Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

Keystone XL: Oil, Ogallala, and You!

124

Posts

  • electricitylikesmeelectricitylikesme Registered User regular
    redx wrote:
    Preacher wrote:
    Even if they had a pipeline to texas it wouldn't suddenly mean the US gets less oil from the middle east.

    I don't know about that. If it produces enough, it will be comparatively cheaper to get oil from the pipeline that it will be to ship it half way around the world.

    So, we might end up buying less oil from the middle east.

    But the bigger issue, is that oil is a global commodity, so it doesn't really make a difference if the canadians are selling it to the chinese, and we are buying our oil from the arabs, or the canadians are shipping it to us, and the chinese are buying oil from arabs. The same amount of oil, is being bought from the same people, for about the same amount. Canadian production might lower prices, by allowing OPEC less control over supply, but unless the global oil market is totally restructured or the amount of oil being used is decreased, it doesn't really mater who is buying from whom.

    The "risk" of supply could altered too though. Remembering that to some degree one of the vaguely cited reasons is the risk that the Middle East would suddenly decide to not supply oil to the US.

    Although I'm not sure this is really a serious issue, nor that the new pipeline could provide any extra leverage.

  • AManFromEarthAManFromEarth Their ideas are old and their ideas are bad. The King in the SwampRegistered User regular
    mrt144 wrote:
    I mean, we need the tax holiday (all economic experts say so), but fuck this pipeline if they're not going to let the State department actually research it.

    Cite reference all economic experts

    Adding inserting explication phraseology

    Okay, maybe not all economic experts, but the basic fact is that increasing the payroll tax on all working Americans is a dumb thing to do while we're slowing crawling out of the recession. And if I can't use blustering generalization to prove a point, then America as we know it is truly dead.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/26/business/economy/26view.html

    http://money.cnn.com/2011/12/16/news/economy/payroll_tax_cut_impact/index.htm?hpt=hp_t2

    It also doesn't change the fact that the pipeline should have nothing to do with the tax holiday, the spending bill, and unemployment insurance. It's madness to give the Republicans a pass on this one while they refuse to even accept how utterly, catastrophically stupid the Bush Tax cuts are.

    06ac84e3615f9f18778aaf3bafb2d12c978b2eba.jpg

    The rich don't create jobs, the middle class creates jobs. Small business owners (few of whom could be considered "rich") create jobs. The middle class the poor spend money when they get it, the rich don't. Spending money creates jobs, savings accounts don't.

    And on the jobs from Keystone that Rand Paul thinks will pay for it:
    keystonejobs.png

    Lh96QHG.png
  • Zombie NirvanaZombie Nirvana Registered User regular
    redx wrote:
    Preacher wrote:
    Even if they had a pipeline to texas it wouldn't suddenly mean the US gets less oil from the middle east.

    I don't know about that. If it produces enough, it will be comparatively cheaper to get oil from the pipeline that it will be to ship it half way around the world.

    So, we might end up buying less oil from the middle east.

    But the bigger issue, is that oil is a global commodity, so it doesn't really make a difference if the canadians are selling it to the chinese, and we are buying our oil from the arabs, or the canadians are shipping it to us, and the chinese are buying oil from arabs. The same amount of oil, is being bought from the same people, for about the same amount. Canadian production might lower prices, by allowing OPEC less control over supply, but unless the global oil market is totally restructured or the amount of oil being used is decreased, it doesn't really mater who is buying from whom.

    Keystone would help us (America + Canada) secure a significant amount of oil recovered from the Texas to the North and it would also create a large backbone for American/Canadian midstream. Something we certainly need more of in this country. Even if the economics of globalization don't change price much, I think the security issue and increased globalized environmental impact (i.e., those fuckin' chinese) should give all responsible citizens pause to consider construction. I have no doubt this will be politicized for a long time by the administration and the challengers, but it will be built eventually, one way or another. Best to give people jobs now when we need them and work to secure a foundation for American energy. Something we failed to do during the last crisis when all of PA was parroting windfall profit taxes. Issue de jour, and all of that. Zzzzzz.

  • AManFromEarthAManFromEarth Their ideas are old and their ideas are bad. The King in the SwampRegistered User regular
    redx wrote:
    Preacher wrote:
    Even if they had a pipeline to texas it wouldn't suddenly mean the US gets less oil from the middle east.

    I don't know about that. If it produces enough, it will be comparatively cheaper to get oil from the pipeline that it will be to ship it half way around the world.

    So, we might end up buying less oil from the middle east.

    But the bigger issue, is that oil is a global commodity, so it doesn't really make a difference if the canadians are selling it to the chinese, and we are buying our oil from the arabs, or the canadians are shipping it to us, and the chinese are buying oil from arabs. The same amount of oil, is being bought from the same people, for about the same amount. Canadian production might lower prices, by allowing OPEC less control over supply, but unless the global oil market is totally restructured or the amount of oil being used is decreased, it doesn't really mater who is buying from whom.

    Keystone would help us (America + Canada) secure a significant amount of oil recovered from the Texas to the North and it would also create a large backbone for American/Canadian midstream. Something we certainly need more of in this country. Even if the economics of globalization don't change price much, I think the security issue and increased globalized environmental impact (i.e., those fuckin' chinese) should give all responsible citizens pause to consider construction. I have no doubt this will be politicized for a long time by the administration and the challengers, but it will be built eventually, one way or another. Best to give people jobs now when we need them and work to secure a foundation for American energy. Something we failed to do during the last crisis when all of PA was parroting windfall profit taxes. Issue de jour, and all of that. Zzzzzz.

    I'm all for the economic and political benefits from Keystone, I'm just not convinced that they overpower the environmental impacts of it. I mean, Ogallala is a monumentally important part of the North American ecosystem. It's already threatened by overpopulation and overfarming in the Midwest, do we need to add benzine poisoning as well? I say Transcanada pops a couple billion more at the pipe's route and avoid the aquifer all together. There has to be a way around, if you'll pardon the pun, this problem.

    The GOP has nuked any sense of fair dealing this thing is going to get by attaching it to a tax cut for the middle class. It was a needless, reckless ploy by a needless, reckless party. And I say that as a registered Republican.

    Lh96QHG.png
  • Zombie NirvanaZombie Nirvana Registered User regular
    edited December 2011
    I don't think TransCanada really cares about throwing money to move the pipeline. And I really don't think the administration cares that it goes through that aquifer land. This is just politics. For the record, the GOP wasn't the first to politicize it - that was the dept of state and then Obama through his election delay. He wants to play both sides. The GOP just brought the politicization to the public attention the only way they could. Not that I think what they're doing is any better than what the Democrats have already done.

    It's benzene, btw - and there won't be any benzene contamination in the aquifer, should they choose to place it there. That's what DOT/EPA regs are for along with all the phase assessments, remediation, and one calls. I'm sure there is a regulatory body for the state of Nebraska that will more than follow up regarding pipeline integrity and environmental impact. Much like the niagara escarpment has additional regulations. All of this talk about no additional routes being vetted or the phase 1s not being done are political lies and nothing more. Your farming that is being so valiantly defended here do 100 times more damage than that pipeline ever could or will. But they're exempt from the political game, which is why you don't hear much about them. :)

    Zombie Nirvana on
  • HappylilElfHappylilElf Registered User regular
    Except demand isn't some kind of global set rate meaning if a company can get more money for the gasoline in another country? Then that gasoline is gone. There is nothing to indicate this would actually reduce American dependence on foreign oil. Most of the things I've read on it seems to indicate Europe and China are going to be the likely areas where this oil ends up. The only thing America seems to be getting out of it is a laughably small number of temporary construction jobs and the potential for an evironmental disaster in a place where we really, really don't want an environmental disaster.

    And you know how useful DOT/EPA regs are in the event of a spill? None. At all. Once there's a spill the regulations that were in place to prevent it are only relevant in that they weren't strong enough regulations. And considering the number of spills and leaks in pipelines in the US already? I can think of no reason to believe for a second this pipeline would be any different.

    sigtk.jpg
  • AManFromEarthAManFromEarth Their ideas are old and their ideas are bad. The King in the SwampRegistered User regular
    I don't think TransCanada really cares about throwing money to move the pipeline. And I really don't think the administration cares that it goes through that aquifer land. This is just politics. For the record, the GOP wasn't the first to politicize it - that was the dept of state and then Obama through his election delay. He wants to play both sides. The GOP just brought the politicization to the public attention the only way they could. Not that I think what they're doing is any better than what the Democrats have already done.

    It's benzene, btw - and there won't be any benzene contamination in the aquifer, should they choose to place it there. That's what DOT/EPA regs are for along with all the phase assessments, remediation, and one calls. I'm sure there is a regulatory body for the state of Nebraska that will more than follow up regarding pipeline integrity and environmental impact. Much like the niagara escarpment has additional regulations. All of this talk about no additional routes being vetted or the phase 1s not being done are political lies and nothing more. Your farming that is being so valiantly defended here do 100 times more damage than that pipeline ever could or will. But they're exempt from the political game, which is why you don't hear much about them. :)

    Wasn't defending the farming, in fact you'll find I said over farming. And sure Obama politicized it first, if you'll check back over the thread I believe I said that a few pages ago. What the GOP did was much worse, though.

    Lh96QHG.png
  • Zombie NirvanaZombie Nirvana Registered User regular
    edited December 2011
    I don't mean "your" in the specific sense, AMFE, just the general droning of the masses railing against the industry.

    DOT/EPA regs are very useful in the event of a spill considering remediation and containment requirements - you don't know what you (specifically talking to HLE here) are talking about. There are also state organizations like the Railroad Commission in Texas that have additional obligations pre and post-spill, along with pressure testing for casing integrity. It isn't just, whoops we spilled shit, guess that's that.

    Off to bed, have a good night/morning.

    Zombie Nirvana on
  • electricitylikesmeelectricitylikesme Registered User regular
    I don't mean "your" in the specific sense, AMFE, just the general droning of the masses railing against the industry.

    DOT/EPA regs are very useful in the event of a spill considering remediation and containment requirements - you don't know what you (specifically talking to HLE here) are talking about.

    Off to bed, have a good night/morning.

    No they're not.

    Because you've still just spilled a shit ton of crude oil into a major aquifer.

    Analogy: trauma surgeons are useful when you've just been shot. Does this mean it was a good idea to point a loaded gun at yourself?

  • Void SlayerVoid Slayer Very Suspicious Registered User regular
    I don't mean "your" in the specific sense, AMFE, just the general droning of the masses railing against the industry.

    DOT/EPA regs are very useful in the event of a spill considering remediation and containment requirements - you don't know what you (specifically talking to HLE here) are talking about.

    Off to bed, have a good night/morning.

    No they're not.

    Because you've still just spilled a shit ton of crude oil into a major aquifer.

    Analogy: trauma surgeons are useful when you've just been shot. Does this mean it was a good idea to point a loaded gun at yourself?

    Well, a trauma surgeon could explain in detail gunshot wounds and say, "You probably don't want to be shooting yourself and getting injuries like this."

    I know this might seem a simple question, but why do they need to ship the oil all the way to Texas before refining it?

    He's a superhumanly strong soccer-playing romance novelist possessed of the uncanny powers of an insect. She's a beautiful African-American doctor with her own daytime radio talk show. They fight crime!
  • AManFromEarthAManFromEarth Their ideas are old and their ideas are bad. The King in the SwampRegistered User regular
    I don't mean "your" in the specific sense, AMFE, just the general droning of the masses railing against the industry.

    DOT/EPA regs are very useful in the event of a spill considering remediation and containment requirements - you don't know what you (specifically talking to HLE here) are talking about.

    Off to bed, have a good night/morning.

    No they're not.

    Because you've still just spilled a shit ton of crude oil into a major aquifer.

    Analogy: trauma surgeons are useful when you've just been shot. Does this mean it was a good idea to point a loaded gun at yourself?

    Well, a trauma surgeon could explain in detail gunshot wounds and say, "You probably don't want to be shooting yourself and getting injuries like this."

    I know this might seem a simple question, but why do they need to ship the oil all the way to Texas before refining it?

    that's where the refineries/shipping is already. Although they're apparently willing to pipe it to Vancouver and ship it off to China, which can't be cheaper and almost sounds like an empty threat (it would be if the Chinese weren't able and willing to pay).

    Lh96QHG.png
  • RchanenRchanen Registered User regular
    edited December 2011
    spool32 wrote:
    Ego wrote:
    spool32 wrote:
    I would like, from the "save the Tar Sands or the world becomes a desert" people, to hear alternate projects that will begin to create 20,000 man-years of work for Americans in the next 6 months, in the private sector.

    Give me something else concrete to support.

    Why?

    If the options are '20,000 man-years of work and the world is a desert' vs 'the world is not a desert, shame about those jobs though' I know which option doesn't sound fucking retarded to me.

    Because the reply to "don't make the world a desert" is "OK then. So what do we do instead?"

    How about not make the world a desert.

    Your presenting the choices as equally valuable. They are not. It is worth giving up the jobs to a) prevent the desert and b) not add the potential of poisoning the largest food production area of the United States.

    If option B happens. Those jobs are not going to be worth very much.

    If you want something else, how about legalizing gambling and prostitution and marijuana. Give Nebraska a touristy reason to visit.

    Rchanen on
    Toldo wrote:
    Preacher wrote:
    Skinny guys fight till their burger. Screw debates lets have Barack Obama and Willard Romney rumble in the mofoing jungle.
    Obama punches Romney.
    "Okay, now wait a minute. You've had your turn. Let me have a turn. Wait a minute," Romney says.
    Obama punches Romney.
  • FyreWulffFyreWulff Registered User, ClubPA regular
    I'm sure there is a regulatory body for the state of Nebraska that will more than follow up regarding pipeline integrity and environmental impact.

    Our state doesn't have the money to do that. We can barely keep our pools open for kids all summer, and projects take years because all new construction needs environmental studies done before they can proceed, and the guys are so backlogged that bridges that were paid for a decade or more ago are finally being built/renovated.

    You're asking a state of about 2 million, which is about the size of Great Britain (I've placed London about where Omaha is, in terms of the most populous city)

    wqiWY.png

    to have the tax base and the work force to keep TransCanada under our thumb. Great Britain could do it since they have about 63 million people to fund it.

  • DevoutlyApatheticDevoutlyApathetic I've Done Worse Registered User regular
    Fyre, there are laws! That should totally be enough despite any kinds of say massive budget reductions at the EPA.

    The stifling, anti-business EPA that we should cut more money from because our LAWS will protect us will strangling the job creation impulses of massive corporations!

    I mean, this pipeline will be completely safe and will never ever have a problem. It is only silly political hacks who say we could have an enviromental problem with the Deep Water Horizon, uh, Keystone pipeline. Silly silly political hacks.

    Trogg wrote: »
    Not as positive as AIDS and cancer, but positive nonetheless.
  • FyreWulffFyreWulff Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited December 2011
    Fyre, there are laws! That should totally be enough despite any kinds of say massive budget reductions at the EPA.

    The stifling, anti-business EPA that we should cut more money from because our LAWS will protect us will strangling the job creation impulses of massive corporations!

    I mean, this pipeline will be completely safe and will never ever have a problem. It is only silly political hacks who say we could have an enviromental problem with the Deep Water Horizon, uh, Keystone pipeline. Silly silly political hacks.

    I like Nebraska's only options are apparently allow the pipeline or everyone goes homeless from not having jobs that we already not had. But then again I guess certain people might have expected that nobody from Nebraska would be on these forums (we do have modern technology). It feels weird when people from Texas feel they know what's best for your own state. This is a state that ate a 200$ million fine after a lawsuit just to keep other states from dumping nuclear waste on top of the aquifer.

    FyreWulff on
  • RchanenRchanen Registered User regular
    FyreWulff wrote:
    Fyre, there are laws! That should totally be enough despite any kinds of say massive budget reductions at the EPA.

    The stifling, anti-business EPA that we should cut more money from because our LAWS will protect us will strangling the job creation impulses of massive corporations!

    I mean, this pipeline will be completely safe and will never ever have a problem. It is only silly political hacks who say we could have an enviromental problem with the Deep Water Horizon, uh, Keystone pipeline. Silly silly political hacks.

    I like Nebraska's only options are apparently allow the pipeline or everyone goes homeless from not having jobs that we already not had. But then again I guess certain people might have expected that nobody from Nebraska would be on these forums (we do have modern technology). It feels weird when people from Texas feel they know what's best for your own state. This is a state that ate a 200$ million fine after a lawsuit just to keep other states from dumping nuclear waste on top of the aquifer.

    This would make a great political slogan.

    "You don't have to live here, so why should you decide" or something like that. Heh, Repubs are for states rights.

    Toldo wrote:
    Preacher wrote:
    Skinny guys fight till their burger. Screw debates lets have Barack Obama and Willard Romney rumble in the mofoing jungle.
    Obama punches Romney.
    "Okay, now wait a minute. You've had your turn. Let me have a turn. Wait a minute," Romney says.
    Obama punches Romney.
  • DistramDistram __BANNED USERS
    lol @ destroying the environment to create jobs so people can buy widgets. humans are awesome.

  • Zombie NirvanaZombie Nirvana Registered User regular
    edited December 2011

    that's where the refineries/shipping is already. Although they're apparently willing to pipe it to Vancouver and ship it off to China, which can't be cheaper and almost sounds like an empty threat (it would be if the Chinese weren't able and willing to pay).

    Most of it already goes to Vancouver. It isn't an empty threat, not a threat at all, just business. NGLs are huge right now and a significant portion are going to China, even out of Houston. Texas has a ready refinery base and port. Beyond that, the pipeline will lead it to another Illinois refinery and to one of the marketing hubs in Oklahoma. We (O&G) don't build refineries anymore because it is a pain in the ass, a bad use of capital (integrated model is dying for a reason), and we didn't really care to be blackmailed again with another consent decree. We're too busy being extorted right now by the corrupt Ms. Jackson and her cronies to consider anything other than basic upstream production and transportation.

    Fyrewullf, we can do a better assessment of any worst-case impacts and submit to NDEQ or the PCS that your governor just authorized for these types of projects. There doesn't need to be a large financial obligation from Nebraska. We'll do flyovers and integrity tests and keep the records. This isn't like a "gotcha!" inspection. That's what you guys don't seem to understand. It isn't a battle, just trying to get people to work and grow the economy. This is real work that requires no govt intervention, not a jobs bill or a random stimulus package.

    If there were a spill the response would be immediate and excessive, much like the recent Exxon remediation.

    Zombie Nirvana on
  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular

    that's where the refineries/shipping is already. Although they're apparently willing to pipe it to Vancouver and ship it off to China, which can't be cheaper and almost sounds like an empty threat (it would be if the Chinese weren't able and willing to pay).

    Most of it already goes to Vancouver. It isn't an empty threat, not a threat at all, just business. NGLs are huge right now and a significant portion are going to China, even out of Houston. Texas has a ready refinery base and port. Beyond that, the pipeline will lead it to another Illinois refinery and to one of the marketing hubs in Oklahoma. We (O&G) don't build refineries anymore because it is a pain in the ass, a bad use of capital (integrated model is dying for a reason), and we didn't really care to be blackmailed again with another consent decree. We're too busy being extorted right now by the corrupt Ms. Jackson and her cronies to consider anything other than basic upstream production and transportation.

    Fyrewullf, we can do a better assessment of any worst-case impacts and submit to NDEQ or the PCS that your governor just authorized for these types of projects. There doesn't need to be a large financial obligation from Nebraska. We'll do flyovers and integrity tests and keep the records. This isn't like a "gotcha!" inspection. That's what you guys don't seem to understand. It isn't a battle, just trying to get people to work and grow the economy. This is real work that requires no govt intervention, not a jobs bill or a random stimulus package.

    If there were a spill the response would be immediate and excessive, much like the recent Exxon remediation.

    Yeah, an immediate and excessive response, just like with Deepwater Horizon!

  • Zombie NirvanaZombie Nirvana Registered User regular
    The federal government stopped BP from capping that well very early on.

  • DevoutlyApatheticDevoutlyApathetic I've Done Worse Registered User regular
    The federal government stopped BP from capping that well very early on.

    Back when BP was misreporting leak output by like a factor of 10 or so?

    Trogg wrote: »
    Not as positive as AIDS and cancer, but positive nonetheless.
  • Al_watAl_wat Registered User regular
    edited December 2011
    From one perspective, it's a lot easier to fix and isolate a spill when it is happening on land rather than at the bottom of the sea.

    This isn't really a good argument for convincing someone that they should let us build pipelines on their land though. In my estimation leaks are inevitable, it is only the scale of them which is unpredictable.

    Al_wat on
  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    The federal government stopped BP from capping that well very early on.

    You mean the leak caused by negligence in the first place? And back when they were lying out their asses about the situation? And when did the government stop BP from capping it?

  • Zombie NirvanaZombie Nirvana Registered User regular
    Yes, the feds were in the room then too.

  • Zombie NirvanaZombie Nirvana Registered User regular
    Yes, the feds were in the room then too.
    shryke wrote:
    The federal government stopped BP from capping that well very early on.

    You mean the leak caused by negligence in the first place? And back when they were lying out their asses about the situation? And when did the government stop BP from capping it?

    Week 3.

  • DevoutlyApatheticDevoutlyApathetic I've Done Worse Registered User regular
    Al_wat wrote:
    From one perspective, it's a lot easier to fix and isolate a spill when it is happening on land rather than at the bottom of the sea.

    This isn't really a good argument for convincing someone that they should let us build pipelines on their land though. In my estimation leaks are inevitable, it is only the scale of them which is unpredictable.

    Eh.

    As bad as it sounds an ocean based leak will (eventually) disperse through out the entire ocean without us actually doing anything. If we want to do stuff the oil actually sticks around where we can get to it. If we dump all that oil on land it's going down to the aquifer and probably fucking things up in a way we can't really clean up.

    I'm not sure which is really worse and it's probably a case by case basis.

    Of course, one of the worse land based cases would be it leaking into a large, heavily used aquifer. I wonder where there could be one of those?

    Trogg wrote: »
    Not as positive as AIDS and cancer, but positive nonetheless.
  • DevoutlyApatheticDevoutlyApathetic I've Done Worse Registered User regular
    Yes, the feds were in the room then too.

    So bad things are the governments fault but all the competence is in the private industry?

    If this is true why didn't they say something?

    Pretty much any answer you can give to that second question is bad news for the pipeline.

    Trogg wrote: »
    Not as positive as AIDS and cancer, but positive nonetheless.
  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    Yes, the feds were in the room then too.

    In the room, being lied to like the rest of us.
    shryke wrote:
    The federal government stopped BP from capping that well very early on.

    You mean the leak caused by negligence in the first place? And back when they were lying out their asses about the situation? And when did the government stop BP from capping it?

    Week 3.[/quote]

    "week 3" is not an explanation.

  • FyreWulffFyreWulff Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited December 2011
    submit to NDEQ or the PCS that your governor just authorized for these types of projects. There doesn't need to be a large financial obligation from Nebraska. We'll do flyovers and integrity tests and keep the records. This isn't like a "gotcha!" inspection. That's what you guys don't seem to understand. It isn't a battle, just trying to get people to work and grow the economy. This is real work that requires no govt intervention, not a jobs bill or a random stimulus package.

    There doesn't need to be a large financial input from Nebraska? Where the hell is the money from then? The answer would be "the federal government". I can tell you right now if the Republicans opposed this they'd have already called it the Obamoil Pipeline. Apparently endangering our aquifer is just fine and dandy but building high speed rail through the state that would actually create permanent, not-one-off-jobs is socialism.

    Nebraska understands the threat to the aquifer because WE LIVE RIGHT ON THE DAMN THING. We know how important it is. Trading one off jobs that will disappear after the construction is over and after the tar sands have been depleted is not worth the risk to one of the major sources of fresh water in the country. I also don't understand how this simultaneously requires no government intervention but in a previous post you claim that government laws and oversight (ie intervention) will prevent anything from happening. Telling a state that has publically owned utilities that the government can't do anything isn't really going to fly. Nebraska Republicans != the national party Republicans.

    I'd like to see how willing Texans would be to let a company just install a pipeline right on top of their part of the aquifer. Wait, they don't, because their pipelines don't go over their section of the Ogallala aquifer!

    FyreWulff on
  • Zombie NirvanaZombie Nirvana Registered User regular
    The federal government made the decision on week 3 to not attempt a well-cap. What is missing in that explanation?

  • Al_watAl_wat Registered User regular
    Are there currently no Oil or Gas pipelines that run across this aquifer?

  • Zombie NirvanaZombie Nirvana Registered User regular
    edited December 2011
    I suspect there are but not 36" lines. Not at work or I could check real quick.

    Edit: Yes, there are currently pipelines over the aquifer. Looks like hundreds or thousands of oil wells too. Platte pipeline is biggest that currently runs across it west/east.

    Zombie Nirvana on
  • FyreWulffFyreWulff Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited December 2011
    Al_wat wrote:
    Are there currently no Oil or Gas pipelines that run across this aquifer?

    http://keystonepipeline-xl.state.gov/clientsite/keystonexl.nsf/map.jpg?OpenFileResource

    There's a reason why Texans want this pipeline. The current pipeline that we have is barely over it, the new one would go right by the heart of it.

    Nebraska has no regulations and no state agency to govern oil pipelines.

    FyreWulff on
  • Zombie NirvanaZombie Nirvana Registered User regular
    FyreWulff wrote:
    Nebraska has no regulations and no state agency to govern oil pipelines.

    That is not true. NDEQ does environmental assessment now and your governor signed a law giving future authority to the Public Service Commission which will probably function similar to the Railroad Commission in Texas.

  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    The federal government made the decision on week 3 to not attempt a well-cap. What is missing in that explanation?

    The part where you are ignoring why they made the decision not to attempt a well-cap.

  • Zombie NirvanaZombie Nirvana Registered User regular
    edited December 2011
    They made the decision not to attempt because they didn't want the political liability. When that liability became too great for the fuck-up they had created with the situation they decided that they didn't want Allen standing next to BP folks. Then BP decided, hey wait a minute, they're about to fuck us. BP took over (pulled in a whole bunch of retired ex-BP) instead of the Louisiana welfare trash the feds had foisted on them at the branch command level. Once they did this, the operation succeeded.

    If it had been Exxon, Shell, or Chevron - they would have told Obama to go fuck himself and given him the command he so desired. The response was completely botched by the feds and Jindal. But you won't read that in the commission report.

    The fault of the well blowout itself, of course, rests with the drilling operations. BP, Anadarko, Transocean, etc...

    Zombie Nirvana on
  • CommunistCowCommunistCow Registered User regular
    edited January 2012
    hanskey wrote:
    Good. However, even without the Keystone XL we are slated to massively increase domestic production thanks to horizontal drilling and shale formation frac-ing. Even without this pipeline there have been new reserves discovered domestically that easily match Saudi Arabia. The Oil & Natural Gass industry are simply playing it close to the vest to avoid a sharp dip in prices when the scope of the reserves is finally revealed.

    You are really going to have to cite that. The last major oil reserves found in the world were in the North Sea in 1969-1970. If they really found oil fields that match the fields in Saudi Arabia this would be MASSIVE news. Also oil shale and oil sands require lots of energy to obtain and cost quite a bit more than "regular" drilling. Even though Canada has shale oil fields the size of some of Saudi Arabia's fields their max production is estimated at 600k 1.5m barrels a day (just from shale/sand oil). This is pretty damn pitiful compared to the 10 million bpd that Saudi Arabia does.

    Edit: Found new numbers showing Canada oil sands produce around 1.5 million bpd with really really rosey estimates guessing that will peak to 3 million bpd by 2025. For reference US consumption is around 20 million bpd.

    CommunistCow on
    No, I am not really communist. Yes, it is weird that I use this name.
  • dojangodojango Registered User
    Brazil found some big ones offshore, really deep. They think. If they can get past the technical hurdles to get it.

  • CommunistCowCommunistCow Registered User regular
    edited January 2012
    dojango wrote:
    Brazil found some big ones offshore, really deep. They think. If they can get past the technical hurdles to get it.

    That is pretty big but still not on the scale of the North Sea find. See Edit. The Norwegian section alone had an estimated 29 billion barrel reserve. Sadly I can't find a total for the whole area but that number is excluding the UK, France, Netherlands, Germany, and Denmark's sections of those oil reserves.

    Edit: I found some other numbers here. If those estimates are correct that really is a HUGE find.

    North Sea oil reserve was estimated at 62 billion barrels and this new Brazillian field is estimated at 50 billion barrels.

    CommunistCow on
    No, I am not really communist. Yes, it is weird that I use this name.
Sign In or Register to comment.