How about some benzene in your water? Yellowstone river gets Keystoned.
 

Nothing like a preview of what we can expect to happen to the Ogallala Aquifer when the Keystone XL leaks. :mad:

50,000 gallons of this bituminous sludge cut with benzene, to make it pumpable, leaked into the Yellowstone River upstream of a town's drinking water intakes rendering the water unusable until the solvent evaporates into the atmosphere.

Jebus H. Christ we are a fuckin' stupid nation. For a few measly greenbacks we are willing to poison our water.

http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-...120-story.html

Darwin understood this.

John

That's what you get for voting Republican

2012 Presidential Election Results, Dawson County Montana

Romney GOP 68.5% 3,024
Obama Dem 27.6% 1,219
Johnson Lib 3.9% 174

Pollutants spilling directly into a river and pollutants spilling on the ground and subsequently percolating down to the water table are two different issues. The former becomes an immediate problem, whereas the latter can be cleaned up before becoming a problem. If protecting this aquifer is the be-all-and-end-all, tanker trucks, railcars, and gas stations (due to underground storage tanks) should be prohibited anywhere near that aquifer.

Opposition/support of the Keystone XL pipeline has become an article of faith for ideologues on both sides. It isn't any more dangerous than any of the other hundreds of miles of pipelines (or tanker trucks, railcars and gas stations) above that aquifer, nor will job gains be what the GOP claims. The State Department studied the pipeline and concluded that it was safer than alternate means of transport and Canada will definitely use alternate (more hazardous) means if the Keystone isn't built.

From what Obama said last night, I suspect he may be willing to use it as a bargaining chip to get the GOP to agree to further infrastructure spending. If so, it would be a rare win-win situation. If not, he's just caving to the environmental wing of his party, many of whom are pretty clueless about environmental issues despite their fervor.

If pipelines are death we're already in real trouble. Feast you eyes on this map:

http://www.propublica.org/article/pi...s-of-pipelines

Pete

If anyone thinks this bituminous gunk is the same as the sweet crude being pulled from the ground elsewhere? I have some Tar Pits out here in Los Angeles you might be interested in buying...

They have to cut this sludge with a lot of benzene to make it flow through the pipeline. It isn't the pipeline that's such a bad thing. It's the route over the aquifer and the added chemical hazard of so much benzene flowing through it.

The more viscous it is, the less problematic the spill (i.e., it infiltrates the soil less quickly). FWIW, there's benzene in all crude oil and refined gasoline.

From the link in Post #1.

What I am wondering is, do these privately held companies mandated to carry adequate insurance? Anyone remember the Elk river chemical spill by Freedom Industries in January of 2014. They filed for bankruptcy within days after the spill.

Before y'all start yelling at Canada why don't you g\Google the Athabaska tar sands and see who really owns the bulk of the site.

BTW, the border is mostly covered with snow right now. I understand that borders that are covered with snow don't count.

Spoken like a true developer's "consultant".

"In conclusion my client's project will have no adverse impacts":rolleyes:

From an "Athabasca oil sands ownership" search:

http://www.afl.org/index.php/May-201...resources.html

http://www.wsj.com/articles/athabasc...-co-1409338852

http://www.atha.com/

http://www.washingtonpost.com/busine...56a_story.html

Based on the above - Canadians and the foreigners to whom Canadians have sold lease rights.

Why don't you study up a bit on water resource management, ground water hydrology, fluid mechanics, then get a PE in the field and get back with me.

After 31 years years of reading Engineering studies by consultants hired by developers, the arrogance and "know it all" tone of your typical posts is all too familiar to me.

In other words, you have no idea WTF you're talking about.

And a goodly chunk of those furriners are your fellow countrymen. Funny part is that no one seems to get excited about fracking, do you believe that the freshwater supply is inexhaustible? Franky both should be shut down.

Where'd you get that idea, Rob? New York State got "excited" enough to ban it. So have many towns and cities like Denton, TX and Longmont, CO. Other cities and states are looking at doing the same.

John

Isn't that precious, meanwhile we stand a damn good chance of having our well poisoned.

Apparently energy independence has a cost.

Between 'benzene' and 'tar oil' I think Lehrer could write a pretty biting song.

Pete

Unfortunately 'tis you and I that will pay that cost not the oil companies.:rolleyes:

What's funny is that environmentalists think we can get adequate energy without oil, gas, coal, nuclear, hydropower (if fish spawn there), and wind and solar farms (if they're located within view of their backyards).

It reminds of a joke made about Germany's Green Party back when I lived there. Roughly translated "Greens believe that they get their power directly from their electrical outlets (that their power is manufactured within their clean, environmentally friendly outlets without the need to be connected to the dirty power grid).

It's crazy. And even if we could fart cheap effective solar panels civilization would still be dirty from earth's POV.

Pete

That's it. Well that and the fact that there are no taxes on anything shipped out of Port Arthur, Texas. The USA who gives tax credits to build this and gets nothing in return will have to pay for any cleanups from pipeline failure.

OTOH, Marin Clean Energy (MCE) who I buy from now can supply 100% clean energy cheaper than Pacific Gas and Electric's current mix of "dirty and clean".

http://www.marinij.com/marinnews/ci_...ing-pg-e-price


Carl

Nice strawman you've built there.:rolleyes:

Right. So your solution is that we should do nothing...got it.:rolleyes:

There's sand in this 'tar sands' gunk, right? Anyone care to hazard a guess what the scouring rate is within these pipelines?

I happen to have a greater confidence in science and technology than I do in whiny environmentalists fulling understanding and weighing the available options commensurate with our energy needs. YMMV.;)

The whole Keystone pipeline debate has become an article of faith for both sides, neither of which are correct IMO. It will neither destroy the earth and the aquifer, nor will it solve our employment problems. It has simply a symbolic issue for both sides to champion.

Gotta love how the proponents of Keystone have flip flopped on eminent domain as a conservative article of faith.

Without straw, adobe bricks suck...;)

I tend to side with whiny environmentalists.

We'd be using far less fossil fuel to generate electricity today if TMI hadn't been used to further a cause. We humans tend to go ape all too often.

I will freely admit I think it is wrong, wrong, wrong to give big oil a free ride, besides the tax credits to billionaires, with no accountability for failures in the pipeline. Or to replace it when it's lifetime is up, usually 40 years.
I don't really care if the Republicans call it the Keystone Jobs Bill, they are not ever be honest as long as they are owned by the Koch Brothers anyway. Yessir, those 35-40 permanent jobs will really save the day here lol. Oh I forgot, it is the 2500 temporary jobs that will do it.......

Bottom line, if they build the pipeline they should own all that goes with responsible ownership.


Carl

Erring on the side of caution is a sound engineering principle. ;)

I'm a lover of the outdoors, have done significant coursework in pretty much all the environmental disciplines, and have have consulted on a number of Superfund projects and was involved in the nationwide clean-up of DOE Manhattan Project sites for over two decades. I've been personally involved in the most environmentally fucked up stuff you can imagine (e.g., the Hanford Site's tank farms).

In my experience, many self-described or activist environmentalists seem to feel that they have the luxury of not needing to recognize real world constraints or needs for energy, infrastructure and the like. In their perfect worlds, we would have all the energy and infrastructure we need without ever having to build it or consider unavoidable trade-offs. Many so-called environmentalists have about as much experience in environmental management as PETA types have in wildlife management (which I believe is also true of most single-issue activists).

I still like the fact that they often force the big boys to give some account to the public.

They engender distillation.

As long as their positions/arguments remain credible, yes. If it's pie-in-the-sky PETA-like silliness, not so much.

We could have lots of power except for the not invented here syndrome. The CANDU nuclear reactor does not need enriched uranium (in fact it could use up all the high pressure reactors spent fuel) and it is designed to fail safe unlike Fukushima. The fuel control rods are held up by electro-magnets, if the power fails they drop and shut down the reaction.

Of course we need oil and such but at least lets not be stupid about it. Pipelines can be made pretty safe but frex when natural gas was introduced into cities that previously ran coal gas there were problems. Natural gas is a scrubber, it will clean out years of crud and polish the interior of a pipe like Brasso. In the process it will find every pinhole in the pipe and welds. Once it escapes all it takes is a spark and Boom.

Senate version was passed today by a vote of 62-36. Now the House is looking to mege their version or pass the Senate version. Obama is still poised to veto this for now I think and this is usurping his executive authority.

What really gets me is that Sen. Claire McCaskill who voted for this bill said this: "I was proud to vote to approve Keystone, which passed the Senate with a bipartisan 62-36 vote."

Hos is this bi-partisan when just a handful of Democrats joined the Republicans and they are probably from the states that the pipeline will go through.

http://stlouis.cbslocal.com/2015/01/...ense-approach/