|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
you acknowledge the theoretical possibility, but you'd never actually admit that it applied to some concrete situation
as long as there's costs to be externalized, you'll be damned if you aint gonna externalize em
also it's hilarious that you think the pipeline is opposed by special interests, but clearly the people pushing it are not special interests, nossir, no powerful special interests in the energy sector. Idiot
|
On December 29 2013 05:55 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On December 29 2013 04:13 hypercube wrote:On December 29 2013 03:54 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On December 29 2013 03:50 hypercube wrote:On December 29 2013 03:41 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On December 29 2013 03:08 hypercube wrote:On December 29 2013 01:04 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Oil Company Looks To Great Lakes As Shipping Demand Booms
North Dakota and western Canada are producing crude oil faster than it can be shipped to refineries.
Rail car manufacturers can't make new tank cars fast enough, and new pipeline proposals face long delays over environmental concerns. So energy companies are looking for new ways to get the heavy crude to market.
One proposed solution is to ship the oil by barge over the Great Lakes — but it's a controversial one.
Crews are working around the clock in North Dakota, where there's a lot of oil under the Bakken Shale formation, and in the Alberta tar sands area in western Canada, where there's tens of billions of gallons more. ...
Shipping the oil by barge brings potential economic benefits and jobs. But there are special risks with heavy crude, says Lyman Welch, water quality program director of the conservation group Alliance for the Great Lakes.
"A spill in the open waters of Lake Superior would be very difficult if not impossible to clean up," Welch says. "Tar sands crude oil is heavier than water, so much of it sinks to the bottom of a river or lake water body if there is a spill." ... LinkSeems riskier than a certain pipeline... Sounds like an argument for banning the current practice, not for building the pipeline. Shipping by tanker is being proposed as an alternative to pipelines. So if we ban both, what's the new alternative? You don't need to ban tankers just force them to take out insurance up to the possible damage an accident would cause. Why not just have the pipeline do that? I don't know, I was under the impression that most of the damage from a pipeline is 'guaranteed'. E.g loss of habitat during the construction phase. If that kind of damage can be estimated and someone is willing to pay for it, sure build the pipeline. But ultimately it's up to the local governments to set the price (with active consent from their voters). If that price is too high, that just means that project isn't economically viable. If none of the options work, then the product costs more to produce than it's worth and the logical solution is to stop producing it. Those are fine concerns but is that the issue here? The opposition to the keystone pipeline comes from national special interest groups who have extra lobbying power due to the pipeline crossing the US boarder.
My understanding was that most of the opposition was environmental, but I don't know enough about the issue to care to debate it.
|
On December 29 2013 06:05 hypercube wrote:Show nested quote +On December 29 2013 05:55 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On December 29 2013 04:13 hypercube wrote:On December 29 2013 03:54 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On December 29 2013 03:50 hypercube wrote:On December 29 2013 03:41 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On December 29 2013 03:08 hypercube wrote:On December 29 2013 01:04 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Oil Company Looks To Great Lakes As Shipping Demand Booms
North Dakota and western Canada are producing crude oil faster than it can be shipped to refineries.
Rail car manufacturers can't make new tank cars fast enough, and new pipeline proposals face long delays over environmental concerns. So energy companies are looking for new ways to get the heavy crude to market.
One proposed solution is to ship the oil by barge over the Great Lakes — but it's a controversial one.
Crews are working around the clock in North Dakota, where there's a lot of oil under the Bakken Shale formation, and in the Alberta tar sands area in western Canada, where there's tens of billions of gallons more. ...
Shipping the oil by barge brings potential economic benefits and jobs. But there are special risks with heavy crude, says Lyman Welch, water quality program director of the conservation group Alliance for the Great Lakes.
"A spill in the open waters of Lake Superior would be very difficult if not impossible to clean up," Welch says. "Tar sands crude oil is heavier than water, so much of it sinks to the bottom of a river or lake water body if there is a spill." ... LinkSeems riskier than a certain pipeline... Sounds like an argument for banning the current practice, not for building the pipeline. Shipping by tanker is being proposed as an alternative to pipelines. So if we ban both, what's the new alternative? You don't need to ban tankers just force them to take out insurance up to the possible damage an accident would cause. Why not just have the pipeline do that? I don't know, I was under the impression that most of the damage from a pipeline is 'guaranteed'. E.g loss of habitat during the construction phase. If that kind of damage can be estimated and someone is willing to pay for it, sure build the pipeline. But ultimately it's up to the local governments to set the price (with active consent from their voters). If that price is too high, that just means that project isn't economically viable. If none of the options work, then the product costs more to produce than it's worth and the logical solution is to stop producing it. Those are fine concerns but is that the issue here? The opposition to the keystone pipeline comes from national special interest groups who have extra lobbying power due to the pipeline crossing the US boarder. My understanding was that most of the opposition was environmental, but I don't know enough about the issue to care to debate it. It's mainly opposition to tar sand / fracking production. Opposition to the pipeline is being used as a proxy.
|
On December 29 2013 06:04 sam!zdat wrote: you acknowledge the theoretical possibility, but you'd never actually admit that it applied to some concrete situation
as long as there's costs to be externalized, you'll be damned if you aint gonna externalize em
also it's hilarious that you think the pipeline is opposed by special interests, but clearly the people pushing it are not special interests, nossir, no powerful special interests in the energy sector. Idiot Opposing the pipeline will not stop the production. Instead it's pushing the production to use riskier transportation methods. So, congratulations for doing only harm.
|
On December 29 2013 06:15 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On December 29 2013 06:04 sam!zdat wrote: you acknowledge the theoretical possibility, but you'd never actually admit that it applied to some concrete situation
as long as there's costs to be externalized, you'll be damned if you aint gonna externalize em
also it's hilarious that you think the pipeline is opposed by special interests, but clearly the people pushing it are not special interests, nossir, no powerful special interests in the energy sector. Idiot Opposing the pipeline will not stop the production. Instead it's pushing the production to use riskier transportation methods. So, congratulations for doing only harm. That's nonsense, transportation and refinery access are an integral cost concern when it comes to tar sand production budgetary analysis. They most certainly have a dramatic impact on production scale decisions.
|
no no jonny you don't get the drug war argument here
it's precisely the idea that the production is inevitable that we oppose, because that is game over for global climatic disruption. Which I know you don't care about the future of the planet, but that's why I hate your idiot guts
|
hey guys, if you oppose the pipeline, we are gonna use even more dangerous transportation methods. hey guys, if you oppose factory farming, we are gonna use even more cruel methods.
what kind of argumentation is this?
|
On December 29 2013 06:22 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On December 29 2013 06:15 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On December 29 2013 06:04 sam!zdat wrote: you acknowledge the theoretical possibility, but you'd never actually admit that it applied to some concrete situation
as long as there's costs to be externalized, you'll be damned if you aint gonna externalize em
also it's hilarious that you think the pipeline is opposed by special interests, but clearly the people pushing it are not special interests, nossir, no powerful special interests in the energy sector. Idiot Opposing the pipeline will not stop the production. Instead it's pushing the production to use riskier transportation methods. So, congratulations for doing only harm. That's nonsense, transportation and refinery access are an integral cost concern when it comes to tar sand production budgetary analysis. They most certainly have a dramatic impact on production scale decisions. Hasn't had a dramatic impact yet. Oil is expensive, a couple extra bucks per barrel isn't a tipping point.
On December 29 2013 06:24 sam!zdat wrote: no no jonny you don't get the drug war argument here
it's precisely the idea that the production is inevitable that we oppose, because that is game over for global climatic disruption. Which I know you don't care about the future of the planet, but that's why I hate your idiot guts And this is why I hate your idiot guts. Using the pipeline as a proxy for tar sand / fracking opposition is at best ineffective, and at worst counter productive. Why don't you care about that? Ignorance? Indifference?
|
On December 29 2013 06:24 Paljas wrote: hey guys, if you oppose the pipeline, we are gonna use even more dangerous transportation methods. hey guys, if you oppose factory farming, we are gonna use even more cruel methods.
what kind of argumentation is this?
It's called argument by blackmail. Maybe samizdat knows the latin expression.
|
If it hasn't had a dramatic impact yet, then why are oil interests slobbering all over themselves via pushing the pipeline? This "oh they are going to use riskier methods, better give in" is nothing more than a ploy.
|
On December 29 2013 06:43 farvacola wrote: If it hasn't had a dramatic impact yet, then why are oil interests slobbering all over themselves via pushing the pipeline? This "oh they are going to use riskier methods, better give in" is nothing more than a ploy. They want the pipeline because it's a cheap and stable transportation method. If they don't build it through the US to Cushing they're considering building it to the west coast of Canada and exporting to Asia.
|
the tar sands are a bad idea. The pipeline is a bad idea. Shipping across the lake is a bad idea. You know what's a good idea? Ecology and renewable energy. Smash the false idols of consumption and the false god of limitless growth without consequences. In other words, go to hell bourgeois scum
|
On December 29 2013 06:52 sam!zdat wrote: the tar sands are a bad idea. The pipeline is a bad idea. Shipping across the lake is a bad idea. You know what's a good idea? Ecology and renewable energy. Smash the false idols of consumption and the false god of limitless growth without consequences. In other words, go to hell bourgeois scum So impose worse economic conditions so you don't feel so guilty.
Life's not just about you, sam.
|
about ME? About ME??
god you are an insufferable twat
|
On December 29 2013 06:24 Paljas wrote: hey guys, if you oppose the pipeline, we are gonna use even more dangerous transportation methods. hey guys, if you oppose factory farming, we are gonna use even more cruel methods.
what kind of argumentation is this? it's the argument from conservative bullies; don't change anything, or else we'll make things worse!
|
life's isnt just about the oil lobby either or about good economic conditions for that matter
|
On December 29 2013 07:01 sam!zdat wrote: about ME? About ME??
god you are an insufferable twat
Chances are very high you are not typing this on some kind of fair trade computer, so It's hypocritical to complain about the "god of growth" and corporate America while typing that on the internet using hardware that is build out of resources that are sold by some African warlord.
If you're not living in the woods without any kind of technology or product of modern civilisation you're basically just another profiteer of the system, so it's a little ridiculous to always complain about the "bourgeois scum" while being an integral part of what makes the system work in the first place.
|
On December 29 2013 06:52 sam!zdat wrote: the tar sands are a bad idea. The pipeline is a bad idea. Shipping across the lake is a bad idea. You know what's a good idea? Ecology and renewable energy. Smash the false idols of consumption and the false god of limitless growth without consequences. In other words, go to hell bourgeois scum The former is just an excuse to get to the latter. I like wallowing in "excess," thank you very much. I don't want to be relegated to drinking scotch that isn't old enough for me to sleep with.
|
On December 29 2013 07:20 Paljas wrote: life's isnt just about the oil lobby either or about good economic conditions for that matter Lol, of course. Don't be silly.
|
The problem I have with it is that we all know that the oil is going to be drilled out and transported and burned somewhere. Even the people who are fighting it for some reason are doing it with the knowledge that they will fail and the oils going though anyway. The enviorment is going to get worse and there isn't anything we can do about it. The only thing we can do now is minimize the damage until the technology comes around to solve the problem.
|
|
|
|