The Orange Mane -  a Denver Broncos Fan Community  

Go Back   The Orange Mane - a Denver Broncos Fan Community > Jibba Jabba > War, Religion and Politics Thread
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Chat Room Mark Forums Read



Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 06-26-2013, 08:51 AM   #26
BroncoBeavis
Guest
 

Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by houghtam View Post
Wow, 30,000 gallons.

Meanwhile, upwards of 1 million gallons of bitumen were spilled near Kalamazoo.

Progress, indeed.
That single pipeline system distributes around 3 times as much oil as all rail systems in the United States combined.

Keystone would roughly double the carrying capacity of all current rail deliveries in the US.

The comparison isn't to rail as it stands today, but to rail as it will have to be to ship all this oil. Oh and all those assuredly "carbon neutral" diesel locomotives (and accompanying refining and fuel distribution), track maintenance teams, infrastructure overhauls, etc etc.

In reality stopping the pipeline doesn't solve any problems. It only distributes and hides them. A notable hallmark of most political solutions to problems.
  Reply With Quote
Old 06-26-2013, 08:53 AM   #27
houghtam
Ring of Famer
 

Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 6,384
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rohirrim View Post
More fun facts to share with the mouth-breathers:

Global warming has long been blamed for the huge rise in the world's jellyfish population. But new research suggests that they, in turn, may be worsening the problem by producing more carbon than the oceans can cope with.

Research led by Rob Condon of the Virginia Institute of Marine Science in the US focuses on the effect that the increasing numbers of jellyfish are having on marine bateria, which play an important role by recycling nutrients created by decaying organisms back into the food web. The study, published in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, finds that while bacteria are capable of absorbing the constituent carbon, nitrogen, phosphorus and other chemicals given off by most fish when they die, they cannot do the same with jellyfish. The invertebrates, populating the seas in ever-increasing numbers, break down into biomass with especially high levels of carbon, which the bacteria cannot absorb well. Instead of using it to grow, the bacteria breathe it out as carbon dioxide. This means more of the gas is released into the atmosphere.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environmen...ton-ocean-acid

"Gee, Mister Scientist. You mean there are not just effects that you can read on a thermometer, but also side-effects that you might not imagine until they happen? Who woulda thunk it?"
Well, if you don't believe it's happening in the first place, you'll just make up other excuses. Of course it's not the fault of climate change, that doesn't exist.

It's because the taxes on companies who fish jellyfish predators are too high.
houghtam is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-26-2013, 08:54 AM   #28
houghtam
Ring of Famer
 

Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 6,384
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BroncoBeavis View Post
That single pipeline system distributes around 3 times as much oil as all rail systems in the United States combined.

Keystone would roughly double the carrying capacity of all current rail deliveries in the US.

The comparison isn't to rail as it stands today, but to rail as it will have to be to ship all this oil. Oh and all those assuredly "carbon neutral" diesel locomotives (and accompanying refining and fuel distribution), track maintenance teams, infrastructure overhauls, etc etc.

In reality stopping the pipeline doesn't solve any problems. It only distributes and hides them. A notable hallmark of most political solutions to problems.
It solves the problem of "hey now there would be thousands of miles of more pipeline that could now burst."
houghtam is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-26-2013, 08:58 AM   #29
Rohirrim
Partisan
 
Rohirrim's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Twixt Hell & Highwater
Posts: 55,935

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Malik Jackson
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by houghtam View Post
Well, if you don't believe it's happening in the first place, you'll just make up other excuses. Of course it's not the fault of climate change, that doesn't exist.

It's because the taxes on companies who fish jellyfish predators are too high.
Now imagine billions of tons of dead jellyfish sinking into the abysses of the oceans and rotting there in a great mass. I wonder what kind of gasses that will create?

Everybody who doesn't believe in this science should be made to keep a reef tank. Nothing too big. Thirty gallons. See what happens when the salinity, or the alkalinity, or the calcium, or the phosphates, or the nitrates, get a little out of whack. The margins for error are very small. And what happens? Everything dies. Well, everything except for algae. They love it. I wonder how an algae salad sandwich tastes?
Rohirrim is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-26-2013, 09:02 AM   #30
BroncoBeavis
Guest
 

Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by houghtam View Post
It solves the problem of "hey now there would be thousands of miles of more pipeline that could now burst."
At the expense of increased CO2 emissions? Sacrilege!
  Reply With Quote
Old 06-26-2013, 09:10 AM   #31
houghtam
Ring of Famer
 

Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 6,384
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BroncoBeavis View Post
At the expense of increased CO2 emissions? Sacrilege!
Some of us thought the CO2 emissions angle for the pipeline argument was a stupid one to begin with. Some of us are more concerned with localized threats to the environment which have regional and global influence than a general concern about emissions.

Read my posts. CO2 has never been a concern of mine when talking about pipelines. It's that this is a poorly regulated industry full of do-what-it-takes-to-cut-all-costs-no-matter-what companies who rarely have to take responsibility for their actions after the fact, and almost never have to worry about them before the fact.

Example, as I pointed out to cut, is Enbridge. A company with a history not only of negligence, but of pure refusal to cooperate on cleanup efforts. And who gets the contract?

And we're not just talking about wilderness here...these people had their homes built over a pipeline they didn't even know was there.
Attached Images
File Type: jpeg index.jpeg (9.4 KB, 23 views)
houghtam is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-26-2013, 09:21 AM   #32
BroncoBeavis
Guest
 

Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by houghtam View Post
Some of us thought the CO2 emissions angle for the pipeline argument was a stupid one to begin with. Some of us are more concerned with localized threats to the environment which have regional and global influence than a general concern about emissions.

Read my posts. CO2 has never been a concern of mine when talking about pipelines. It's that this is a poorly regulated industry full of do-what-it-takes-to-cut-all-costs-no-matter-what companies who rarely have to take responsibility for their actions after the fact, and almost never have to worry about them before the fact.
Point taken.

Quote:
Example, as I pointed out to cut, is Enbridge. A company with a history not only of negligence, but of pure refusal to cooperate on cleanup efforts. And who gets the contract?

And we're not just talking about wilderness here...these people had their homes built over a pipeline they didn't even know was there.
Not saying that's not terrible. But they could've just as easily been killed in a derailment, as two people were in that Baltimore derailment below. I'm not trying to equate one method with the other. It's just important to note that when as a policy, we oppose new infrastructure development, the alternative is almost never zero-cost. Just harder to quantify (or affect)
  Reply With Quote
Old 06-26-2013, 09:27 AM   #33
Rohirrim
Partisan
 
Rohirrim's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Twixt Hell & Highwater
Posts: 55,935

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Malik Jackson
Default

This is simple stuff: Our carbon burning industrial creation is killing us. Overpopulation is killing us. Fix it or don't.
Rohirrim is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-26-2013, 09:28 AM   #34
houghtam
Ring of Famer
 

Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 6,384
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rohirrim View Post
This is simple stuff: Our carbon burning industrial creation is killing us. Overpopulation is killing us. Fix it or don't.
Or double down and say "hey they would have just died some other way, but I saved $6 at the pump this month."
houghtam is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-26-2013, 09:32 AM   #35
Rigs11
Ring of Famer
 
Rigs11's Avatar
 

Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 8,589
Default

Gotta love beavis,on abortion he use a handful of cases to support his view on abortion.on climate change he ignores years of scientific data
Rigs11 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-26-2013, 09:33 AM   #36
Rigs11
Ring of Famer
 
Rigs11's Avatar
 

Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 8,589
Default

Wouldn't the oil from keystone get exported anyways?
Rigs11 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-26-2013, 09:36 AM   #37
Fedaykin
Ring of Famer
 

Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 5,123

Adopt-a-Bronco:
None
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BroncoBeavis View Post
Point taken.



Not saying that's not terrible. But they could've just as easily been killed in a derailment, as two people were in that Baltimore derailment below. I'm not trying to equate one method with the other. It's just important to note that when as a policy, we oppose new infrastructure development, the alternative is almost never zero-cost. Just harder to quantify (or affect)
You're still not thinking about the bigger issue. Pipelines (as they are currently used) are an ecological nightmare compared to rail shipping.

* Pipeline breaks can release orders of magnitude more contaminants into the environment simply because the ability to constrain the leak from a break is much less than with discrete shipping units.

* Small leaks (which always exist) in a pipeline are hard to detect, and can do enormous amounts of damage over time -- particularly to wetlands (even with a relatively small leak). Moreover, companies that run pipelines don't give a flying **** about any leak unless it's more expensive to let the leak happen than to fix it. This is one reason why companies refuse to install leak detectors. It's not just the expense of the detectors -- it's that they don't care about the leaks unless it affects their bottom line so they don't want to detect them, and any leak likely to affect their bottom line is relatively easy to detect using non technological means.

Like I said, when a train derails, it something that's immediately apparent, not concealable and a blocker issue that can't simply be ignored.
Fedaykin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-26-2013, 09:42 AM   #38
BroncoBeavis
Guest
 

Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rigs11 View Post
Gotta love beavis,on abortion he use a handful of cases to support his view on abortion.on climate change he ignores years of scientific data
Years of scientific data showing vastly less warming than the doomsday models predicted? Only one side is currently ignoring the data.
  Reply With Quote
Old 06-26-2013, 09:42 AM   #39
Rohirrim
Partisan
 
Rohirrim's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Twixt Hell & Highwater
Posts: 55,935

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Malik Jackson
Default

I, for one, trust the oil companies to do what's right. After all, if they were doing deep water drilling, for example, they sure as hell wouldn't risk a spill, or even loss of life through explosion, by using technology that they knew was faulty. Right?
Rohirrim is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-26-2013, 09:43 AM   #40
Rohirrim
Partisan
 
Rohirrim's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Twixt Hell & Highwater
Posts: 55,935

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Malik Jackson
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BroncoBeavis View Post
Years of scientific data showing vastly less warming than the doomsday models predicted? Only one side is currently ignoring the data.
Right now, you are getting a spiritual pat on the head from the Koch Brothers. Enjoy.
Rohirrim is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-26-2013, 09:49 AM   #41
houghtam
Ring of Famer
 

Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 6,384
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fedaykin View Post
You're still not thinking about the bigger issue. Pipelines (as they are currently used) are an ecological nightmare compared to rail shipping.

* Pipeline breaks can release orders of magnitude more contaminants into the environment simply because the ability to constrain the leak from a break is much less than with discrete shipping units.

* Small leaks (which always exist) in a pipeline are hard to detect, and can do enormous amounts of damage over time -- particularly to wetlands (even with a relatively small leak). Moreover, companies that run pipelines don't give a flying **** about any leak unless it's more expensive to let the leak happen than to fix it. This is one reason why companies refuse to install leak detectors. It's not just the expense of the detectors -- it's that they don't care about the leaks unless it affects their bottom line so they don't want to detect them, and any leak likely to affect their bottom line is relatively easy to detect using non technological means.

Like I said, when a train derails, it something that's immediately apparent, not concealable and a blocker issue that can't simply be ignored.
Case in point, the most recent spill (by Enbridge again) was only discovered when executives spotted it from the air while on an unrelated flight over the area. The spill would have been detected if the company had decided to go with the detection methods urged (but not required) by the US government for construction.

Obama was smart to just say no.
houghtam is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-26-2013, 09:50 AM   #42
BroncoBeavis
Guest
 

Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fedaykin View Post
You're still not thinking about the bigger issue. Pipelines (as they are currently used) are an ecological nightmare compared to rail shipping.

* Pipeline breaks can release orders of magnitude more contaminants into the environment simply because the ability to constrain the leak from a break is much less than with discrete shipping units.

* Small leaks (which always exist) in a pipeline are hard to detect, and can do enormous amounts of damage over time -- particularly to wetlands (even with a relatively small leak). Moreover, companies that run pipelines don't give a flying **** about any leak unless it's more expensive to let the leak happen than to fix it. This is one reason why companies refuse to install leak detectors. It's not just the expense of the detectors -- it's that they don't care about the leaks unless it affects their bottom line so they don't want to detect them, and any leak likely to affect their bottom line is relatively easy to detect using non technological means.

Like I said, when a train derails, it something that's immediately apparent, not concealable and a blocker issue that can't simply be ignored.
That's a valid point. And I think a lot more needs to be done to monitor pipelines. But at least you know what that pipeline does and where it does it. Train oil goes everywhere. And rolls through communities all over at leisure.

You're right that the possible scale of concentrated ecological disaster is less with trains. But from an efficiency, emissions and lives standpoint, pipelines are safer. Unfortunately, our policy makers do little to try to balance any of that. They assume stopping a pipeline means stopping the oil.
  Reply With Quote
Old 06-26-2013, 09:51 AM   #43
cutthemdown
A verbis ad verbera
 
cutthemdown's Avatar
 

Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 37,267
Default

For the amount of oil the industry moves around big spills fairly rare.
cutthemdown is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-26-2013, 09:56 AM   #44
BroncoBeavis
Guest
 

Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cutthemdown View Post
For the amount of oil the industry moves around big spills fairly rare.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-0...s-by-rail.html

A good read on the topic.
  Reply With Quote
Old 06-26-2013, 09:59 AM   #45
houghtam
Ring of Famer
 

Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 6,384
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BroncoBeavis View Post
That's a valid point. And I think a lot more needs to be done to monitor pipelines. But at least you know what that pipeline does and where it does it. Train oil goes everywhere. And rolls through communities all over at leisure.

You're right that the possible scale of concentrated ecological disaster is less with trains. But from an efficiency, emissions and lives standpoint, pipelines are safer. Unfortunately, our policy makers do little to try to balance any of that. They assume stopping a pipeline means stopping the oil.
Yeah, it's just that sometimes it takes the pipeline bursting for it to be discovered.

See: Arkansas
houghtam is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-26-2013, 10:02 AM   #46
alkemical
Guerrilla Ontologist
 
alkemical's Avatar
 
rorrim|mirror

Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Future
Posts: 43,095

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Prima Materia
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rigs11 View Post
Wouldn't the oil from keystone get exported anyways?
Yep.
alkemical is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-26-2013, 10:02 AM   #47
Rohirrim
Partisan
 
Rohirrim's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Twixt Hell & Highwater
Posts: 55,935

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Malik Jackson
Default

The real point here is that we have to get off oil.
Rohirrim is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-26-2013, 10:03 AM   #48
houghtam
Ring of Famer
 

Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 6,384
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rohirrim View Post
The real point here is that we have to get off oil.
And "global warming" isn't the reason.
houghtam is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-26-2013, 10:13 AM   #49
alkemical
Guerrilla Ontologist
 
alkemical's Avatar
 
rorrim|mirror

Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Future
Posts: 43,095

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Prima Materia
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by houghtam View Post
And "global warming" isn't the reason.
Agreed. There's a by product of terraforming and changing the hydrologic cycle, which isn't in our benefit as a species living on the planet, but it's not a sustainable way of doing things.

I know a utopian solution isn't happening tomorrow, and i'm not going to say "tesla power" - but there has to be solutions that are cost effective.

One of the problems is regulations. Not all regulations are for the benefit of well being, but to protect established markets. That's where the collusion happens between gov't & corporations.

A lot of the petrol usage here, is in AG related items: the diesel fuel used to run tractors, the petrol used to make fertilizers & pesticides, the plastics used to package, the transportation costs, etc.

We have to be better, or else more of our farms & ag will be bought by chinese & other countries. (Look at the IMF & World Bank policies on nations that default on $)

There is a cost to changing how things are done, and if done right - most of that cost is upfront, while giving a good ROI over the long term.

I don't have any answer to solve the whole issue - I don't think there is a 'silver bullet' solution to a complex issue. I just see where there are extreme costs.

I'm fortunate to live in a very agriculture state, but this state is also being put under pressure for fracking. I don't really agree with fracking due to concerns that aren't addressed: (how does the hydrologic cycle change when you pump water deep into the earth, where it can't be recouped?, etc etc)

What i'm worried about is BLM lands being opened up for mining/fracking & also the sale of our agriculture lands.

the best thing you can do to help, is buy as much local grown as you can to minimize impact. Learn to eat more seasonally, and if you can - grow some of what you eat.

Beyond that - that's my way of trying to make an impact on environment - well that and selling bioremedation products to help clean up the petrochemicals that are sprayed onto fields and into our water supply.
alkemical is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-26-2013, 10:34 AM   #50
Rohirrim
Partisan
 
Rohirrim's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Twixt Hell & Highwater
Posts: 55,935

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Malik Jackson
Default

How about we take the $41 billion we currently give the oil companies in subsidies, and use that money to begin researching a new direction?
Rohirrim is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes



Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 09:10 AM.


Denver Broncos