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

[IndependntLogic]

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?

1. I think the people near the Gulf would disagree with you about there never having been another accident.

But your point seems to be which disaster would be best. Here the only thing that is relevant when it comes to policy:

2. According to the GOP and Ron Paul, Obama is acting exactly as he should. That is, he is respecting the wishes of the states to determine whether they find the risks acceptable. ConservaRepubs consistently claim that states should decide such issues.
It is very hypocritical of them to want to take away the power they claim is so important, when it doesn't serve their agenda.

Personally, assuming we had strong regulations to insure safety, I'd like to see the pipeline built but I don't live where it would affect me.

 

[bripat9643]

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.

There are no logical fallacies in the OP, dipstick. That's what I tried to explain to you but your congenital stupidity prevented it from penetrating.

I'm sure you do wish I would avoid these discussions because it will be difficult to hide the fact that you're a moron if I don't.

 

[bripat9643]

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

Your messiah disagrees. He feels everything that happens in this country is up to him.

 

[JDzBrain]

...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.

While I agree with part of your conclusions, Navy...the BP spill was NOT a transportation spill. Which is what the point of the OP was.

XL and Supertankers are transportation issues, BP was a drilling rig/production spill. There have been several other drilling and production accidents...just not transportation, which was the point of the OP.

Just wanted to point that out. ;~)

 

[bripat9643]

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.

InTheMiddle thinks choosing between options that entail varying amounts of risk is a logical fallacy. Next he'll tell us that claiming people prefer a lower price to a higher price is a logical fallacy.

 

[bripat9643]

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!!!

In the liberal universe there are no trade-offs. The liberal mandated solution is the only conceivable solution and it has no cost or risk.

 

[bripat9643]

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.

No one is forcing you to purchase gasoline. What's stopping you from riding your bicycle to work?

 

[Mr. Shaman]

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?

Either/Or

That grand "conservative"-justification for anything & everything.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

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.

.....And, God wants US to profit, from it (somehow), right??

 

[Navy1960]

...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.

While I agree with part of your conclusions, Navy...the BP spill was NOT a transportation spill. Which is what the point of the OP was.

XL and Supertankers are transportation issues, BP was a drilling rig/production spill. There have been several other drilling and production accidents...just not transportation, which was the point of the OP.

Just wanted to point that out. ;~)

I was aware that the type of spill was a transportation spill vs. a rig spill, i.e. BP. However to make the statement that there have been no other accidents since Exxon Valdez is a bit off the mark if your intention was to simply focus on the transportation part of the oil industry. I can think there are several people on the Gulf Coast who might call that splitting hairs when it comes to an oil spill. No matter, I'm in complete agreement that Keystone XL should be and can be built and it does seem to me that TransCanada and the state of Neb. have both settled the matter as to the route, and if we ever intend to rid ourselves of energy sources from people who don't care for us very much, this is a good place to start. As for Oil Spills in general, the volume of the spill i.e. Exxon Valdez vs. Keystone would not matter much if a large fresh water source were to be contaminated by it , and it does seem that those who are building it and are invloved in it recognized this and have rerouted it. So again at least in my humble opinion this really should not be a politcal issue other than the economic side of it if all the other issues are already settled. I understand and respect your point however and did take the time to reread the OPs original thread and I suppose one could argue this old aviator is splitting hairs too LOL. Thanks again.,

 

[jillian]

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.

truth is only irrelevant to wingnut shills

 

[Mr. Shaman]

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

Bingo!!!!!!
(.....As-well-as Provinces!!)

*​

"In recent years, Harper’s government has repeatedly pledged to deliver new regulations for the sector, but has subsequently delayed those plans."

​

​

 

[kwc57]

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?

1. I think the people near the Gulf would disagree with you about there never having been another accident.

But your point seems to be which disaster would be best. Here the only thing that is relevant when it comes to policy:

2. According to the GOP and Ron Paul, Obama is acting exactly as he should. That is, he is respecting the wishes of the states to determine whether they find the risks acceptable. ConservaRepubs consistently claim that states should decide such issues.
It is very hypocritical of them to want to take away the power they claim is so important, when it doesn't serve their agenda.

Personally, assuming we had strong regulations to insure safety, I'd like to see the pipeline built but I don't live where it would affect me.

Incorrect.

Obama Administration Delays Keystone XL Pipeline Approval | PBS NewsHour | Nov. 10, 2011 | PBS

"And he had been largely silent about this until just recently, where he did a public interview with an Omaha, Neb., TV station. And it is at that point that he really said that he would be involved in this decision, even though it would be done by the State Department, and that he wanted to weigh these public health and environmental considerations against what he called a few thousand jobs that would be created by the project."

"JULIET EILPERIN: Absolutely.

And one of the critiques that some environmentalists have made is, you know, we're celebrating this, but actually this ultimate decision could be made by a president who might not share our environmental values. So there's no question this pushes it past the 2012 election. And then the real question is, will Obama make the final decision about this controversial project, or will it be a Republican who would be in office instead?

RAY SUAREZ: After the project is redesigned, what's the presidential role? Are we still at the point where whoever is making the decision, whatever president is sitting in the Oval Office will still be considering this possibility?

JULIET EILPERIN: Well, it will still be within the purview of the State Department, but, yes, ultimately, the president can -- first of all, at any point -- the president has delegated this responsibility to the State Department. The president can take it back.

And so at the end of the day, it will be the president, whether it's President Obama or the person who follows him, who will say yea or nay to this project."

 

[Mr. Shaman]

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.

.....Besides....​

"There are ways to curb the damage being done by the tar sands. Yet the federal government has so far failed to get industry to clean up.

Because of their sheer scale, all Canadians are affected by the tar sands, no matter where they live."

Let CANADA Decide!!!​

 

[Mr. Shaman]

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.

Yea.....it really......

......SOUNDS like it.

 

[PrometheusBound]

Why can't we also have these long pipelines to pipe water? The spring melt in Canada could end all droughts in the United States.

 

[bripat9643]

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.

truth is only irrelevant to wingnut shills

The Earth is 93 million miles from the sun. That is the indisputable truth. Is that relevant to the discussion?

 

[Mr. Shaman]

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?

Let CANADA Decide!!!!​

​

​

 

[IndependntLogic]

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?

1. I think the people near the Gulf would disagree with you about there never having been another accident.

But your point seems to be which disaster would be best. Here the only thing that is relevant when it comes to policy:

2. According to the GOP and Ron Paul, Obama is acting exactly as he should. That is, he is respecting the wishes of the states to determine whether they find the risks acceptable. ConservaRepubs consistently claim that states should decide such issues.
It is very hypocritical of them to want to take away the power they claim is so important, when it doesn't serve their agenda.

Personally, assuming we had strong regulations to insure safety, I'd like to see the pipeline built but I don't live where it would affect me.

Incorrect.

Obama Administration Delays Keystone XL Pipeline Approval | PBS NewsHour | Nov. 10, 2011 | PBS

"And he had been largely silent about this until just recently, where he did a public interview with an Omaha, Neb., TV station. And it is at that point that he really said that he would be involved in this decision, even though it would be done by the State Department, and that he wanted to weigh these public health and environmental considerations against what he called a few thousand jobs that would be created by the project."

"JULIET EILPERIN: Absolutely.

And one of the critiques that some environmentalists have made is, you know, we're celebrating this, but actually this ultimate decision could be made by a president who might not share our environmental values. So there's no question this pushes it past the 2012 election. And then the real question is, will Obama make the final decision about this controversial project, or will it be a Republican who would be in office instead?

RAY SUAREZ: After the project is redesigned, what's the presidential role? Are we still at the point where whoever is making the decision, whatever president is sitting in the Oval Office will still be considering this possibility?

JULIET EILPERIN: Well, it will still be within the purview of the State Department, but, yes, ultimately, the president can -- first of all, at any point -- the president has delegated this responsibility to the State Department. The president can take it back.

And so at the end of the day, it will be the president, whether it's President Obama or the person who follows him, who will say yea or nay to this project."

Nice strawman.
GOP & Libertarians say the power should be in the hands of the state. The governor of Nebraska vehemently opposed it going through his state. So Yes or No: Should his views be ignored? Should the issue be delayed until a consensus is reached with the state?
Or is it screw the power or views of the state, if the GOP wants to invoke federal power to get their way?

 

[Mr. Shaman]

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%.

Gee.....how DO they......

.....get by??!!!!!