Consumer Energy Report is now Energy Trends Insider -- Read More »

By Robert Rapier on Oct 18, 2011 with 36 responses

Newsflash: Pipelines Are Everywhere

Like many of you, I have been following the debate over the proposed Keystone XL pipeline that would bring crude from the oil sands of Canada to refineries in the U.S. I am on mailing lists covering both sides of the issue, and based on some of the e-mails I get it seems that many people don’t realize that we already have pipelines crisscrossing the U.S. I get the impression that some people feel that it would be unprecedented to lay an oil pipeline across the country. But below is a map showing the location of the major oil and gas pipelines in the U.S.:


Figure 1: Major Oil and Gas Pipelines in the U.S. (Source).

If you include smaller regional pipelines, it becomes clear that the ground underneath our feet is saturated with pipelines:


Figure 2: Oil and Gas Pipelines in the U.S. (Source).

This morning I got an e-mail calling attention to a video op-ed by Robert Redford for the New York Times arguing against the pipeline. Redford said “Let’s be honest. The Keystone XL pipeline is an accident waiting to happen.” The truth is that all of the pipelines in that map are accidents waiting to happen, as are the power lines that crisscross the country. For that matter, the cars we drive are accidents waiting to happen. And accidents will happen. Oil and gas leaks occur every year. That is part of the price we pay for the energy we use. The fact that the Keystone pipeline could have a leak isn’t unique; it is just like all the other pipelines already running beneath our feet.

U.S. Oil and Gas Pipelines with the Ogallala Aquifer Drawn In

Figure 3: Pipelines Already Crisscross the Ogallala Aquifer

This essay is not meant to argue in favor of the pipeline; I may weigh in on that at a later time. I just wanted to comment on what seems like a total lack of knowledge about the way energy is currently moved around the country. I want to see us reduce our oil usage as much as anyone, but I predict that the pipeline will ultimately be approved. Obama is facing a tough reelection campaign, and he wants to point to job creation — and a lot of weight will be placed on that factor in this tough economy. (Ironically, some on the Canadian side are protesting because the pipeline would export refining jobs to the U.S.)

Obama could attempt to drag out the decision past the election, but doing that would have the same political impact as rejecting the pipeline. His political opponents would press the issue that his administration is standing in the way of energy development (even though as I have pointed out before, both domestic oil and natural gas production have increased since Obama has been in office). But I think Obama weighs his political options and approves the pipeline, just as he weighed his political options recently and decided against tougher ozone standards. After all, what’s the downside for him? That the protesters will throw their support behind Romney?

  1. By Kit P on October 18, 2011 at 7:47 pm

    “And accidents will happen. Oil and gas leaks occur every year. That is part of the price we pay for the energy we use. ”

     

    That not true. It would be nice if RR explained that hew pipelines do not have to have significant leaks resulting in accidents that kill people. These types of accidents can be prevented bu good engineering.

     

    List of accidents and disasters by death toll:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L…..death_toll

     

    “100 – NNPC oil pipeline explosion, which blasted a primary school at Ijegun, Nigeria, May 15, 2008.”

     

    “296+ – New London School explosion (New London, Texas, 1937)”

     

    “575 – Ufa train disaster (Ufa, Soviet Union, 1989)”

     

    The point here is not to respond to Redford with a lame excuse but to explain why he is wrong.

     

    “just as he weighed his political options recently and decided against tougher ozone standards.”

     

    The linked article says that Bush established tougher standards. Obama was just playing a political game to show how effective is not on the environment.

     

    One last point, permitting pipelines is not difficult. Why the New York Times has decided to involved is beyond me. Maybe they are trying to increase their income.

    [link]      
  2. By jcsr on October 18, 2011 at 9:35 pm

    Kit says. “One last point.” Are you kidding. I’m sure before all the comments are in you will post at least a half dozen derogatory remarks on many of them.

    [link]      
  3. By rrapier on October 18, 2011 at 9:55 pm

    Kit P said:

    “And accidents will happen. Oil and gas leaks occur every year. That is part of the price we pay for the energy we use. ”

     

    That not true.


     

    Is English your primary language? Sometimes I wonder. Accidents do happen; that is in fact the price we pay for energy. You can argue until you are blue in the face that in an ideal world with better engineering that it doesn’t have to be that way, but it is — in the actual world we live in — the price we pay for energy.

    RR

    [link]      
  4. By Wendell Mercantile on October 18, 2011 at 10:10 pm

    I just wanted to comment on what seems like a total lack of knowledge about the way energy is currently moved around the country.

    RR~

    Perhaps Robert Redford use no fossil fuels. It could be that he never drives a car (or rides in chauffeured limousine) , never crosses the country in a private jet, or never rides a helicopter to the top of a virgin ski slope in Utah.

    Perhaps he really does think we need no pipelines and don’t need to move both raw oil and refined fuels across the country. Buy I doubt it. He’s too smart not to realize that. He must have some political agenda.

    [link]      
  5. By Kit P on October 19, 2011 at 9:41 am

    “derogatory remarks”

     

    For example,

    “Is English your primary language? Sometimes I wonder. ”

     

    Then RR writes,

    “better engineering that it doesn’t have to be that way ”

    At least that is a technical argument where RR says I am wrong. We can and do design piping systems that do not blow and kill people. We can and do specify testing and inspections to verify that the design.

     

    Redford is an actor and if RR wants to explain that why is right that makes no sense.

     

    “the price we pay for energy. ”

     

    No it is not. Regulation require that we do not kill either our customers or employees. Accidents just do not happen, when it comes to delivering energy they are caused by a serious of people who accept ‘accident happen’ as an excuse.

    [link]      
  6. By Tom G. on October 19, 2011 at 11:07 am

    I sometimes wonder if we the American people are really the sharpest cheddar in the deli case. The XL pipeline is in my opinion at best a misuse of existing pipeline technology.

    To me it would make more sense if the pipeline were to end at a new refinery in South Dakota, Iowa or Nebraska. The refined product could then be shipped in any direction as needed. The Gulf of Mexico and the associated refineries are at best just one more hurricane away from another oil crunch.

    Everyone should be concerned about the $400+ billion we keep spending on oil REGARDLESS of where it comes from. I once did a calculation [numbers change monthly] how many unemployed people we could hire for that amount of money. The number came out to about 12 million people @ $20.00/hour. Yup, that’s right about 12 million people would have jobs and be working if we weren’t spending $400+ billion on oil. If we had that money to hire people our unemployment rate might be closer to I don’t know maybe 3-4% In any case it is just downright insane for us to be spending this amount of money to move our behinds from point “A” to point “B”.

    Now I am not going to try and tell you that we don’t need oil because we certainly do. Oil will be with us for another 20-40 years as a transportation fuel even if every new vehicle we sold starting in 2012 was an electric vehicle. It takes at least 20-30 to get the old stuff out of the systems. And even after that; oil will still be needed for hundreds of other products we make. So oil is not going away BUT using oil as a transportation fuel is not the brightest thing we could be doing. I would also agree that we don’t have the foggiest idea of how to get off oil. We think an energy plan means raising the CAFE standards to 54 MPG. That ladies and gentlemen is NOT an energy plan.

    I haven’t researched this XL pipeline so please take what I am saying with a grain of salt. It just doesn’t meet my smell test; why pump oil to some refinery right in the middle of a hurricane zone. I think some of the cheddar cheese in our deli case might just be getting a little to moldy to eat, LOL.

    Tom G.

    [link]      
  7. By Wendell Mercantile on October 19, 2011 at 12:30 pm

    The Gulf of Mexico and the associated refineries are at best just one more hurricane away from another oil crunch.

    Tom,

    You make an excellent point about the vulnerabilities of Gulf Coast refineries to hurricanes.

    [link]      
  8. By Steve Funk on October 19, 2011 at 12:38 pm

    I am skeptical of the ability of engineers to design a failsafe system, that is safe both from materials failure and human failure. Witness Fukushima. But at least a new pipeline would have the most current knowledge and design. The older keystone pipeline, which has had a number of failures, most of which involved less than a tank of gasoline, was originally built for natural gas.

    [link]      
  9. By Rufus on October 19, 2011 at 12:39 pm

    PADD 2 is still oversupplied. They’re trying to get that oil to the “Big Water,” where it will fetch “World” prices, such as Louisiana Light Sweet does now. (the last I looked LLS was selling for about $28.00 bbl more than the WTI that is landlocked at Cushing.

    [link]      
  10. By Rufus on October 19, 2011 at 12:52 pm

    Edit: The LLS premium, today, is about $25.00 bbl.

    [link]      
  11. By Steve Funk on October 19, 2011 at 1:06 pm
    [link]      
  12. By Wendell Mercantile on October 19, 2011 at 1:53 pm

    Steve Funk,

    The Ogalla is indeed a wonder resource, but that hasn’t stopped Big Ag from draining it faster than it can be recharged — often to grow corn to turn into ethanol.

    It could be a case of picking your poison.

    [link]      
  13. By Tom G. on October 19, 2011 at 2:00 pm

    Thank you Wendell for the complement.

    Steve: As an engineer I can provide you with a pipeline that will ALMOST never leak. But any engineer that try’s to tell you it will NEVER leak might be a little over confident. It will leak someday somewhere. It is the degree of leaking we most frequently talk about in systems engineering. We can build a pipeline within a pipeline with all kinds of instruments and APPROACH leak free reliability.

    Transportation of oil [fuel] from one place to another by pipeline is CHEAP but is is not FREE. It costs money to run the pumps and do ultrasonic inspections of pipelines. X-Rays of welds are not cheap either. Digging up and replacing eroded curved sections of piping is also not free either. Almost everything we do in the energy sector costs money.

    Even something like solar power has a cost – an up front cost. You can look up at the daylight sky and say we are receiving another delivery of FREE FUEL from the SUN but you can’t use that without paying up front for the solar panels unless of course you lease the panels and then you pay monthly.

    Energy will probably never be free since almost everything we do has some form of energy consequence. Remember back in the 60′s when we were told that nuclear power would be too cheap to even meter. How has that been working out for us lately, LOL. Something that once cost $2 billion to build is now $7-10 billion.

    I worked in the energy industry for over 25 years and have visited and evaluated many different forms of energy production – Oil, coal, natural gas, solar, hydro and wind to name a few.

    You place a solar panel in the sun, protons hit it and if by magic you get electricity. You can place a wind turbine in the wind [when it blows] and you get electricity. When it rains hydro makes electricity. Someday this whole discussion of using oil for transportation will just be laughed at as a bad joke. Someday electric vehicles will be the only vehicles we will want to even buy. It may not happen in my remaining lifetime – but it will happen.

    I look at this pipeline as something we really don’t need. Why don’t we just have the tar sands REFINED in Canada? Canada might like the extra money. Wouldn’t it be cheaper to build a specialized oil sands refinery right there NEXT to the source of the CRUDE? Why not burn off the flu gas there and use that heat as part of the heat needed to free up the oil from the sand? Why are we even talking about this pipeline? Why not put the refinery in North Dakota next to all of the recent we just found in that area? Too much CO2 maybe? How does Canada feel about more CO2 from a refinery? So many question. So few answers.

    As I said in the beginning I haven’t studies this project so please just take my ramblings as just that; BUT there are a whole lot of things that don’t make sense to me.

    [link]      
  14. By Kit P on October 19, 2011 at 2:23 pm

    “I am skeptical”

    Why are you skeptical Steve? Maybe I do not know Steve means by ‘failsafe’.

    “Witness Fukushima.”

    No piping systems failed at Fukushima. Nuclear power plant and submarine piping system are examples of piping systems designed for extreme forces and duty. Built to high standards, tested, and inspected. Detecting small leakage before a break is a key assumption.

    [link]      
  15. By rrapier on October 19, 2011 at 2:42 pm

    Kit P said:

    Then RR writes,

    “better engineering that it doesn’t have to be that way ”

    At least that is a technical argument where RR says I am wrong.


     

    No, it’s an argument that requires proper usage of the English language, which you seem to lack. You constantly disagree, and then proceed to argue against something I didn’t write. It would be like me saying “We have speed limits in this country” and you saying “No we do not, because I can drive faster than the speed limit.” But the fact that you can drive faster than the speed limit doesn’t mean they don’t exist, and that is the sort of logical fallacy you consistently apply.

    Redford is an actor and if RR wants to explain that why is right that makes no sense.

    I can’t parse that.

    “the price we pay for energy. ”

    No it is not. Regulation require that we do not kill either our
    customers or employees. Accidents just do not happen, when it comes to
    delivering energy they are caused by a serious of people who accept
    ‘accident happen’ as an excuse.

    Then I would say that you really do have a very shallow understanding of how safety studies are actually carried out. Nothing is fail safe; everything is designed with probabilities of failure and the potential consequences in mind. That probability is not zero. And if there are a million failure points, or a million people who can make a mistake — you are going to have accidents plain and simple. All safety studies make assumptions about the probability of accidents happening — so you are 100% dead wrong.

    But we aren’t even speaking the same language. I say “We do have accidents” and your response is literally “No we don’t, because regulations require that we don’t.” I have news for you. Just as we can’t mandate technology, we can’t mandate that people are not injured. I mean, we can mandate it, but that doesn’t mean it will happen.

    RR

    [link]      
  16. By rrapier on October 19, 2011 at 2:48 pm

    Kit P said:

    Nuclear power plant and submarine piping system are examples of piping systems designed for extreme forces and duty. Built to high standards, tested, and inspected. Detecting small leakage before a break is a key assumption.


     

    So they leak sometimes? I am shocked, shocked, shocked — that something built to such high standards could possibly leak. I mean, I simply don’t think that’s possible. Given the superior engineering we always hear about, any leak in any pipe in any nuclear plant anywhere should be viewed as a total design failure per Kit P standards. After all, leaks don’t just happen because accidents don’t just happen (per Kit P) and a leak would be an accident. 

    RR

    [link]      
  17. By rrapier on October 19, 2011 at 2:54 pm

    And in yesterday’s news: Virginia Nuclear Plant Leaks Water into Lake

    The Virginia nuclear plant that shut down during the August 23
    earthquake leaked cooling water into a nearby body of water, according
    to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

    I guess they are very lucky that it is only water they are pumping and not flammable liquids. I think what we can conclude here is that Kit’s proclamation of “superior engineering” really has more to do with the fluids that are being pumped — as well as the sheer volume and magnitude of the pipeline network — than it is the engineering. It is a failure of Kit to understand big numbers and probabilities. The extent of the piping in all the nuclear plants in the world might be 0.01% of the extent of piping in the oil and gas system. So I would certainly hope you have have much fewer leaks, and since you are pumping water the ones you do have won’t be as potentially serious. But you do have leaks. Accidents happen — even in nuclear plants.

    RR

    [link]      
  18. By Kit P on October 19, 2011 at 5:21 pm

    “Remember back in the 60′s when we were told that nuclear power would be too cheap to even meter.”

    Tom I do not think you ever heard that from anyone who builds nuke plants. However we are getting close. The cost to generate electricity with a nuke at my house would be $24. The purpose of the meter is to collect taxes.

    “X-Rays of welds are not cheap either.”

    One of the reasons that nuke plants are expensive to build. If a weld can fail in a pipeline in a populated area resulting deaths is it worth the extra cost.

    RR writes about what he does not understand,

    “But you do have leaks. Accidents happen — even in nuclear plants. ”

    But the idea is not to kill people or damage the environment.

    North Anna Nuclear Generating Station is the closest nuke plant to where we currently live. The Main Turbine Condenser is cooled by an artificial lake built for that purpose. Cooling water systems for things like cooling pump bearing are separate systems often treated with chemicals to prevent biological growth (like you might use in a swimming pool). Make up water to the cooling water system is from the artificial lake. Apparently the makeup valve was not properly closed and 272 gallons of water with chemicals flowed back into the artificial lake before the valve was closed.

    A report was made to the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality that that they were in compliance with their permit. Therefore a report was made to the NRC.

    You are correct if you think that it seems like even the most trivial things get reported by the media and used as propaganda by folks like RR who can not seem to understand that killing people is not okay.

    It has been an interesting year for US nuke plants with regard to natural disasters. Tornadoes have taken out power lines which cause power plants to trip. A flood exceeded the 100 years flood basis.

    North Anna Nuclear Generating Station shutdown because of record earth quake. It was a relay race between the sensors that detected the earth quake and those that sensed a loss of offsite power. There was no damage at the power plant. People like RR do not understand the difference a leaking drinking fountain and safety related systems.

    Again the point is that piping system that protects public safety can designed not fail even under extreme conditions. Yes, it cost extra but that should be the cost of doing business.

    So what happens to NG after a natural disaster? 3000 dead

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F…..#filelinks

    [link]      
  19. By rrapier on October 19, 2011 at 6:14 pm

    Kit P said:

    RR writes about what he does not understand,

    “But you do have leaks. Accidents happen — even in nuclear plants. ”

    But the idea is not to kill people or damage the environment.


     

    I see. Well thanks for clearing that up for all of us. I think we were operating under the assumption that the idea was to kill people or damage the environment. Thankfully we have you here to set us straight. I know you didn’t manage to get an engineering degree, but someone really should give you an honorary degree based on these sorts of contributions to our understanding. 

    A report was made to the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality that that they were in compliance with their permit. Therefore a report was made to the NRC.

    So after explaining to us that accidents don’t just happen, Kit proceeds to make up excuses for why this accident really wasn’t an accident. Once more, Kit’s confusion is because he thinks that the reason leaks happen in the oil and gas industry is due to poor engineering, but the reason they occur in the nuclear industry is, well, something else. And since they are just pumping water, well that shouldn’t count even though he has explained to us why leaks shouldn’t happen. I have never seen such comical double-standards from anyone in my life.

    You are correct if you think that it seems like even the most trivial things get reported by the media and used as propaganda by folks like RR who can not seem to understand that killing people is not okay.

    For the record, I think you are a despicable slimeball for suggesting that I think killing people is OK. You disgust me, and if I ever see you in person I will say that to your face. You are an incoherent, flipping idiot. I don’t know how you manage to hold down a job.

    People like RR do not understand the difference a leaking drinking fountain and safety related systems.

    That’s funny coming from someone who apparently doesn’t know the difference between a cooling water tower and a drinking fountain.

    Your posting days here are numbered. You have crossed too many lines too many times, and your post here was way out of bounds.

    RR

    [link]      
  20. By robert on October 19, 2011 at 8:37 pm

    The thing about pipeline and the extraction industry is that the locals get to deal with the inevitable mess and the profits and benefit go else. It’s easy to explain why the country needs pipelines but why should a farmer in Nebraska bear all the risk?

    [link]      
  21. By Wendell Mercantile on October 19, 2011 at 10:33 pm

    …but why should a farmer in Nebraska bear all the risk?

    Robert,

    Aren’t Nebraska farmers already involved in the extraction business? They are draining the Ogallala Aquifer faster than it can be recharged (at least those in western Nebraska), and over the last 150 years have been steadily extracting nutrients from the rich Nebraska soil that took tens of thousands of years to accumulate.

    In the early 1800′s, Nebraska was covered by an expanse of deep and fertile soil, now in many parts of Nebraska it is difficult to raise a crop without adding quantities of synthetic fertilizers — fertilizers usually made with natural gas.

    [link]      
  22. By Tom G. on October 19, 2011 at 11:43 pm

    Kit:

    I could not remember who coined the phrase so looked it up. Here is the quote from wiki and I was wrong – it wasn’t in the 60′s if was in the 50′s. Oh how time flies when you are having fun, LOL. .
    Wikipedia quote:
    “Although sometimes attributed to Walter Marshall, a pioneer of nuclear power in the United Kingdom,[1] the phrase was coined by Lewis Strauss, then Chairman of the United States Atomic Energy Commission, who in a 1954 speech to the National Association of Science Writers said: “Our children will enjoy in their homes electrical energy too cheap to meter..”.

    Have a great day.
    Tom G.

    [link]      
  23. By rrapier on October 20, 2011 at 1:07 pm

    Kit P said:

    Nothing of value. Kit P said nothing at all of value, so his posts will be deleted henceforth so grownups can talk. RR

     


     

    [link]      
  24. By Wendell Mercantile on October 20, 2011 at 9:39 am

    Wendell is still counting on fusion but it will still will cost money.

    Yes, I am still county on fusion to save our bacon. Although I will probably be dead before it at last becomes particle and economically feasible.

    [link]      
  25. By Tom G. on October 20, 2011 at 10:56 am

    Kit P.
    My only intention was to save space so I didn’t copy the whole quote. I figured if someone was really interested they could just Google the phrase.

    Tom G.

    [link]      
  26. By Tom G. on October 20, 2011 at 7:42 pm

    Like most retired folks, I have time to play around all day posting stuff all over the net. After working in aerospace, on government contracts and Navy and commercial nuclear power for way to many years I retired and began to look for something else to tickle my brain cells.

    I began posting on many sites and have a lot of fun on one called the hybridcarblog. Today on that site I read this which is a partial quote from the site.

    “Yesterday, Toyota announced that they are going to try to commercialize one of these new technologies — a solid state lithium battery capable of 621 miles of range — sometime between 2015 to 2020.

    WOW – Now this PIPELINE is beginning to make some sense. It might not have anything to do with importing oil from Canada to make the U.S. more energy independent. It might be about getting the oil to the Gulf so it can be sold on the World Market. Since the discovery of the oil sands in Canada and the oil reserves found in North Dakota we have lots of oil. In fact, we might even have TOO MUCH oil if things like hybrid cars become cheaper and more people start buying them. All we need is that cheap battery and enough juice in those batteries so people don’t have to worry about getting home at night. We might not need as much oil if electric vehicles all of the sudden have a range of even 400 miles. If we solve the battery problem we solve lots of different issues facing our country.

    In 10 years the amount of oil we are using might be significantly less. If that were to happen where would the market be: China and India of course.

    Tom G.

    [link]      
  27. By Wendell Mercantile on October 20, 2011 at 12:45 pm

    …with respect to making electricity, our bacon does not need saving.

    I wasn’t talking about electricity.

    [link]      
  28. By Oxymaven on October 21, 2011 at 10:10 pm

    There are some reasonably good arguments about the merits of building the Keystone pipeline, but concern about the potential effects of a pipeline release on the Ogallala aquifer are hugely exaggerated.  The USGS has studied the effects of a 10,000 bbl release of crude oil that occurred in 1979 in northern MN and impacted a shallow glacial aquifer that is not all that different from the Ogallala.  There probably isn’t any groundwater contamination site in the entire US that has been studied as intensely as the one in Bemidji.  In the 30 years subsequent, the ‘footprint’ of that release is very localized (100′s of meters) because crude oil, especially the fraction that is soluble, is very biodegradable.  If Nebraskans were truly concerned about the quality and sustainability of the Ogallala and energy production, they would spend a lot more time worrying about the huge consumptive water use and water quality impacts from irrigated corn production for ethanol in that state (e.g. nitrates and pesticides).  Clearly the environmental impacts from a surface release at a river crossing would be much more problematic, and that is a legitimate risk that needs to be fully evaluated, but concerns about Ogallala groundwater impacts are just completely misplaced.  

    [link]      
  29. By Wendell Mercantile on October 22, 2011 at 10:28 am

    If Nebraskans were truly concerned about the quality and sustainability of the Ogallala and energy production, they would spend a lot more time worrying about the huge consumptive water use and water quality impacts from irrigated corn production for ethanol in that state (e.g. nitrates and pesticides).

    Bingo!

    I’ve read accounts of Nebraska farmers raising fears of the proposed Keystone pipeline, but I have yet to hear them proclaim the same fears about how fertilizer and pesticide runoff has been damaging the Ogallala for decades.

    And when they do talk about depletion of the Ogallala, their concern is that they have to drill deeper, and that it costs more to pump water from those depths.

    As I’ve said before, farming is the original extractive industry. Certainly it’s essential, but it’s no less extractive than oil, coal, or metallic mining.

    [link]      
  30. By russ-finley on October 23, 2011 at 12:16 pm

    It’s so frustrating having to listen to celebrities voice their opinions on complex issues they know next to nothing about. Khosla and his cellulosic ethanol falls into that category. They have too much influence and can cause a great deal of damage. Willy Nelson (bio-willy), Robert Redford (you name it), Alec Baldwin (anti-nuclear), and the list goes on and on. Unlike your generic commenter on the Internet, who also rarely knows what they are talking about, celebrities’ opinions generate profit for the lay press by attracting readership and advertisers.

    Thank goodness for the internet and bloggers like RR  …shill for the oil industry ; )*

     

    *Sarcasm alert

     

    [link]      
  31. By russ-finley on October 23, 2011 at 12:43 pm

    Tom G said:

    In fact, we might even have TOO MUCH oil if things like hybrid cars become cheaper and more people start buying them.

    This idea is making its way around the internet lately. Matt Ridley suggests in his book “The The Rational Optimist” that fossil fuels are so plentiful we can essentially consider them to be infinite, like the sun’s energy. He’s a big proponent of natural gas.

    I think that’s stretching things but in all honesty, who believes we will leave money in the ground if we can export our coal, oil, natural gas, (even corn ethaonol) for cash?

    A recent report from the DOE suggests that we should be pursuing the development of small modular reactors. Assuming that a grid composed of renewable and nuclear might be cheaper than fossil fuels, we might become the world’s leading supplier of that technology, creating the global level playiing field that would provide the incentive to leave the more expensive fossil fuels in the ground.

    [link]      
  32. By rate-crimes on October 23, 2011 at 3:11 pm

    Newsflash: Decrepit Pipelines Are Everywhere

     

    Cleanup of Kalamazoo River oil spill to extend through 2012  October 21, 2011

    [link]      
  33. By Wendell Mercantile on October 23, 2011 at 10:55 pm

    Newsflash: Decrepit Pipelines Are Everywhere

    RC,

    That would only be a news flash were it not true. Unfortunately, entropy says that the orderly things tend towards the disorderly and that things wear out. That’s why you are not as spry as you were as a teenager, and why if you live to be old enough, will probably require a knee or hip transplant someday.

    Of course responsible companies have programs of preventive maintenance and replace things on a regular basis before they wear out completely.

    [link]      
  34. By rate-crimes on October 28, 2011 at 12:06 pm

    Newsflash: Decrepit Pipelines Are Everywhere

    RC,

    That would only be a news flash were it not true.

    It would be “not true” if it were not true:

    Ruptured Pipeline Spills Oil Into Yellowstone River  July 2, 2011

    North Slope pipeline breaks, spills during pressure testing  July 18th, 2011

    ‘Something’ hit Bison pipeline in Wyoming  July 28, 2011

    Companies fined over $500,000 for role in massive Burnaby oil spill  October 3, 2011

    Ruptured pipeline spews oil in Edmond  October 7, 2011

    Cleanup of Kalamazoo River oil spill to extend through 2012  October 21, 2011

    PG&E knew of many leaks in San Bruno pipeline October 23, 2011

     

    List of pipeline accidents

    [link]      
  35. By Follow the money on January 28, 2012 at 6:24 am

    The argument from republicans is that this will make us less dependent on foreign oil…funny none of the candidates so apt at calling Obama names, will mention that the Keystone pipeline is already open! Phases one and two are already distilling Alberta crude in Illinois and Oklahoma. So the question is…why run it all the way to the Gulf if we have these lines already?? What no one here will admit is it’s for export. Canada has 250 billion barrels of oil up there (their estimates) and with Europe paying three times the price for gas we are, and Valero and 25 other refiners on the coast of Texas are already exporting diesel and jet fuel to Latin America as well as Europe. Valero called export opportunities for diesel fuel to Europe “a high profit margin opportunity”. So let’s be honest…this XL pipeline is for exports..and going to help us reduce our dependency on foreign oil very very little.

    [link]      
  36. By rruss2112 on July 10, 2014 at 1:02 am

    It’s about job’s. If we don’t refine it the Chinese will. In this case Canda has decided to sell it to them because we refused to get the oil to our refineries. So lets be honest we just lost lots of job’s and political control.

    [link]      
Register or log in now to save your comments and get priority moderation!