the Robber Barons of the energy sector filthy rich?

Wars? Corrupted Environment? Corrupted Political System?

Enough already. We need to use our resources to come up with alternatives..not exploit the old tech.

Ok, let's just have a little question and answer here.

Do you know what the profit margin for those evil robber baron oil companies is? About 3%. Let's see, the average for the furniture companies that produce the chair you are likely kicked back in is around 100%. Just pick ANYTHING in your line of sight at this moment and do a little research. I will PROMISE ya...the profit margin will be more than 3%!

And just for the record...just WHO do you suppose controls the "energy sector" you claim is so evil? Oh yeah...the DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY!

Do you know how much of our energy is produced by green technologies...I mean every solar panel, windmill, methane recovery system combined...EVERYTHING? 1/10 of 1% of our total energy consumption is met by green tech. THAT is the fact of it!

Hell, burning WOOD actually supplies more than all green tech combined! Now THAT is old school tech.

Did you know that the air coming out of a new car in the streets of San Fransisco is CLEANER than the air going into the intake of that car? That's right, car exhaust from those nasty fossil fuel burners is cleaner and contains few fluorocarbons than the air most you city dwellers breath every day.

Oh, and just a little reality check here. Just exactly how much oil do we get from Iraq or Afghanistan? That would be ZERO dumbass!

We have not bought or taken on single barrel of oil from either country...as if Afghanistan had any. Hell, we actually helped them rebuild their production capacity and then IMPORT FUEL FOR OUR USE FROM OTHER PLACES!

So, before some of you blog reading drones start spouting crap...you MIGHT want to get the facts straight!

 

[Katzndogz]

If we learned nothing else from the Exxon-Valdez, it is to deal with ship captains that are drunk on duty very harshly so no one else does it.