0
0 votes
Dec 30, 2015

I'm interested in the rationale of people opposing this.The reasons I often hear opposition are environmental concerns, but does anyone seriously think a pipeline is a higher risk to the environment than tanker trucks hauling oil across America one load at a time? Not to mention the fuel consumed taking it over the roads.

Sure Pipelines can leak, but highway accidents happen much more frequently and would likely be remediated by local emergency services of varying quality rather than a coordinated central company responsible for it with an action plan.

I get the feeling the opposition to this pipeline has an incorrect notion that stopping its construction would prevent the oil from being transported at all via other means. I am, however, with you if this is an imminent domain issue. I am not happy with the Supreme Court's recent interpretations on use of imminent domain for commercial interests.

Reply to this opinion
subscribe
::unhide-discussion::
100
main reply
2 votes,
Dec 30, 2015

I used to before this but I am now opposed. The real reason for this pipeline is for the Canadian bitumen to be exported to China. The USA takes much of the environmental risk and gets less of a permanent payroll out of it than a Wal Mart super center creates. All the profit will be made by US and internationally owned companies but none of the profits will ever be taxed in the USA or Canada. They are in a rush to build this as the US and Canada becoming jointly energy independent will free up a huge amount of other oil onto the world markets. What will the Chinese prefer. Thick bitumen or light sweet Nigerian and Iranian crude?

The pipeline operator will ship as much as they can and after a big spill, will declare bankruptcy and leave the mess. The money to build it will be borrowed and the investors will get stiffed.

subscribe
::unhide-discussion::
0
0 votes,
Dec 30, 2015

Oil from the US, Canada, Mexico etc is routinely shipped overseas. Even when the US is importing oil, it's exporting it also. Nobody want to pay for shipping so they buy oil from the closest source. So the real question is what is the safest way to transport oil, and that is a pipeline.

subscribe
::unhide-discussion::
0
main reply
0 votes,
Dec 30, 2015

Yes and no . Yes if they follow the right - of - way of the pipeline they are replacing . NO , if they want to use the new proposed route . The new route is just a short cut to save Koch a few million dollars and the people of Nebraska have the right to say no .

subscribe
::unhide-discussion::
0
0 votes,
Dec 30, 2015

For the sake of argument, wouldn't a shorter pipe have a smaller chance of leakage because there are less joints and less actual pipe to corrode or be damaged?

I wasn't aware that Koch was involved, but now I see some part of the resistance. I'm pretty sure that if those guys wanted to plant an organic garden in their backyard then the left would be protesting it.

Whether it saves a company that people don't like money is a non-issue.

subscribe
::unhide-discussion::
0
0 votes,
Dec 30, 2015

For the sake of argument, wouldn't a shorter pipe have a smaller chance of leakage because there are less joints and less actual pipe to corrode or be damaged?

That largely depends on the terrain to be crossed. A shorter pipeline through territory with more hazards would be worse in the long run.

subscribe
::unhide-discussion::
0
0 votes,
Dec 30, 2015

So, what do we know about the territory of the planned pipeline versus the existing route?

subscribe
load further replies (3)
::unhide-discussion::
0
0 votes,
Dec 30, 2015

The whole project is to go to Koch owned refineries that get paid per barrel to refine . Why not build a refinery at the source and they can deal with the pollution ?

subscribe
::unhide-discussion::
0
main reply
0 votes,
Dec 30, 2015

Two things for my opposition : 1. It IS an abuse of the eminent domain . Rich people think their money can over ride property rights . 2. In the end the US ( except for Koch Industries ) gets NOTHING but the pollution .

subscribe
::unhide-discussion::
0
0 votes,
Dec 30, 2015

Yes, I agree that it is an abuse of eminent domain, seeing that it is a private company building and operating the pipeline. If this was a government project then I wouldn't see it as an abuse of eminent domain, but I have a huge problem with they government at any level taking private propriety to give or sell to someone else.

That said the pipeline itself is a good idea, given that shipping by rail or truck causes far more pollution and more accidents than the pipeline, because like it or not the oil is coming.

subscribe
::unhide-discussion::
0
0 votes,
Dec 30, 2015

The safety record takes some digging to find . The media is there to cover the rail accidents and seldom report the pipeline fractures . Part of the problem with rail is the outdated equipment used . Part of the concern with the pipeline is poor quality . X - rays of welds should be conducted 100 % . They are lucky to inspect 20 % . and up to 50 % of them have failed . We have no 100 % quality guarantee . Inspections need to be increased 4 fold , but that cost money and the owners are willing to roll the dice to save money . Trans Canada said the leak at the Mackinaw River would take 3 months to clean up . That was 3 1/2 years ago and the Mackinaw River has tar sands sludge covering the bottom for miles . I guess like the BP spill in the Gulf , if we can't see it , it isn't there . The bottom line is we don't know what chemicals they add to the tar sands to pipe it and big money oil companies and the Koch refineries have spent billions to keep that a secret . WHY ?

subscribe
::unhide-discussion::
0
0 votes,
Dec 30, 2015

The media does cover pipeline leak, but most are small and generally don't make national news. Now you need to ask yourself, do we want to transport oil through a pipeline, or by train and truck which go through towns and cities. As we have seen already what happens when trains derail or have other problems.

But the big thing is as long as we use oil, we will need to move it, and what is the safest way to move it, right now it's by pipeline.

subscribe
::unhide-discussion::
0
main reply
0 votes,
Dec 30, 2015

My question is why are we not just building a refinery right there and we would not need that much of a pipe line. Yes I see the pipe line being built, because these people who believe we are killing the environment will never let a refinery be built and yet they still drive, use the AC and heat in the winter.

subscribe
Challenge someone to answer this opinion:
Invite an OpiWiki user:
OR
Invite your friend via email:
OR
Share it: