Pipeline breach spills oil into Yellowstone River
Jan 20, 2015 18:48:05 #
Canada has the oil and wants to sell it. Now we are putting it in trucks and rail tanker cars and shipping it to our refineries. There has been a fatal derailment with a fire. The status quo makes no sense to me.
Canada has said if we don't want it, they will build a pipeline to the Pacific Ocean and ship the oil to China. They want it. China will do what is in their best interests, but we won't. Is that an environmentally superior idea? Put the oil in a ship and refine it in China. I am sure they will so it as cleanly as possible. NOT! Is that in our best national security interest?
Some of you have stated we are doing it for the big oil companies. I don't know about you, but I am buying gas cheaper now than I have for years, thanks to Canada and North Dakota.
Canada has said if we don't want it, they will build a pipeline to the Pacific Ocean and ship the oil to China. They want it. China will do what is in their best interests, but we won't. Is that an environmentally superior idea? Put the oil in a ship and refine it in China. I am sure they will so it as cleanly as possible. NOT! Is that in our best national security interest?
Some of you have stated we are doing it for the big oil companies. I don't know about you, but I am buying gas cheaper now than I have for years, thanks to Canada and North Dakota.
Jan 20, 2015 18:48:28 #
Canada has the oil and wants to sell it. Now we are putting it in trucks and rail tanker cars and shipping it to our refineries. There has been a fatal derailment with a fire. The status quo makes no sense to me.
Canada has said if we don't want it, they will build a pipeline to the Pacific Ocean and ship the oil to China. They want it. China will do what is in their best interests, but we won't. Is that an environmentally superior idea? Put the oil in a ship and refine it in China. I am sure they will so it as cleanly as possible. NOT! Is that in our best national security interest?
Some of you have stated we are doing it for the big oil companies. I don't know about you, but I am buying gas cheaper now than I have for years, thanks to Canada and North Dakota.
Canada has said if we don't want it, they will build a pipeline to the Pacific Ocean and ship the oil to China. They want it. China will do what is in their best interests, but we won't. Is that an environmentally superior idea? Put the oil in a ship and refine it in China. I am sure they will so it as cleanly as possible. NOT! Is that in our best national security interest?
Some of you have stated we are doing it for the big oil companies. I don't know about you, but I am buying gas cheaper now than I have for years, thanks to Canada and North Dakota.
Jan 20, 2015 18:54:44 #
Having the oil sent south to our refineries makes it a "value added" commodity. It will be for sale to us and anyone else. The pipe is cheaper transportation, keeping prices down and much safer.
Analogy: Would you want to sell trees or lumber?
Analogy: Would you want to sell trees or lumber?
Jan 20, 2015 18:57:22 #
Screamin Scott wrote:
You need some education then... Even though the oil is destined to be sold overseas, it is going through our refineries & employing Americans. Plus it is a global commodity & as such,the supply affects global prices. So I don't see your logic in that it is of "no benefit to us"
You are surely correct. None is a very strong adjective and surely there will be a handful of Americans will enjoy some benefit from the pipeline and it is likely that one or perhaps even two Americans will make millions or even billions of dollars from it.
The real issue is whether the benefits outweigh the risk of possibly contaminating an aquifer that supplies to America's bread-basket.
Jan 20, 2015 19:22:51 #
pecohen wrote:
Yes, to what you say. That is the real issue!You are surely correct. None is a very strong adjective and surely there will be a handful of Americans will enjoy some benefit from the pipeline and it is likely that one or perhaps even two Americans will make millions or even billions of dollars from it.
The real issue is whether the benefits outweigh the risk of possibly contaminating an aquifer that supplies to America's bread-basket.
The real issue is whether the benefits outweigh the risk of possibly contaminating an aquifer that supplies to America's bread-basket.
Jan 20, 2015 19:36:53 #
dljen wrote:
You're kidding, right? You must be watching too many of the oil companies feel good commercials. They still haven't cleaned up the BP spill and BP still owes millions if not billions.
OnEdit: http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/01/20/us-bp-trial-idUSKBN0KT11T20150120
OnEdit: http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/01/20/us-bp-trial-idUSKBN0KT11T20150120
In, wrong, Donna......the physical cleanup is done----- come on down and see! The penalty phase is still in flux.
Jan 20, 2015 19:52:48 #
penalty phase of BP case has just started. Of course they havent paid.
there was immediate impact on the environment but everything is coming back very nicely and ahead of what was anticipated.
yup. spend all my spare time watching feel good oil company commercials.
Plant a tree!
there was immediate impact on the environment but everything is coming back very nicely and ahead of what was anticipated.
yup. spend all my spare time watching feel good oil company commercials.
Plant a tree!
Jan 20, 2015 20:13:12 #
TexasNewbie
Loc: Far West texas
To all who hate what big oil has done "wake up to reality" IlFarmer is right ,look at the price of Fuel I just traveled from here in Tx to SC last week and it cost me $312.11, two years ago it cost me over $600.00. That was a round trip with some side stops as adventures as well. Others have talked about Buffett and the BNSF , he is the primary shipper of the oil and also one of the biggest donars to the those that want to stop the pipline. Forget about the tree huggers. Do any of you know how many miles of both gas and petro piplines we already have and how few problems any of them have caused---- or is it just what you have been regurgitating from others. If you are dumb enough to think big oil is making a big profit on thier investments--compare them to Google, Micosoft and so many other companies.the % is not even close. And no I am not an Oil Baaron. Just someone that is unbiased and perfer to think for myself. I already know from reading the post regularly here I will be damned for my thoughts so I will not reply. I just ask you do some research. Enough now that it is out of my system..... No disrespect to anyone.
Jan 20, 2015 20:48:55 #
MT Shooter wrote:
By law, railroads do not own any "navigable waters". Their bridges cross navigable waters by easements.
You missed the point. I would believe your point that the railroads do not own any navigable waters. The point is that navigable waters are any bit of water that eventually ends up in a stream or river. Therefore spills that occur on what most people think is just land with run off is defined as navigable. I know I had to deal with it.
Jan 20, 2015 21:11:40 #
Leon S wrote:
You missed the point. I would believe your point that the railroads do not own any navigable waters. The point is that navigable waters are any bit of water that eventually ends up in a stream or river. Therefore spills that occur on what most people think is just land with run off is defined as navigable. I know I had to deal with it.
Legal definition of "Navigable Waters" as determined my the EPA and USCG and supported by US Supreme Court decisions:
"Navigable waters of the United States are those waters that are subject to the ebb and flow of the tide and/or are presently used, or have been used in the past, or may be susceptible for use to transport interstate or foreign commerce. A determination of navigability, once made, applies laterally over the entire surface of the waterbody, and is not extinguished by later actions or events which impede or destroy navigable capacity."
In short "navigable" waterways have to be "Navigable", such navigation by vessels as small as canoes have been shown to qualify under this definition, but not always.
Jan 20, 2015 21:34:25 #
TexasNewbie wrote:
To all who hate what big oil has done "wake ... (show quote)
Tex,
You have hit the nail on the head.....well done. Let me add that your drop in the price of your trip is I'm spite of Obama as oil from federal properties is down 16%! It is the "evil" states and private land that have created the boom.
Jan 20, 2015 22:16:09 #
buckbrush
Loc: Texas then Southwest Oregon
newer oil carrying ships supposedly have to have double hulls to protect against the (easy)? type of oil spills that happened in the recent past.
Why not the same standard for pipelines?
I have to say, any pipeline that lasted since the 50s was built to a high standard for that time.
We have a natural gas pipeline along side Hwy 97 here in Oregon that runs 24/7 without a problem I'm aware of.
How can we get 'factual' information on pipeline construction and rules for their use. Without an 'in depth' study/analysis by an independent agency like the NTSB, we are getting what the oil companies and government want and that is an uneducated public.
Why not the same standard for pipelines?
I have to say, any pipeline that lasted since the 50s was built to a high standard for that time.
We have a natural gas pipeline along side Hwy 97 here in Oregon that runs 24/7 without a problem I'm aware of.
How can we get 'factual' information on pipeline construction and rules for their use. Without an 'in depth' study/analysis by an independent agency like the NTSB, we are getting what the oil companies and government want and that is an uneducated public.
Jan 20, 2015 23:18:34 #
MT Shooter wrote:
Legal definition of "Navigable Waters" a... (show quote)
You might also be referring to a definition set forth by Canada through their definition of Navigable Waters Act. Under US rules the Sheen rule is followed under the Spill Prevention Control Act and the Coastal Measures Act. Reference is also included under the Emergency Planning and Community Right to Know Act of 1980. In general when certain quantities of a hazardous substance are released reports and agencies as well as actions come into play. Substances such as benzine and toluene, which are substances found in crude oil as well as in gasoline are released, the limits released requiring reporting are unbelievably low. Parts per million, sorry but I can't remember exact numbers. Which is why the term Sheen is used. Depending of where the spill occurs a spill of less than one gallon might be reason for reporting. That's why most loading and unloading sites of oil products on rail do their transfers over spill containment structures. If you reference the Clean Water Act of 1990 part 110.1 you will find that wet lands are included for reporting purposes. Have a good evening, I'm going to bed now. Good Night. Leon
Jan 21, 2015 10:11:15 #
buckbrush wrote:
:thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:newer oil carrying ships supposedly have to have d... (show quote)
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.