Laying the XL Pipe

so many tags, so few replies

 

The pipeline is in the strategic interest of the US, it is a good job creator at a time people need jobs, in the 40 years since The Alaska Ppieline was built there have been significant technological improvements that should render the project safer.

But it is negative in that it promotes a damaging type of energy production and further CO2 emissions.

Bottom line, I am going to be for it as long as we don't use it as an argument to slow green energy development (like Solyndra). The fact that this country's entire ability to function depends on the lifeline of exports from a tenuous ally is the overriding factor for me. We've just got to bolster the indigenous supply for the interim anyway.

 

No, let's put more money into Solyndra instead.

 

Hate to be simplistic, but it just might be a little too easy to spin any opposition as anti-job, pro-foreign oil, "pro-high-gas-prices" in an election year with unemployment above 5%. Obama lost the House in 2010 because they perceived he cared less about the economy than about a sterotypically cause, environmentalism will be viewed even more harshly.

 

Or let's use that one case to act like the Solar energy part of the stimulus didn't work, when actually it did... Solyndra not withstanding.

 

The economy in the USA trumps the environment... the economy is bad, so there will be a pipeline.

 

laying the XL pipe? That's what she said.

 

I hope you're being sarcastic, because I greatly prefer falling further behind China in these emerging markets. It's what I've come to expect of my fellow citizens and it makes me uncomfy if they want to be the best or lead at anything except fantasy football.

 

I've been following the story for some time, and I have two strong opinions about this.

First, the parts about increasing emissions is pure BS. The reason we need Canadian oil is that the incompetence of Pemex and PDVSA has caused their oil production to fall off a cliff. The Port Arthur refineries (other than Motiva) are set up to run really heavy, very sour crude from Mexico and Venezuela. Crude from the Alberta oil sands is just slightly heavier and sweeter, so it is a relatively easy replacement, from a much more stable source. That change might increase CO2 emissions slightly, but with a corresponding slight reduction in SO2 and NOx emissions. Mostly a wash.

I don't think the water concerns are completely unfounded, but Enbridge got the environmental approvals necessary from Nebraska's regulators and the EPA. Long after they issued all of their permits, there was public outcry, and now they're trying to get the State Department so they can study it again, and see if more strict protections are desired. The State Department's approval should have nothing to do with the environmental issues, only trade/national security issues. In fact, I'm pretty sure that a denial of the permit here would violate NAFTA.

This would have never been an issue if Enbridge hadn't had their leak in Michigan. It was a nasty leak, and it was a big deal, but Enbridge isn't BP. They are a responsible company that generally does things right. It was an accident, and it was well taken care of.

When people talk about our infrastructure, they generally mean roads, rails, and bridges, but I'd argue that the US's most important infrastructure advantage is our pipeline systems. It's a major part of the reason that we've had a natural gas boom. This is as important to commerce as any interstate highway, and much, much more important than passenger rail.

 

To be fair, that really does not mean all that much unfortunately.

 

It does to the company. They think they've done what's necessary, and are ready to go ahead.

 

Well yeah. I meant it more in terms of the actual environmental protection/diligence it entails.

 

Just tell em they will put a Nuclear power plant there instead.



DD

 

I'm ok with a pipeline but not through an aquifer. I don't care how responsible a company is - if there is an accident and the main water supply is tainted, it would be catastrophic. We may need oil for our economy, but we need water to survive. So I don't see this as much about environmentalists vs capitalists, but as whether the need for one resource trumps the preservation of another. And I say no.

 

It looks like they wouldn't have to go enormously out of their way to run the pipe around the aquifer. Just circle around the east side of Omaha. Though I know they wouldn't be able to use existing infrastructure like that, would run into a whole new set of right-of-way problems, so it'd cost a lot more, and environmentalists would come up with an objection to the new path anyway. Just sayin'....

 

It's hard to miss the aquifer but surely there engineering methods to reduce the effects of an accident, like a double hull taker maybe with a pipe in a pipe?

 

They are called pipeline casings. The pipeline industry is trying to get away from using these because the internal pipe is more vulnerable to corrosion. This is because the outer pipe shields the cathodic protection to the inner pipe. All steel pipelines in the ground are protected with Cathodic protection (CP) and is a technique used to control the corrosion of a metal surface by making it the cathode of an electrochemical cell when the external coating has some sort of holliday or flaw.

There have been many new and very stringent federal regulations regarding pipelines as a whole, but especially in areas such as these which are called high consequence areas or HCA's. Here is the federal code for pipeline integrity management in such areas if you are into boring federal code:

http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=ecfr&sid=00f867f1a21991bcd7cc9d9bba982684&rgn=div8&view=text&node=49:3.1.1.1.11.6.22.28&idno=49

 

Not meaning to derail this thread, but while I have your attention I wanted to get the word out about 811. It is now a law in Texas that if you are planning on digging a hole that is 16" or deeper you MUST dial 811 48 hours prior to beginning work to give the utilities time to come and locate. It might not only save your life, but you can be held finacially and legally responsible for any damages that may occur if you do not.

http://www.call811.com/faqs/default.aspx



I can take credit for this at my next safety meeting!