Sponsor Message:
Non Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Pipelines And Environmental Damage  
User currently offlineRevelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 12541 posts, RR: 25
Posted (2 years 1 month 2 weeks 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 2655 times:

Quote:

On Friday, Enbridge shut down Line 14 after a leak that it estimated at around 1,200 barrels of oil. The 318,000 barrel per day (bpd) line, part of the Lakehead system, carries light crude oil to Chicago-area refineries.

The cause of Friday's spill was undetermined and Enbridge Energy Partners said it had no estimate on when flows would resume. Line 14 is one of four lines that ship mainly Canadian crude via Lakehead, a 2.5 million bpd network that is the principle route for Canadian exports.

The news will not help Enbridge build public trust in its network, which has come under scrutiny following several high-profile incidents, including a spill in Alberta last month and the massive leak in Michigan two years ago.

Just weeks ago, the U.S. National Transportation Safety Board delivered a scathing report of Enbridge's handling of the July 2010 rupture of its Line 6B near Marshall, Michigan, which led to more than 20,000 barrels of crude leaking into the Kalamazoo River.

U.S. pipeline regulators fined it $3.7 million for the spill, their largest ever penalty.

Ref: http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/...deoil-agency-idUSBRE86R0CH20120728

Seems there is some benefit to the prudence that was displayed during the Keystone XL debate.


Inspiration, move me brightly!
28 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlinefr8mech From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 5418 posts, RR: 14
Reply 1, posted (2 years 1 month 2 weeks 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 2638 times:

Quoting Revelation (Thread starter):
Seems there is some benefit to the prudence that was displayed during the Keystone XL debate.

It was pandering that was displayed during the Keystone XL debacle.

Things man by man, correction, all things degrade and deterioate. When someone builds something, that something immediately begins the slow, inexorable process of degradation and decay.

Proper design, proper construction, inspection, maintenance and accountability help prevent that degradation from causing issues. But, crap will happen. Then it is dealt with, we learn from it, and we move on.

If the aforementioned crap happens because someone in the design, construction, inspection and maintenance phase of the project was negligent or failed to properly account for some factor, then the accountability part of the process comes into play.

[Edited 2012-07-28 12:15:27]


When seconds count...the police are minutes away.
User currently offlineDocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 19688 posts, RR: 58
Reply 2, posted (2 years 1 month 2 weeks 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 2625 times:

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 1):
Proper design, proper construction, inspection, maintenance and accountability help prevent that degradation from causing issues. But, crap will happen.

It just seems to happen an awful lot. You know, Deepwater Horizons, etc. It's one thing to talk about what proper design, construction, maintenance, and accountability will do. It's another thing to actually see it carried out.

Keystone is about increasing oil company profits at the expense of Americans. It means that prices of gasoline in this country would go UP (and that's the consensus among economists, you know, those egg-head intellectuals who are actually experts on this stuff) because it would be easier to export crude oil to refineries outside the U.S. That's why even domestic oil refineries were opposing it.

It was just stunning for me to watch people loudly promoting an idea that was against their own interests just because a President they didn't like opposed it.

Wikipedia has a very good article on it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keystone_Pipeline#Political_issues


User currently offlineRevelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 12541 posts, RR: 25
Reply 3, posted (2 years 1 month 2 weeks 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 2605 times:

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 1):
Proper design, proper construction, inspection, maintenance and accountability help prevent that degradation from causing issues. But, crap will happen.

And one key issue with Keystone is exactly where that crap would be happening:

Quote:

Its original route crosses the Sandhills in Nebraska, the large wetland ecosystem, and the Ogallala Aquifer, one of the largest reserves of fresh water in the world.[40][35] The Ogallala Aquifer spans eight states, provides drinking water for two million people, and supports $20 billion in agriculture.[41] A major leak could ruin drinking water and devastate the mid-western U.S. economy.[42][36] After opposition for laying the pipeline in this area, TransCanada agreed to change the route and skip the Sand Hills.[34]

So my thread starter shows there really is a need to be concerned, these darn things do leak, and the industry is far from perfect about addressing the leaks.



Inspiration, move me brightly!
User currently offlinefr8mech From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 5418 posts, RR: 14
Reply 4, posted (2 years 1 month 2 weeks 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 2605 times:

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 2):
(and that's the consensus among economists, you know, those egg-head intellectuals who are actually experts on this stuff

You mean the guys that are constantly surprised by 'unexpected increases' in unemployment?

I have a minor in economics. I understand their models. Thank you.

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 2):
because it would be easier to export crude oil to refineries outside the U.S.

Wait. Hold on. Idea coming this way. Build more refineries here. Then the oil would tend to stay here because...wait for it...it would be more economical to keep the oil here.

The OP stated the Keystone debate was prudent because pipelines leak. Everything that can leak, will eventually leak. We deal with it and move on.

Keystone would have moved more crude into the US. Keystone would have provided thousands of jobs to union workers. Keystone would have helped us off the Saudi tit.

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 2):
Wikipedia

Wikipedia's value is when it deals in the non-political realm.



When seconds count...the police are minutes away.
User currently offlineRevelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 12541 posts, RR: 25
Reply 5, posted (2 years 1 month 2 weeks 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 2600 times:

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 4):
The OP stated the Keystone debate was prudent because pipelines leak. Everything that can leak, will eventually leak. We deal with it and move on.

My point was that the industry does NOT deal with it very well at all.



Inspiration, move me brightly!
User currently offlineAesma From France, joined Nov 2009, 6651 posts, RR: 11
Reply 6, posted (2 years 1 month 2 weeks 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 2592 times:

Quoting Revelation (Thread starter):
U.S. pipeline regulators fined it $3.7 million for the spill, their largest ever penalty.

Maybe the problem is that their "largest ever penalty" is ridiculously low, making it affordable to be fined regularly instead of actually trying to prevent the spills ?



New Technology is the name we give to stuff that doesn't work yet. Douglas Adams
User currently offlineDocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 19688 posts, RR: 58
Reply 7, posted (2 years 1 month 2 weeks 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 2539 times:

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 4):
Wait. Hold on. Idea coming this way. Build more refineries here. Then the oil would tend to stay here because...wait for it...it would be more economical to keep the oil here.

We already refine more gasoline than we need and we already export gasoline.

You are arguing that we should build more refining capacity here to lower gas prices? Now why would the private companies who build these refineries do that? Or are you suggesting the government do it?

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 4):
Keystone would have moved more crude into the US. Keystone would have provided thousands of jobs to union workers. Keystone would have helped us off the Saudi tit.

Keystone would move more crude OUT OF the U.S. The part that moves crude into the U.S. is already built. The remaining portion that Obama blocked is for moving it to ports for EXPORT. We shouldn't be EXPORTING crude oil.

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 4):
Wikipedia's value is when it deals in the non-political realm.

I'm terribly sorry that reality seems to have a liberal bias. I didn't invent reality. I just work with it.


User currently offlineQFA380 From Australia, joined Jul 2005, 2067 posts, RR: 1
Reply 8, posted (2 years 1 month 2 weeks 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 2527 times:

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 2):
It just seems to happen an awful lot.

There are 55000 miles of oil pipelines in the US. Millions of joints that can leak with billions of barrels of oil flowing through them. Leaks are going to happen however the pipeline industry also knows that it's in their interest to minimise these...

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 2):
consensus among economists, you know, those egg-head intellectuals who are actually experts on this stuff

Economists really have no idea what they're talking about... Economic models are nearly always useless other than for posturing.

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 7):
We shouldn't be EXPORTING crude oil.

Why not? The market will sell oil if they can get a higher price for it, and buy it if they can get it cheaply.

If it's cheaper for Californians to buy oil from the Russians than Canadians they should do that. If it's cheaper for Colombians to buy oil from Canada via Houston than from the Russians they should do that. The invisible hand is a beautiful thing, Californians and Colombians get cheaper oil and Canadians can still sell their oil for a good price.


User currently offlinerfields5421 From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 7607 posts, RR: 31
Reply 9, posted (2 years 1 month 2 weeks 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 2482 times:

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 2):
It just seems to happen an awful lot. You know, Deepwater Horizons, etc. It's one thing to talk about what proper design, construction, maintenance, and accountability will do. It's another thing to actually see it carried out.

It doesn't happen an awful lot. Given the number of miles of pipelines and the amount of oil, gas, etc. moved through them - accidents are rarer than many other industries. Deepwater Horizons had nothing to do with pipelines - whole different can of worms.

Now as far as design, construction, maintenance and accountability.

1,200 barrels in the leak from a line which carries 318,000 barrels per day means that the leak was identified quickly and the line shut down quickly. That is accountability. That size leak is on the order of losing less than 1 test tube of a person't blood.

Design is as good as the technology allows when the lines are built. The companies building pipelines want them to last for decades. The cost/ benefit for cheap design and poor maintenance is horrible.

The biggest problem with pipeline maintenance is the people who fight against the companies doing proper maintenance and replacement of sections. They don't want the environmental damage from digging up the pipeline and reconstruction. Or replacement of older pipeline sections with new ones.

The companies are damned if they do proper maintenance, and liable if they don't.

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 7):
We shouldn't be EXPORTING crude oil.

By "We" I assume you mean the United States. It would not be the US exporting crude oil. It would be a country named Canada. Just paying us a fee to transport and refine the oil.

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 2):
Keystone is about increasing oil company profits at the expense of Americans. It means that prices of gasoline in this country would go UP (and that's the consensus among economists, you know, those egg-head intellectuals who are actually experts on this stuff) because it would be easier to export crude oil to refineries outside the U.S. That's why even domestic oil refineries were opposing it.

Wrong. US refineries would get as much business as they can handle. The issue in the US isn't really getting enough oil for our refineries - but not having enough refinery capacity to substantially increase our production of products such as gasoline and diesel fuel.

It is easier to export crude to overseas refineries than to build refineries in countries where environmentalists block new construction.

That is why Canada - a major producer of oil - is actually a net importer of gasoline and diesel fuel - with retail prices higher than the US at the pump.

The Keystone pipeline is completed from Canada to Wood River and Patoka Il (on-line June 2010) and to Cushing Oklahoma (on-line Feb 2011) for the transport of synthetic crude oil, there are two extensions currently under construction or planning.

The link form Cushing to Port Arthur and Houston for synthetic crude will be completed before too long. No major issues there.

The fourth phase which is the current controversy is to bring diluted bitumen (a heavy oil soaked sand that must be heated to a few hundred degrees F to transport) to US facilities where it would be refined into synthetic crude, a large portion of which would likely be exported because its cost would be higher than the oil currently supplying US refineries.


User currently offlineseb146 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 11650 posts, RR: 15
Reply 10, posted (2 years 1 month 2 weeks 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 2450 times:

Quoting rfields5421 (Reply 9):
1,200 barrels in the leak from a line which carries 318,000 barrels per day means that the leak was identified quickly and the line shut down quickly.

And how much environmental damage did that cause? What about the 20,000 barrels that leaked into the Kalamazoo River or the Keystone pipeline that has leaks from the tar sands site and through the system? We should just ignore that?

Quoting rfields5421 (Reply 9):
but not having enough refinery capacity to substantially increase our production of products such as gasoline and diesel fuel.

So it can be shipped overseas. It is Canadian tar sands being sent to American refineries and then being sent to China, India, France, etc. I keep hearing about how it would increase our national security, but building more refineries to refine Canadian oil for export to anyone but the United States would be a target for terrorists. AND it would increase prices because refining companies need to cover the cost of the factories. That would be on our backs. Not the Canadians, not the Chinese, but us. Who already would give them HUGE tax breaks (read: corporate welfare) to build refineries here. And ignore environmental concerns as well.

Yeah... seems like a good deal to me.



Life in the wall is a drag.
User currently offlineDocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 19688 posts, RR: 58
Reply 11, posted (2 years 1 month 2 weeks 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 2441 times:

Quoting QFA380 (Reply 8):
Economists really have no idea what they're talking about...

Yup. Just intellectual eggheads. They're worthless... unless they agree with you.

Quoting rfields5421 (Reply 9):
Wrong. US refineries would get as much business as they can handle. The issue in the US isn't really getting enough oil for our refineries - but not having enough refinery capacity to substantially increase our production of products such as gasoline and diesel fuel.

Then why are we exporting gasoline? Because we have enough refinery capacity to make more gasoline than we need. We have plenty of refinery capacity and I guarantee you that the private companies that build those refineries aren't going to build more just to make their product cheaper.

So, no, I am not wrong. You are.


User currently offlineokie From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 3036 posts, RR: 3
Reply 12, posted (2 years 1 month 2 weeks 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 2425 times:

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 11):

Then why are we exporting gasoline? Because we have enough refinery capacity to make more gasoline than we need

It is so that the US can export finished product (value added) and keep the money in the US economy instead of sending our resources over seas.

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 11):
So, no, I am not wrong. You are.

You are correct if your "economic system" is that you should send all monies, value added and manufacturing to foreign countries draining the US of GDP and running a massive trade deficit importing food, energy and goods until you run out of money to support basic functions.

Okie


User currently offlineAesma From France, joined Nov 2009, 6651 posts, RR: 11
Reply 13, posted (2 years 1 month 2 weeks 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 2413 times:

Quoting QFA380 (Reply 8):
Economists really have no idea what they're talking about
Quoting QFA380 (Reply 8):
The invisible hand is a beautiful thing

The invisible hand being a biology theory or an economic one formulated by an economist, I'm not sure ?

Not that I agree with that theory anyway.



New Technology is the name we give to stuff that doesn't work yet. Douglas Adams
User currently offlinejohns624 From United States of America, joined Jul 2008, 923 posts, RR: 0
Reply 14, posted (2 years 1 month 2 weeks 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 2399 times:

Just think of the problems, accidents and spills we would have if all of that oil was shipped by truck or train...

User currently offlinerfields5421 From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 7607 posts, RR: 31
Reply 15, posted (2 years 1 month 2 weeks 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 2393 times:

Quoting seb146 (Reply 10):
And how much environmental damage did that cause?

About as much as all the diesel vehicles driving one hour in 108 degree heat in the Dallas area with legally no pollution controls at all (would be bad for business to make diesel vehicles comply with any air quality standards)

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 11):
So, no, I am not wrong. You are.

I disagree.


User currently offlineKen777 From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 8269 posts, RR: 8
Reply 16, posted (2 years 1 month 2 weeks 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 2391 times:

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 4):
Build more refineries here.

Refineries in the US are getting pretty old. It may well be time to build more. If a state bans them for ecological reasons then a neighboring state can build it and add on a 50¢ a gallon tax - and cutting taxes for state residents.

Quoting rfields5421 (Reply 9):
The fourth phase which is the current controversy is to bring diluted bitumen (a heavy oil soaked sand that must be heated to a few hundred degrees F to transport) to US facilities where it would be refined into synthetic crude, a large portion of which would likely be exported because its cost would be higher than the oil currently supplying US refineries.

I'm still trying to figure out why Canada doesn't do the processing within their borders. It seems logical that it would be cheaper that transmitting heated sand over that great a distance.

Quoting seb146 (Reply 10):
And how much environmental damage did that cause? What about the 20,000 barrels that leaked into the Kalamazoo River or the Keystone pipeline that has leaks from the tar sands site and through the system? We should just ignore that?

The issue should be one of delivering a financial punishment at a level that strongly motivates safety. Set a fine high enough that the execs don't get their annual bonus and safety is going to be increased significantly.


User currently offlinerfields5421 From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 7607 posts, RR: 31
Reply 17, posted (2 years 1 month 2 weeks 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 2358 times:

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 16):
I'm still trying to figure out why Canada doesn't do the processing within their borders. It seems logical that it would be cheaper that transmitting heated sand over that great a distance.

Their NIMBYs and environmental extremists are even worse than ours.

The really sad part is that eventually the tar sand or the semi-refined product is going to be shipped out in a pipeline.

The only questions is - Does the pipeline cross the central US, or the Rockies to the British Columbia coast?

From an environmental impact and possible future danger stand point - going over the Rockies is much more risky.

Although China is willing to fund the entire construction of the pipeline and the terminal. Which they want to build and operate - with exclusive rights to all the tar sands or oil that is shipped out of Canada via their pipeline.


User currently offlineokie From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 3036 posts, RR: 3
Reply 18, posted (2 years 1 month 2 weeks 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 2341 times:

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 16):
I'm still trying to figure out why Canada doesn't do the processing within their borders. It seems logical that it would be cheaper that transmitting heated sand over that great a distance.

A. It is not heated sands. They heat the sands to get the crude. It is heavy crude ie: long chain hydrocarbons generally referred to as asphaltic and sometimes bitumen.

B. There are two ways to make transportation viable whether pipeline, truck or train.
One is heat.
Two is dilution, which is why it is more economical to ship through the US where we have viable sources of lighter hydrocarbons to mix with the heavy crude to facilitate the shipment. Think markets for North Dakota and other northern tier states. The pipeline will be needed in any case to deal with the new oil finds in the north anyway.

C. China and Australia are in desperate need for long chain hydrocarbon oil (asphaltic). Think roads and roofs. Both countries produce oil but the oil is of the light end and there is little or no asphaltic compounds.

D. The only other country producing long chain hydrocarbons on a large scale is Venezuela. It has such a high sulfur content that it is almost unviable to utilize.

Okie


User currently offlineMrChips From Canada, joined Mar 2005, 932 posts, RR: 0
Reply 19, posted (2 years 1 month 2 weeks 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 2335 times:

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 16):

I'm still trying to figure out why Canada doesn't do the processing within their borders. It seems logical that it would be cheaper that transmitting heated sand over that great a distance.

There are many reasons why it isn't, but one of the biggest is our governments (both provincially and nationally) don't have the backbone to stand up to the oil companies (most of whom are American) and tell them they can't export bitumen. As a result, we sell our bitumen at a greatly reduced rate to world oil prices (which makes some sense), only to let the value be added (in refined products) outside our borders.

There is a growing movement within Canada to send the bitumen from Alberta to eastern Canada for processing and refining there. It's a no-brainer, really; eastern Canada will see a drop in energy prices, and the refineries and their spin-offs will create much-needed jobs. Building a pipeline there would be less complicated from a regulatory perspective; TransCanada already has several rights-of-way across the country for natural gas pipelines. As the cross-continent gas pipelines are seeing declining volumes, they could re-commission large sections of pipe to carry oil with a minimum of fuss, technically and legally.



Time...to un-pimp...ze auto!
User currently offlineokie From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 3036 posts, RR: 3
Reply 20, posted (2 years 1 month 2 weeks 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 2318 times:

Quoting MrChips (Reply 19):

There are many reasons why it isn't, but one of the biggest is our governments (both provincially and nationally) don't have the backbone to stand up to the oil companies (most of whom are American) and tell them they can't export bitumen. As a result, we sell our bitumen at a greatly reduced rate to world oil prices (which makes some sense), only to let the value be added (in refined products) outside our borders.

You are correct in many respects as far as Canada is concerned. It will just be a matter if Nimby's will let it happen.
You just have to remember that a business model will take the most economical path, if it looks like 20 yrs of litigation then the business will take another path. It really will be just a matter of whether Trumka who lists and brags his address as the Whitehouse will influence the present administration to get his union built pipeline. Once their is a viable alternative established that leaves the AFL-CIO out in the cold then the Pipeline will be approved in short order when it looks like the AFL-CIO is going to lose the jobs.
I do not have time to figure the quantities but it will not matter as far as a pipeline is concerned some where some how the lighter hydrocarbon compounds will have to be exported from the US to Canada to mix with the heavy hydrocarbons to make use of a pipeline to dilute and to move the long chain hydrocarbons.
In any case there will be a pipeline in the US it will just be a matter of what products will be flowing and which direction.

Okie


User currently offlineGEEZER From United States of America, joined Aug 2010, 1479 posts, RR: 2
Reply 21, posted (2 years 1 month 1 week 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 2069 times:

Quoting johns624 (Reply 14):

Just think of the problems, accidents and spills we would have if all of that oil was shipped by truck or train...


Having spent 10 or so years transporting petroleum products around the mid-west in tank trucks, I can assure you, there aren't enough tank trucks in the U.S. to transport all the product from just a few pipe lines !

And even if there were, there wouldn't be any room left on the Interstate Highways for cars !

One thing most seem not to realize on this thread is, about half of all those pipeline are transporting natural gas, and not liquid petroleum products; the gas lines are many times as potentially dangerous to people, should they fail; (and they most definitely DO fail occasionally ! ) I know.......I happen to live less than 10 miles from one that DID fail, about 3 or 4 years ago;

About 20 miles north of Interstate 70 in Indiana is U.S. Rt. 36, which runs east to west across the state; 4 miles north of Rt.36 there is a pipeline "corridor".........there are I believe, about 12 to 15 pipelines altogether in this corridor, a few are no longer in service, and the newest one, a 42 inch gas line, was just completed about 2 or 3 years ago. I think all are gas lines, but I'm not sure of that.

About 3 years ago, one of these gas lines developed a "pin hole leak" and blew up; a friend of mine, whose farm house was less than 1/2 a mile from the explosion was laying in his bed reading at the time, ( during the day) Dennis said he thought an atomic bomb had exploded; The pipelines are all buried something like 12 to 15 feet deep; the resulting crater was like 200 feet wide and 40 feet deep ! The gas going through these lines is at very high pressure.......something over 100 psi if I'm not mistaken; this happened about 10 to 12 straight line miles from my house.............and it sounded like a 2,000 lb. bomb had gone off next door ! Half of the people in Terre Haute heard it, and TH is probably 32 to 35 miles away.


My best advice is, if you live within 2 miles of a gas pipeline, MOVE ! (At least 10 miles farther away)

There are also a couple of smaller pipelines much closer to my house; one, which was just finished maybe 5 years ago, is less than 1/2 mile from my house, but fortunately it's for crude oil and not gas.

Now.............it seems that many on this thread have the idea that companies build these things, then just sit back and more or less "forget" about them; I can assure you, that couldn't be farther from the truth ! I receive mail 2 or 3 times a year from 2 or 3 different pipeline companies whose lines are in my immediate area; they all go to great lengths to advise people exactly where each line is at, and encourage land owners, farmers, hunters, etc. what to look for, and how tho contact them if you see anything like areas of dead vegetation, any sign of oil on the ground, a shrill "whistling" noise, etc. They also go into great detail to explain how they send highly instrumented "pigs" through these pipelines regularly, which use X rays, magnetic resonance, and other ultra hi-tech "means" to detect loss of thickness due to corrosion, and so on; in other words..........they are constantly spending millions of dollars attempting to find "problems" BEFORE they become disasters.

I have zero knowledge of the pipeline company everyone seems to be raving about, so I can't comment on them.

One "comment" I CAN comment on however.........


[quote=DocLightning,reply=2]It just seems to happen an awful lot. You know, Deepwater Horizons, etc. It's one thing to talk about what proper design, construction, maintenance, and accountability will do. It's another thing to actually see it carried out.

Deepwater Horizon...........

My best friend's son worked for several years on oil rigs in the Gulf of Mexico for Trans-Ocean; Trans-Ocean owns Deepwater Horizon, and had leased it to British Petroleum; My friends son still works for Trans-Ocean, but now on a platform off of the coast of Nigeria; ( how's Terre Haute, Indiana to Nigeria and back every 6 weeks sound for a "commute" ? )

Anyway, I've talked to the son a lot about what goes on in the Gulf of Mexico, relative to safety on oil rigs; I have also read extensively on the subject; the consensus of opinion among "those who know" is..........BP was practically ASKING for it to happen ! But that's just ONE company; Fortunately, most big oil companies don't "operate" like BP.

As for the proposed Keystone pipeline.............rest assured, it WILL be built; most likely, sooner than later; Once we have "leaders" who are "competent"; ( which I'm guessing will be quite soon. )

Incidentally, inasmuch as everyone is speculating about why Obama is so determined to stop this project, you should all read the report about Warren Buffet's railroad; ( Obummer's "good buddy ) (Very enlightening !)


Charley



Stupidity: Doing the same thing over and over and over again and expecting a different result; Albert Einstein
User currently offlineokie From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 3036 posts, RR: 3
Reply 22, posted (2 years 1 month 1 week 5 days ago) and read 2033 times:

Quoting GEEZER (Reply 21):
As for the proposed Keystone pipeline.............rest assured, it WILL be built; most likely, sooner than later; Once we have "leaders" who are "competent"; ( which I'm guessing will be quite soon. )

The latest which MrChips hit on it that CNOOC (that is the Chinese national oil company) is buying out Nexen the Canadian company which produces the oil.
So now which direction do you think the oil will go?
One gets the impression that the US and Canada both may have lost a lot of jobs and income.

Quoting GEEZER (Reply 21):
Anyway, I've talked to the son a lot about what goes on in the Gulf of Mexico, relative to safety on oil rigs; I have also read extensively on the subject; the consensus of opinion among "those who know" is..........BP was practically ASKING for it to happen ! But that's just ONE company; Fortunately, most big oil companies don't "operate" like BP.

I can not address the issue about "those who know" and the Macondo 252 probably should have a separate thread.
I will just address this issue to the point that the BP company man on the rig either failed to understand or did not have knowledge nor ask for engineering assistance or just ignored the information when the well failed multiple negative pressure tests over a 3 hour period that indicated a failed plug at the bottom of the well. Lets just say 2,300 psi and massive back flow is not 0 psi and massive flow back is not 4 or 5 barrels from bladder effect.

Okie


User currently offlineKen777 From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 8269 posts, RR: 8
Reply 23, posted (2 years 1 month 1 week 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 1979 times:

Quoting okie (Reply 22):
One gets the impression that the US and Canada both may have lost a lot of jobs and income.

Canada can "adjust" tax/royalties and use that new funding for other job producing investments.


User currently onlineStuckInCA From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 1961 posts, RR: 0
Reply 24, posted (2 years 1 month 1 week 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 1969 times:

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 4):
I have a minor in economics.

Oooohhh! Can you see Russia from your house too?  

Seriously though, you think Keystone would have been economically beneficial to Americans and that economists disagree... why? Because they like Obama?


25 okie : So you are saying that Canada can pick and choose which company to tax at a different rate than another in the same business? Sounds sort of strange
26 MrChips : As in the US, mineral royalties are not a federal issue; they're a provincial issue. Here in Alberta, our government is so hamstrung by the energy in
27 okie : Good to see you back MrChips for a little Canadian input. From here it looks like a balancing act between revenue generation and discouraging future i
28 GEEZER : Millions and millions of barrels of crude oil and millions and millions of cu.ft. of natural gas flowing through 50,000 miles of pipelines annually,
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Romney: "Devoid Of Charm, Offensive And A Wazzock" posted Fri Jul 27 2012 07:19:31 by Revelation
Too Many Websites Have Become Bloated And Slow? posted Tue Jul 24 2012 06:43:07 by Ps76
Why Honda And Nissan, Are Not In Nascar? posted Sun Jul 22 2012 05:23:05 by 747400sp
Denver Cinema Shooting 14 Dead And Upto 50 Injured posted Fri Jul 20 2012 02:50:33 by OA260
Green Eggs And Romney? posted Thu Jul 12 2012 21:55:51 by Revelation
Tonight Bear And Cubs Tried To Have A Snack Of Me posted Tue Jul 10 2012 23:13:24 by AR385
Romney, The GOP, And "Obamacare" posted Thu Jul 5 2012 16:19:30 by TecumsehSherman
July 2012 - Bus And Rail Transport Photo posted Mon Jul 2 2012 03:25:04 by glid4500
GOP Conspiracy Theories And Witch Hunts posted Thu Jun 21 2012 11:06:33 by Revelation
Vegetarians And Fish? posted Thu Jun 21 2012 04:15:13 by flipdewaf