|
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. |
CALGARY – Nebraska’s Public Service Commission has approved TransCanada’s Keystone XL route in a 3 to 2 vote, clearing the last major regulatory hurdle for the controversial $10 billion project.
The panel’s approval came with a tight margin of victory for the pipeline, which would transport about 830,000 barrels of oil a day from Hardisty, Alta. to Steele City, Neb.
The vote comes as TransCanada continues to clean up a 5,000-barrel oil spill from its pipeline in nearby South Dakota that opponents have pointed to as reason not to approve Keystone XL.
Among other concerns, opponents of the 1,897-kilometre Keystone XL project say the pipeline would pass through the Sandhills, an ecologically fragile region in Nebraska of grass-covered sand dunes, and would cross the land of farmers and ranchers who don’t want it.
The commission, however, was specifically prohibited from evaluating safety considerations, including risk or impact of a spill, and will instead rule on issues including regulatory compliance, economic and social impacts of the project, the potential intrusion on natural resources, and whether better routes exist.
Barack Obama rejected Keystone XL in 2015 after years of review, only for President Donald Trump to give the go-ahead to the project in March, saying the pipeline will bring jobs and reduce dependence on foreign oil.
source
So Nebraska just voted to approve the Keystone pipeline, which just had a 210,000 gallon leak. Bolded is of particular interest.
|
State legislators also like to let lottery money sit in appropriations long enough for it to be added to the general revenue fund where it can be used for anything.
|
On November 21 2017 02:07 NewSunshine wrote:Show nested quote +CALGARY – Nebraska’s Public Service Commission has approved TransCanada’s Keystone XL route in a 3 to 2 vote, clearing the last major regulatory hurdle for the controversial $10 billion project.
The panel’s approval came with a tight margin of victory for the pipeline, which would transport about 830,000 barrels of oil a day from Hardisty, Alta. to Steele City, Neb.
The vote comes as TransCanada continues to clean up a 5,000-barrel oil spill from its pipeline in nearby South Dakota that opponents have pointed to as reason not to approve Keystone XL.
Among other concerns, opponents of the 1,897-kilometre Keystone XL project say the pipeline would pass through the Sandhills, an ecologically fragile region in Nebraska of grass-covered sand dunes, and would cross the land of farmers and ranchers who don’t want it.
The commission, however, was specifically prohibited from evaluating safety considerations, including risk or impact of a spill, and will instead rule on issues including regulatory compliance, economic and social impacts of the project, the potential intrusion on natural resources, and whether better routes exist.
Barack Obama rejected Keystone XL in 2015 after years of review, only for President Donald Trump to give the go-ahead to the project in March, saying the pipeline will bring jobs and reduce dependence on foreign oil. sourceSo Nebraska just voted to approve the Keystone pipeline, which just had a 210,000 gallon leak. Bolded is of particular interest.
How the fuck can you judge the project if your not allowed to evaluate the very real risks that have already happened...
(also why the f are US pipes to leaky, I assume no one bothers with inspection and maintenance?)
|
On November 21 2017 02:07 NewSunshine wrote:Show nested quote +CALGARY – Nebraska’s Public Service Commission has approved TransCanada’s Keystone XL route in a 3 to 2 vote, clearing the last major regulatory hurdle for the controversial $10 billion project.
The panel’s approval came with a tight margin of victory for the pipeline, which would transport about 830,000 barrels of oil a day from Hardisty, Alta. to Steele City, Neb.
The vote comes as TransCanada continues to clean up a 5,000-barrel oil spill from its pipeline in nearby South Dakota that opponents have pointed to as reason not to approve Keystone XL.
Among other concerns, opponents of the 1,897-kilometre Keystone XL project say the pipeline would pass through the Sandhills, an ecologically fragile region in Nebraska of grass-covered sand dunes, and would cross the land of farmers and ranchers who don’t want it.
The commission, however, was specifically prohibited from evaluating safety considerations, including risk or impact of a spill, and will instead rule on issues including regulatory compliance, economic and social impacts of the project, the potential intrusion on natural resources, and whether better routes exist.
Barack Obama rejected Keystone XL in 2015 after years of review, only for President Donald Trump to give the go-ahead to the project in March, saying the pipeline will bring jobs and reduce dependence on foreign oil. sourceSo Nebraska just voted to approve the Keystone pipeline, which just had a 210,000 gallon leak. Bolded is of particular interest.
The Keystone Pipeline had the spill. The one that was controversial recently was the Keystone XL, which is supposed to replace it afaik.
|
On November 21 2017 00:40 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On November 20 2017 12:42 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On November 20 2017 10:56 LegalLord wrote:
If anything, the Nate Silver versus the world situation shows either a widespread statistical illiteracy, a tendency for doctoring data toward a desired result for political ends, or perhaps both. The fact that Nate was criticized for not being strongly enough in favor of saying that Hillary will win it suggests at least one of those options. I agree with the bold part because of how people interpreted Trump's victory as a refutation of the reliability of statistics despite it being a single trial. It's unfortunate that most people don't understand basic statistics and probability, and think Nate Silver is an idiot. Ironically, I'm sure some of these people play the lottery. It's not wrong to play the lottery in a vacuum. It's wrong in terms of maths only but you can have a process where you just view impact: you spend a sum that isn't going to impact your life in any way with the hope of obtaining something that will definitely change your life, knowing full well that it's extremely unlikely to happen.
On November 21 2017 00:56 Liquid`Drone wrote:Show nested quote +On November 21 2017 00:43 KwarK wrote:On November 21 2017 00:40 Nebuchad wrote:On November 20 2017 12:42 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On November 20 2017 10:56 LegalLord wrote:
If anything, the Nate Silver versus the world situation shows either a widespread statistical illiteracy, a tendency for doctoring data toward a desired result for political ends, or perhaps both. The fact that Nate was criticized for not being strongly enough in favor of saying that Hillary will win it suggests at least one of those options. I agree with the bold part because of how people interpreted Trump's victory as a refutation of the reliability of statistics despite it being a single trial. It's unfortunate that most people don't understand basic statistics and probability, and think Nate Silver is an idiot. Ironically, I'm sure some of these people play the lottery. It's not wrong to play the lottery in a vacuum. It's wrong in terms of maths only but you can have a process where you just view impact: you spend a sum that isn't going to impact your life in any way with the hope of obtaining something that will definitely change your life, knowing full well that it's extremely unlikely to happen. Let's do reverse lottery: every week I pay you $10, but there's an absurdly small chance that at some point you may have to pay me 1.5 million or whatever if you get extremely unlucky. Maths say you should take that deal. Would you? Yes, and I'd insure against it. What if you couldn't insure against it? I'm with nebuchad, playing the lottery makes sense even if it's dumb mathematically, as long as the money you spend is insignificant to you. Even the dream of winning, which you only have if you play, might have some value.
The problem is that that's not what often happens with lotteries; it's not negligible money:
"But it’s the poor who are really losing. The poorest third of households buy half of all lotto tickets, according to a Duke University study in the 1980s, in part because lotteries are advertised most aggressively in poorer neighborhoods. A North Carolina report from NC Policy Watch found that the people living in the poorest counties buy the most tickets. "Out of the 20 counties with poverty rates higher than 20 percent, 18 had lottery sales topping the statewide average of $200 per adult," the North Carolina Justice Center reported." https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2015/05/lotteries-americas-70-billion-shame/392870/
70 billion dollars are spent on the United States lotteries every year, which is more than Americans spend on sports tickets + books + video games + movies + music. And yes, that's combined. Some states have residents who spend, on average 500, 600, 700, or even 800 dollars per person. That's not negligible, especially when many of those people are explicitly impoverished and can't afford it. And many of those people are playing the lottery because they seriously think that they have a chance of winning, which means that they are unable to budget their own finances and are in serious need of a statistics and probability class. So yeah, I get the whole "hopes and dreams add value/ it's fun to play" idea a middle class family who doesn't mind throwing away cash from time to time because it'd be a cool "what if" scenario, but it's a serious sinkhole of cash for our country and plenty of lottery players shouldn't be playing the lottery, especially if they're going to make a mathematical argument rather than the "well you can't win if you don't play/ it's nice to dream" statement.
That being said, as long as a significant percentage of lotteries go towards state funding, that's cool with me. I'd rather have other people throw away their money than raise taxes on the rest of us. Lotteries are basically a tax on people who are bad at math or who prefer to take breaks from reality.
|
I have no problem with the notion that some people play the lottery with sums that aren't insignificant to them and that they're wrong to do so. It isn't a notion that contradicts my initial objection.
|
On November 21 2017 02:07 NewSunshine wrote:Show nested quote +CALGARY – Nebraska’s Public Service Commission has approved TransCanada’s Keystone XL route in a 3 to 2 vote, clearing the last major regulatory hurdle for the controversial $10 billion project.
The panel’s approval came with a tight margin of victory for the pipeline, which would transport about 830,000 barrels of oil a day from Hardisty, Alta. to Steele City, Neb.
The vote comes as TransCanada continues to clean up a 5,000-barrel oil spill from its pipeline in nearby South Dakota that opponents have pointed to as reason not to approve Keystone XL.
Among other concerns, opponents of the 1,897-kilometre Keystone XL project say the pipeline would pass through the Sandhills, an ecologically fragile region in Nebraska of grass-covered sand dunes, and would cross the land of farmers and ranchers who don’t want it.
The commission, however, was specifically prohibited from evaluating safety considerations, including risk or impact of a spill, and will instead rule on issues including regulatory compliance, economic and social impacts of the project, the potential intrusion on natural resources, and whether better routes exist.
Barack Obama rejected Keystone XL in 2015 after years of review, only for President Donald Trump to give the go-ahead to the project in March, saying the pipeline will bring jobs and reduce dependence on foreign oil. sourceSo Nebraska just voted to approve the Keystone pipeline, which just had a 210,000 gallon leak. Bolded is of particular interest.
devil's advocate (also to cover questions I have myself):
was there some other commission that was charged with looking at the safety issues?
how big is a 210k leak actually? just cuz it sounds big doesn't mean it truly is in a larger sense.
and how would that compare to other transit methods considering the amount of oil moved?
just because there is a leak, doesn't mean there's a better option. there's no option that is perfectly safe; every system has accidents and problems.
PS my vague recollection is that I supported the new Keystone pipeline last time I looked at the issue.
|
On November 21 2017 03:05 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On November 21 2017 02:07 NewSunshine wrote:CALGARY – Nebraska’s Public Service Commission has approved TransCanada’s Keystone XL route in a 3 to 2 vote, clearing the last major regulatory hurdle for the controversial $10 billion project.
The panel’s approval came with a tight margin of victory for the pipeline, which would transport about 830,000 barrels of oil a day from Hardisty, Alta. to Steele City, Neb.
The vote comes as TransCanada continues to clean up a 5,000-barrel oil spill from its pipeline in nearby South Dakota that opponents have pointed to as reason not to approve Keystone XL.
Among other concerns, opponents of the 1,897-kilometre Keystone XL project say the pipeline would pass through the Sandhills, an ecologically fragile region in Nebraska of grass-covered sand dunes, and would cross the land of farmers and ranchers who don’t want it.
The commission, however, was specifically prohibited from evaluating safety considerations, including risk or impact of a spill, and will instead rule on issues including regulatory compliance, economic and social impacts of the project, the potential intrusion on natural resources, and whether better routes exist.
Barack Obama rejected Keystone XL in 2015 after years of review, only for President Donald Trump to give the go-ahead to the project in March, saying the pipeline will bring jobs and reduce dependence on foreign oil. sourceSo Nebraska just voted to approve the Keystone pipeline, which just had a 210,000 gallon leak. Bolded is of particular interest. devil's advocate (also to cover questions I have myself): was there some other commission that was charged with looking at the safety issues? how big is a 210k leak actually? just cuz it sounds big doesn't mean it truly is in a larger sense. and how would that compare to other transit methods considering the amount of oil moved? just because there is a leak, doesn't mean there's a better option. there's no option that is perfectly safe; every system has accidents and problems. PS my vague recollection is that I supported the new Keystone pipeline last time I looked at the issue.
10-20 fuel tankers worth of fuel according to wikipedia.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tank_truck
It's a fairly sizable amount of fuel.
I do support the pipeline in general, although I'd approve of larger penalties for spillage, in addition to a complete cleanup costs compensation framework - Not sure if there is one in place.
|
I have no problems with pipelines in general and they should be a safer way to transport oil. But I do see the problem that they are also more prone to spills due to neglect. Unlike tankers, which are operated by and along side humans, the pipe lines are in remote areas across several states. Without rigorous oversight, I can't see the pipelines being a safer way to transport oil.
|
On November 21 2017 03:22 Plansix wrote:
I have no problems with pipelines in general and they should be a safer way to transport oil. But I do see the problem that they are also more prone to spills due to neglect. Unlike tankers, which are operated by and along side humans, the pipe lines are in remote areas across several states. Without rigorous oversight, I can't see the pipelines being a safer way to transport oil.
safer for whom/what?
for the environment? for the people?
is the oversigth rigorous or not? do you have any idea?
|
On November 21 2017 02:22 Gahlo wrote:Show nested quote +On November 21 2017 02:07 NewSunshine wrote:CALGARY – Nebraska’s Public Service Commission has approved TransCanada’s Keystone XL route in a 3 to 2 vote, clearing the last major regulatory hurdle for the controversial $10 billion project.
The panel’s approval came with a tight margin of victory for the pipeline, which would transport about 830,000 barrels of oil a day from Hardisty, Alta. to Steele City, Neb.
The vote comes as TransCanada continues to clean up a 5,000-barrel oil spill from its pipeline in nearby South Dakota that opponents have pointed to as reason not to approve Keystone XL.
Among other concerns, opponents of the 1,897-kilometre Keystone XL project say the pipeline would pass through the Sandhills, an ecologically fragile region in Nebraska of grass-covered sand dunes, and would cross the land of farmers and ranchers who don’t want it.
The commission, however, was specifically prohibited from evaluating safety considerations, including risk or impact of a spill, and will instead rule on issues including regulatory compliance, economic and social impacts of the project, the potential intrusion on natural resources, and whether better routes exist.
Barack Obama rejected Keystone XL in 2015 after years of review, only for President Donald Trump to give the go-ahead to the project in March, saying the pipeline will bring jobs and reduce dependence on foreign oil. sourceSo Nebraska just voted to approve the Keystone pipeline, which just had a 210,000 gallon leak. Bolded is of particular interest. The Keystone Pipeline had the spill. The one that was controversial recently was the Keystone XL, which is supposed to replace it afaik.
That changes my assessment of it slightly, but not much. As P6 points out, oversight and maintenance are the 2 biggest problems with a pipeline delivery system, so ignoring and deliberately stamping out assessments of safety and risk in the new line does not bode well.
|
CNN)President Donald Trump, in the latest demonstration of increased tensions on the Korean Peninsula, placed North Korea back on the list of state sponsors of terrorism.
Trump announced the move Monday during a public meeting with his Cabinet at the White House and said the Treasury Department will announce new sanctions against North Korea on Tuesday.
"Today the United States is designating the North Korea as a state sponsor of terrorism. Should have happened a long time ago. Should have happened years ago," Trump said.
North Korea was removed from the list by President George W. Bush in 2008.
edition.cnn.com
|
|
|
On November 21 2017 03:35 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On November 21 2017 03:22 Plansix wrote:
I have no problems with pipelines in general and they should be a safer way to transport oil. But I do see the problem that they are also more prone to spills due to neglect. Unlike tankers, which are operated by and along side humans, the pipe lines are in remote areas across several states. Without rigorous oversight, I can't see the pipelines being a safer way to transport oil. safer for whom/what? for the environment? for the people? is the oversigth rigorous or not? do you have any idea?
Taking trucks off the road is almost certainly a net public safety positive.
|
The numbers might not be entirely accurate but should constitute a soild approximation.
1 mL of oil spoils 600+ L of potable water (i.e. renders it unusable without treatment for at least human use and will probably fuck up next to all small aquatic lifeforms).
Oil is toxic for life, although the degree of toxicity depends on what kind of oil it actually is (heavy to light for example).
What else? It render soil unusable unless treated. The toxic parts of oil - e.g btex - adhere to the organic matter (due to being highly hydrophobic) and can leach out of the soil for years and years and years.
Every plant that grows on soiled lands will incorporate oil components. Some more, some less. Can you eat or feed them? No, generally not. Oh and the treatment consists of taking out the soil and washing it in a dedicated plant, destroying everything in it.
Lechate. Unless its a region where the rainwater wont ever be enough to drain to the aquifer, you'll have groundwater contamination along the flow direction due to the spill.
Oil is toxic to aquatic organisms, toxic on skin. Toxic to the climate when burned (unless sourced renewably).
If the oilspill happened in a remote area, it might have zero effect on the population and direct its destructive force soley against nature. And knowing the current US governments stance on conservation (if it aint trophies from afar), as well as the oil companies', a hint: they don't give a shit about it, the mess will possibly never be cleaned up without public outrage.
Further information about toxicity of light oil, click here
|
On November 21 2017 02:59 Nebuchad wrote:
I have no problem with the notion that some people play the lottery with sums that aren't insignificant to them and that they're wrong to do so. It isn't a notion that contradicts my initial objection.
The people for whom the cost of the lottery is *actually* insignificant don't play the lottery. You have to be exceedingly wealthy for $500 a year to represent effectively no marginal utility. Even people for whom that represents 1/1000th of their yearly income could probably think of a lot of practically useful things that they would do with an extra $500 a year.
What's more common is that people *perceive* the cost of the lottery to be insignificant when it isn't because they are poor/inefficient at evaluating their own personal finances and the relative value of small sums of money. A lot of these people would probably respond differently to the lottery if it was framed as "$500 a year" and not "$10 a week".
|
On November 21 2017 04:40 TheYango wrote:Show nested quote +On November 21 2017 02:59 Nebuchad wrote:
I have no problem with the notion that some people play the lottery with sums that aren't insignificant to them and that they're wrong to do so. It isn't a notion that contradicts my initial objection. The people for whom the cost of the lottery is *actually* insignificant don't play the lottery. You have to be exceedingly wealthy for $500 a year to represent effectively no marginal utility. Even people for whom that represents 1/1000th of their yearly income could probably think of a lot of practically useful things that they would do with an extra $500 a year. What's more common is that people *perceive* the cost of the lottery to be insignificant when it isn't because they are poor/inefficient at evaluating their own personal finances and the relative value of small sums of money. A lot of these people would probably respond differently to the lottery if it was framed as "$500 a year" and not "$10 a week".
Exactly. The root problem is the financial illiteracy of too many Americans. Let's just put the lotto aside for a moment. These are the same people that don't hesitate to drop $5 for a frappucino from Starbucks instead of brewing their own coffee at home. And don't even get me started on the vacations that they take or the money that they blow on other frivolous shit. The worst part is that these poor financial habits carry on from generation to generation. We're two or three generations into an expanding class of financial invalids who have no concept of how to properly manage money. Fuck music and arts classes in high school. We need to start teaching our kids what a credit score is and why it's important.
|
United States43611 Posts
On November 21 2017 05:13 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On November 21 2017 04:40 TheYango wrote:On November 21 2017 02:59 Nebuchad wrote:
I have no problem with the notion that some people play the lottery with sums that aren't insignificant to them and that they're wrong to do so. It isn't a notion that contradicts my initial objection. The people for whom the cost of the lottery is *actually* insignificant don't play the lottery. You have to be exceedingly wealthy for $500 a year to represent effectively no marginal utility. Even people for whom that represents 1/1000th of their yearly income could probably think of a lot of practically useful things that they would do with an extra $500 a year. What's more common is that people *perceive* the cost of the lottery to be insignificant when it isn't because they are poor/inefficient at evaluating their own personal finances and the relative value of small sums of money. A lot of these people would probably respond differently to the lottery if it was framed as "$500 a year" and not "$10 a week". Exactly. The root problem is the financial illiteracy of too many Americans. Let's just put the lotto aside for a moment. These are the same people that don't hesitate to drop $5 for a frappucino from Starbucks instead of brewing their own coffee at home. And don't even get me started on the vacations that they take or the money that they blow on other frivolous shit. The worst part is that these poor financial habits carry on from generation to generation. We're two or three generations into an expanding class of financial invalids who have no concept of how to properly manage money. Fuck music and arts classes in high school. We need to start teaching our kids what a credit score is and why it's important.
You think that three generations ago people knew how to manage their money better? They just had less money, and less access to credit. They weren't any smarter.
Furthermore there is no way school wins in a fight between school and the overall culture of consumerism. Put them in a finance classroom for an hour a week and American society for the rest of the time and you're not going to teach them anything.
|
On November 21 2017 05:13 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On November 21 2017 04:40 TheYango wrote:On November 21 2017 02:59 Nebuchad wrote:
I have no problem with the notion that some people play the lottery with sums that aren't insignificant to them and that they're wrong to do so. It isn't a notion that contradicts my initial objection. The people for whom the cost of the lottery is *actually* insignificant don't play the lottery. You have to be exceedingly wealthy for $500 a year to represent effectively no marginal utility. Even people for whom that represents 1/1000th of their yearly income could probably think of a lot of practically useful things that they would do with an extra $500 a year. What's more common is that people *perceive* the cost of the lottery to be insignificant when it isn't because they are poor/inefficient at evaluating their own personal finances and the relative value of small sums of money. A lot of these people would probably respond differently to the lottery if it was framed as "$500 a year" and not "$10 a week". Exactly. The root problem is the financial illiteracy of too many Americans. Let's just put the lotto aside for a moment. These are the same people that don't hesitate to drop $5 for a frappucino from Starbucks instead of brewing their own coffee at home. And don't even get me started on the vacations that they take or the money that they blow on other frivolous shit. The worst part is that these poor financial habits carry on from generation to generation. We're two or three generations into an expanding class of financial invalids who have no concept of how to properly manage money. Fuck music and arts classes in high school. We need to start teaching our kids what a credit score is and why it's important.
Why don't we fuck science classes instead?
|
On November 21 2017 04:40 TheYango wrote:Show nested quote +On November 21 2017 02:59 Nebuchad wrote:
I have no problem with the notion that some people play the lottery with sums that aren't insignificant to them and that they're wrong to do so. It isn't a notion that contradicts my initial objection. The people for whom the cost of the lottery is *actually* insignificant don't play the lottery. You have to be exceedingly wealthy for $500 a year to represent effectively no marginal utility. Even people for whom that represents 1/1000th of their yearly income could probably think of a lot of practically useful things that they would do with an extra $500 a year. What's more common is that people *perceive* the cost of the lottery to be insignificant when it isn't because they are poor/inefficient at evaluating their own personal finances and the relative value of small sums of money. A lot of these people would probably respond differently to the lottery if it was framed as "$500 a year" and not "$10 a week".
Alright then switch from insignificant to life-changing. I think you get the idea that's behind it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
