9 ms·

I always wonder what's the best way to assess environmental impact of the oil pipeline. Sure, it's going to leak at some point, and create a mess that may never

I always wonder what's the best way to assess environmental impact of the oil pipeline. Sure, it's going to leak at some point, and create a mess that may never get cleaned up. However, is it safer (or energy efficient) than carrying the oil on trains/trucks?

Tloewald 10y ago
As far as I understand it, the pipeline being fought over symbolically rather than for reasons that make analytic sense. If there's an environmental argument, it's that the pipeline will make using shale sands oil from Canada cheaper which is a Bad Thing because we use more stuff when it's cheaper. The correct approach would be to make fees and penalties for environmental impact higher (carbon tax, EPA able to levy big fines for oil spills, etc.) and then let the market figure it out rather than fight like crazy over specific cases. Now, as to the subject of the pipeline running through native american territory because white people were (justifiably) worried about their drinking water if it ran through their watershed -- that's a whole different issue.
- aaronbrethorst 10y ago
  There are people who live in the pipeline's projected path and their water will be poisoned if/when the pipeline leaks. That's not symbolism, that's life and death.
- jadell 10y ago
  Existing pipelines within a few hundred miles of this site have recently leaked into water supplies. This is not symbolic; it's about where the tribe gets their water from.
  - FireBeyond 10y ago
    This is very valid. But I think there's _also_ an important symbolic goal here. "This pipeline was moved because local communities feared the risk to the water supply. So the company felt it was appropriate to move it into the tribal community area." "Water risk to white people? No no no. Water risk to Native communities? Well, we can live with that."
    - criddell 10y ago
      > "Water risk to white people? No no no. Water risk to Native communities? Well, we can live with that." I don't think the Army Corps is that corrupt. I'm guessing it went more like "Water risk to 50,000 people or water risk to 5,000 people?" This history of the US government relations with native people makes any object assessment suspect though.
      - dragonwriter 10y ago
        > I don't think the Army Corps is that corrupt. I'm not sure the Army Corps was involved until after the reroute, and, in any case, it had publicly announced that it would not approve the easement on the current route because of the issues raised relating to Standing Rock and was conducting environmental impact reviews of alternative routes prior to the Trump executive order directing approval of the current route, so, yes, I'll agree that the Army Corps of Engineers itself is not indicated to be the source of the problem.
    - charia 10y ago
      It also has to do with the fact that local communities had a significant population in comparison to the native american m tribes who lived in the area.
      - Declanomous 10y ago
        It's a good we got out in front of that issue ahead of time by killing Native Americans and then moving them away from their ancestral homeland.
        lostlogin 10y ago
        credit where credit is due - I blame the British empire. NZ, Australia and other former colonies have done it as well, getting slightly less vicious and slight more manipulative with time. Dodgy treaties with locals etc.
- benjaminjackman 10y ago
  > As far as I understand it, the pipeline being fought over symbolically rather than for reasons that make analytic sense. If there's an environmental argument, it's that the pipeline will make using shale sands oil from Canada cheaper which is a Bad Thing because we use more stuff when it's cheaper. > The correct approach would be to make fees and penalties for environmental impact higher (carbon tax, EPA able to levy big fines for oil spills, etc.) and then let the market figure it out rather than fight like crazy over specific cases. I think you are totally correct, except that the `correct approach` only works if you have a functioning and independent (of the regulated) regulatory system able to assess the impact, and levy taxes, fees, and fines to price in all the externalities. Defunding / freezing these agencies certainly doesn't help their ability to function, and funding the campaigns of (or challengers in the primaries of if need be) the regulators as well as having sympathetic people placed at the top of the regulatory enforcement agencies destroys independence.
- wheelerwj 10y ago
  why don't you go ask the people of Flint how symbolic their water supply is? Maybe they can provide some concrete analysis of tainted water supplies.
  - jtuente 10y ago
    Considering they had a completely adequate water supply until their local government decided to switch to using the Flint River directly [1], I don't think this is a remotely accurate comparison. [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flint_water_crisis#Switching_to_a_new_water_source https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flint_water_crisis#Switching_t...
    - wheelerwj 10y ago
      really? you don't see a correlation between tainted river water in Flint and future tained water in ND? nothing? ok.
      - jtuente 10y ago
        Considering that all 3 fracking locations that are even remotely close to Flint are all downstream, yeah, I see 0 correlation.
- breatheoften 10y ago
  There are regulations proposed in Congress to make it illegal for regulators to consider results from all studies of ecological effects after "one off" events such as the Gulf Oil spill. I presume it also applies to smaller events like a pipeline leak. The stated motivation for this banning of research is because these studies are not "repeatable". This seems like a pretty blatant attack on the potential for the entities which benefited from the activity that led to the accident to be held accountable. With a rule like this on the horizon, there's no way I'd be willing to allow any oil company to pursue any construction with any risk of an ecological effect anywhere near my back yard.
- dragonwriter 10y ago
  > As far as I understand it, the pipeline being fought over symbolically rather than for reasons that make analytic sense. If there's an environmental argument, it's that the pipeline will make using shale sands oil from Canada cheaper which is a Bad Thing because we use more stuff when it's cheaper. Your last argument suggests you are conflating aspects of the Dakota Access Pipeline (which is for domestic shale oil from a particular field) with the Keystone XL pipeline (which is for Canadian oil sands oil). The environmental argument about Dakota access is that the pipeline, which was rerouted from its original route because of an unacceptable threat to a mostly White community that it would have crossed just upstream of the water supply of, and it's been rerouted to run just upstream of the water supply of the Standing Rock reservation. Which is why the protesters style themselves "Water Protectors". > Now, as to the subject of the pipeline running through native american territory because white people were (justifiably) worried about their drinking water if it ran through their watershed -- that's a whole different issue. No, it's actually the whole issue with Dakota Access. Keystone XL is a whole different pipeline.
  - Tloewald 10y ago
    You're right, I was conflating the two. So yes it's mainly about whose water is at risk.
- masonic 10y ago
  as to the subject of the pipeline running through native american territory... that's a whole different issue. Especially since the pipeline will not enter Native American territory at any point.
Symmetry 10y ago
It's certainly safer for the environment in general in terms of oil spills but the communities that would suffer from truck or trail spills are different from the communities that would suffer from pipeline spills. And since the former don't get to sue but the later do there's a certain pressure against pipelines in general. But on the other hand pipelines are more cost effective than other means of transport. That means the oil gets to market more cheaply and that will tend to decrease the price of oil, meaning more is used, meaning more CO2 in the air. Raising the price by taxing oil would mean that we would get the double benefit of less oil use and government money to pay down the debt or whatever but that's harder to do politically than just block pipelines.
- JimboOmega 10y ago
  But more oil is used to transport the oil (in trucks/trains), so I think that increases CO2 usage overall. Also higher prices mean more oil is exctracted - and sometimes more is used to do the extraction (IE, more marginal EROEI projects are undertaken)
  - Symmetry 10y ago
    It's higher profit for extracting that would mean that more oil would be extracted, not higher prices to the consumer. Higher transport prices decrease ROI. You have a point about transport CO2 use but I'd expect that would use a small amount proportionally.
cloakandswagger 10y ago
The debate over the pipelines seems to be largely symbolic. The oil is going to get pulled out of the oilsands and transported either way, it only seems logical (and probably more ecological) to use a giant pipe instead of trucks/trains.
- robertfw 10y ago
  What would be more ecological is to leave the stuff in the ground in the first place. This is not a symbolic fight.
  - ars 10y ago
    You are arguing the wrong side. What would be more ecological is using less oil. You can't block supply while demand is there, because the demand will be filled by someone, only this time by someone with less oversight [from you]. You want to make a difference add more "good" supply, or reduce demand. Bad supply will automatically go down if you do this, with no extra effort.
    - wutbrodo 10y ago
      Supply and demand don't only flow in one direction. Oil demand is absolutely responsive to price (and thus supply), in the form of energy users turning to alternative sources of energy, focusing more on energy efficient machinery, using less energy (driving less when the cost of driving rises).
      - deleted 10y ago
        [deleted]
      - ars 10y ago
        You are assuming no one else would sell them oil. This is incorrect. The is currently enough oil supply for everyone. Reducing/removing an oil source just means the oil comes from somewhere else, but it does NOT reduce oil consumption.
rm_-rf_slash 10y ago
Pipelines are much safer than trains or trucks at delivering oil or LNG. That subject is not up for debate. The problem is that when you build this infrastructure, it comes along with long-term financial contracts. Which is to say, if you build it, you're gonna use it. As a result, it discourages investments in other energy infrastructure projects. Once the pipeline is in, we are stuck with it until it ages out of usefulness or if green energy radically undercuts the profitability of fossil fuels such that the pipeline is abandoned. But because of those long-term financial contracts, the likelihood of the pipeline being abandoned is far less than it would have been if trucks were used instead. Small short-to-medium-term risk, larger long-term risk.
- gr3yh47 10y ago
  >Pipelines are much safer than trains or trucks at delivering oil or LNG. That subject is not up for debate. source(s)?
  - cmdrfred 10y ago
    A pipeline is 4.5 times safer. https://www.fraserinstitute.org/research/safety-transportation-oil-and-gas-pipelines-or-rail https://www.fraserinstitute.org/research/safety-transportati...
    - LungButta 10y ago
      I think we need better sources than research coming from a conservative/libertarian think tank.
- cryoshon 10y ago
  ... we should be resisting any and all modalities of future fossil fuel exploitation. who cares if pipelines are "safer" when we know that there is no planet-safe way to burn the oil they carry. if pipelines are the most efficient way to move the resource of oil, we need to be preventing their deployment because oil will kill us if we let it. we're in the midgame of climate change... better to take radical action to prevent the worst possible end case.
analog31 10y ago
In my view, each method needs to be justified on its own merits, since there is no a priori entitlement to extract and ship the oil in the first place. There's also no good justification for burdening the public with the risk of the pipeline, just because it replaces a greater risk somewhere else. If the pipeline is safe, prove it. If the trains and trucks are safe, prove it. If neither, then leave the oil in the ground.
- ars 10y ago
  > If neither, then leave the oil in the ground. Nothing is ever perfectly safe. Nothing you do ever has no impact. Everything in life is about tradeoffs, and the right thing to do is pick the best one. NOT wait for the perfect one!
  - disantlor 10y ago
    their point is that it's a false choice. perhaps those resources are better spent developing energy technology that does not require that we accept a certain amount of "unavoidable" environmental damage. it is avoidable, but perhaps a completely free market does not encode that effectively
  - jcoffland 10y ago
    Waiting generally has a very low environmental impact. Higher energy costs and a slower economy are not necessarily bad. Unbridled growth is not the only option.
    - jessaustin 10y ago
      Higher energy costs and a slower economy are not necessarily bad ...said no politician, ever. This proposition may even be true, but it's a terrible argument.
    - ars 10y ago
      > Higher energy costs and a slower economy are not necessarily bad. Said no poor person ever. You can't just bury your head in the sand and pretend your policies/idea don't impact anyone. If you understand that and choose to do so anyway because you feel it's better, fine, at least you understand that you are making a tradeoff. But just pretending there is no harm is disingenuous.
ika_ 10y ago
Yes. Trains and trucks use up more fuel and are much more dangerous than pipelines. Look up "oil train derailment". Oil trains can and do explode when they derail, and they pass through population centers. One reason existing pipelines have a lot of problems today is because a lot of them are very old, which makes them much more dangerous than any pipeline built today. This is a good article about that: http://insideenergy.org/2014/08/01/half-century-old-pipelines-carry-oil-and-gas-load/ http://insideenergy.org/2014/08/01/half-century-old-pipeline... A brand new pipeline would be less dangerous than the existing pipeline infrastructure we use today.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
protomyth 10y ago
North Dakota has some recent oil spills with trains. http://articles.latimes.com/2014/jan/13/nation/la-na-nn-north-dakota-oil-train-crash-investigation-20140113 http://articles.latimes.com/2014/jan/13/nation/la-na-nn-nort... http://www.cbsnews.com/news/north-dakota-town-evacuated-after-oil-train-derailment/ http://www.cbsnews.com/news/north-dakota-town-evacuated-afte...
KirinDave 10y ago
Or we could decline to expand our oil industry further, on the grounds that the long term economics of the industry are a poor prospect and it makes little sense to continue encouraging its growth in the US. This project really doesn't have many positive externalities for its host nation. For an administration that's "America First" they're been very quiet about who actually benefits. Some few Americans do.
- VickBear 10y ago
  Can you actually explain how it doesn't benefit USA? All the studies I read explained the economic impact it will have on the states it goes through after completion.
  - snuxoll 10y ago
    Sure, it'll benefit executives at Energy Transfer Partners, Phillips 66, etc. since they'll have an easy way to transfer oil to be shipped overseas. The states as a whole? Please. The number of permanent jobs this pipeline will create are pathetically low, a couple of people to man an oil field and a couple dozen to deal with the pipeline itself. Eventually there's going to be less reliance on the USA for refined petrol as more nations move towards renewable energy sources, so the market will eventually correct itself I suppose - but I don't see any reason to help the oil companies make one last push to milk it for all they can before the money dries up.
    - VickBear 10y ago
      You are forgetting about taxes going to states. A lot of indirect economic boom surfaces as well. Check out the economic studies for the pipeline.
wang_li 10y ago
It used to be that oil would just seep to the surface. That generally stopped once we figured out we could usefully burn it and began draining the easily access sources. I wonder which is "worse" what there was prior to petroleum becoming a commodity or the pipeline leaks that happen now. There are well known ocean seeps that have been ongoing for tens or hundreds of thousands of years[1]: >Researchers have found that natural offshore seeps near Goleta, California, alone have leaked up to 25 tons of oil each day – for the last several hundred thousand years. 1. http://aoghs.org/offshore-history/california-oil-seeps/ http://aoghs.org/offshore-history/california-oil-seeps/
- beat 10y ago
  Not in the middle of the water supply for 10,000 people.
- socialentp 10y ago
  The difference is that on the scale of tens or hundreds of thousands of years, wildlife populations have a chance to adapt or relocate. We are causing oil leaks in areas that have been historically relatively pristine, resulting in severe damage to sensitive ecosystems.
danielvf 10y ago
Trucks are the worst in every way, by a lot. Comparing rail to pipelines, with the same amount of oil moved the same distance, trains cost 2x more and use more energy. Most years trains spill less per oil moved than pipelines, which is their one win. Unfortunately, when trains have accidents, they tend to be both in towns and have fire. 45 people died in a single Canadain oil train accident in 2013. Pipelines have great record in terms of human safety.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
wtf_is_up 10y ago
Yes, it is approximately 4x "safer" to transport oil via pipeline than rail. And many times more safe than using trucks. In addition, most pipeline failures occur at compressor stations and processing stations, instead of along the pipeline itself. [1] [1]: https://www.fraserinstitute.org/research/safety-transportation-oil-and-gas-pipelines-or-rail https://www.fraserinstitute.org/research/safety-transportati...
JumpCrisscross 10y ago
> is it safer (or energy efficient) than carrying the oil on trains/trucks? In essence, pipelines spill more across fewer locations while trains spill less across more locations: Our calculation implies 0.09 incidents and 26 barrels released per 1 billion barrel-miles of crude oil transported by pipeline during a 2004-12 period. Comparing that with figures for rail, we quantify the risk of a train incident to be 6-times higher than that of a pipeline, while pipelines spill 3-times more per 1 billion barrel-miles of crude oil transported, over the 2004-12 period. [1] http://www.iea.org/publications/freepublications/publication/MTOMR2013_free.pdf http://www.iea.org/publications/freepublications/publication...
- jadell 10y ago
  I'm all for "socializing the risk" of oil. If more people had the same worries about their water being contaminated, maybe more people would start to demand investment in cleaner sources of energy. As it is, most people don't live near pipelines or water sources that could be contaminated by them, and so the risk is largely abstract.

Tloewald 10y ago

As far as I understand it, the pipeline being fought over symbolically rather than for reasons that make analytic sense. If there's an environmental argument, it's that the pipeline will make using shale sands oil from Canada cheaper which is a Bad Thing because we use more stuff when it's cheaper. The correct approach would be to make fees and penalties for environmental impact higher (carbon tax, EPA able to levy big fines for oil spills, etc.) and then let the market figure it out rather than fight like crazy over specific cases. Now, as to the subject of the pipeline running through native american territory because white people were (justifiably) worried about their drinking water if it ran through their watershed -- that's a whole different issue.

aaronbrethorst 10y ago
There are people who live in the pipeline's projected path and their water will be poisoned if/when the pipeline leaks. That's not symbolism, that's life and death.
jadell 10y ago
Existing pipelines within a few hundred miles of this site have recently leaked into water supplies. This is not symbolic; it's about where the tribe gets their water from.
- FireBeyond 10y ago
  This is very valid. But I think there's _also_ an important symbolic goal here. "This pipeline was moved because local communities feared the risk to the water supply. So the company felt it was appropriate to move it into the tribal community area." "Water risk to white people? No no no. Water risk to Native communities? Well, we can live with that."
  - criddell 10y ago
    > "Water risk to white people? No no no. Water risk to Native communities? Well, we can live with that." I don't think the Army Corps is that corrupt. I'm guessing it went more like "Water risk to 50,000 people or water risk to 5,000 people?" This history of the US government relations with native people makes any object assessment suspect though.
    - dragonwriter 10y ago
      > I don't think the Army Corps is that corrupt. I'm not sure the Army Corps was involved until after the reroute, and, in any case, it had publicly announced that it would not approve the easement on the current route because of the issues raised relating to Standing Rock and was conducting environmental impact reviews of alternative routes prior to the Trump executive order directing approval of the current route, so, yes, I'll agree that the Army Corps of Engineers itself is not indicated to be the source of the problem.
  - charia 10y ago
    It also has to do with the fact that local communities had a significant population in comparison to the native american m tribes who lived in the area.
    - Declanomous 10y ago
      It's a good we got out in front of that issue ahead of time by killing Native Americans and then moving them away from their ancestral homeland.
      - lostlogin 10y ago
        credit where credit is due - I blame the British empire. NZ, Australia and other former colonies have done it as well, getting slightly less vicious and slight more manipulative with time. Dodgy treaties with locals etc.
benjaminjackman 10y ago
> As far as I understand it, the pipeline being fought over symbolically rather than for reasons that make analytic sense. If there's an environmental argument, it's that the pipeline will make using shale sands oil from Canada cheaper which is a Bad Thing because we use more stuff when it's cheaper. > The correct approach would be to make fees and penalties for environmental impact higher (carbon tax, EPA able to levy big fines for oil spills, etc.) and then let the market figure it out rather than fight like crazy over specific cases. I think you are totally correct, except that the `correct approach` only works if you have a functioning and independent (of the regulated) regulatory system able to assess the impact, and levy taxes, fees, and fines to price in all the externalities. Defunding / freezing these agencies certainly doesn't help their ability to function, and funding the campaigns of (or challengers in the primaries of if need be) the regulators as well as having sympathetic people placed at the top of the regulatory enforcement agencies destroys independence.
wheelerwj 10y ago
why don't you go ask the people of Flint how symbolic their water supply is? Maybe they can provide some concrete analysis of tainted water supplies.
- jtuente 10y ago
  Considering they had a completely adequate water supply until their local government decided to switch to using the Flint River directly [1], I don't think this is a remotely accurate comparison. [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flint_water_crisis#Switching_to_a_new_water_source https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flint_water_crisis#Switching_t...
  - wheelerwj 10y ago
    really? you don't see a correlation between tainted river water in Flint and future tained water in ND? nothing? ok.
    - jtuente 10y ago
      Considering that all 3 fracking locations that are even remotely close to Flint are all downstream, yeah, I see 0 correlation.
breatheoften 10y ago
There are regulations proposed in Congress to make it illegal for regulators to consider results from all studies of ecological effects after "one off" events such as the Gulf Oil spill. I presume it also applies to smaller events like a pipeline leak. The stated motivation for this banning of research is because these studies are not "repeatable". This seems like a pretty blatant attack on the potential for the entities which benefited from the activity that led to the accident to be held accountable. With a rule like this on the horizon, there's no way I'd be willing to allow any oil company to pursue any construction with any risk of an ecological effect anywhere near my back yard.
dragonwriter 10y ago
> As far as I understand it, the pipeline being fought over symbolically rather than for reasons that make analytic sense. If there's an environmental argument, it's that the pipeline will make using shale sands oil from Canada cheaper which is a Bad Thing because we use more stuff when it's cheaper. Your last argument suggests you are conflating aspects of the Dakota Access Pipeline (which is for domestic shale oil from a particular field) with the Keystone XL pipeline (which is for Canadian oil sands oil). The environmental argument about Dakota access is that the pipeline, which was rerouted from its original route because of an unacceptable threat to a mostly White community that it would have crossed just upstream of the water supply of, and it's been rerouted to run just upstream of the water supply of the Standing Rock reservation. Which is why the protesters style themselves "Water Protectors". > Now, as to the subject of the pipeline running through native american territory because white people were (justifiably) worried about their drinking water if it ran through their watershed -- that's a whole different issue. No, it's actually the whole issue with Dakota Access. Keystone XL is a whole different pipeline.
- Tloewald 10y ago
  You're right, I was conflating the two. So yes it's mainly about whose water is at risk.
masonic 10y ago
as to the subject of the pipeline running through native american territory... that's a whole different issue. Especially since the pipeline will not enter Native American territory at any point.

Symmetry 10y ago

It's certainly safer for the environment in general in terms of oil spills but the communities that would suffer from truck or trail spills are different from the communities that would suffer from pipeline spills. And since the former don't get to sue but the later do there's a certain pressure against pipelines in general. But on the other hand pipelines are more cost effective than other means of transport. That means the oil gets to market more cheaply and that will tend to decrease the price of oil, meaning more is used, meaning more CO2 in the air. Raising the price by taxing oil would mean that we would get the double benefit of less oil use and government money to pay down the debt or whatever but that's harder to do politically than just block pipelines.

JimboOmega 10y ago
But more oil is used to transport the oil (in trucks/trains), so I think that increases CO2 usage overall. Also higher prices mean more oil is exctracted - and sometimes more is used to do the extraction (IE, more marginal EROEI projects are undertaken)
- Symmetry 10y ago
  It's higher profit for extracting that would mean that more oil would be extracted, not higher prices to the consumer. Higher transport prices decrease ROI. You have a point about transport CO2 use but I'd expect that would use a small amount proportionally.

cloakandswagger 10y ago

The debate over the pipelines seems to be largely symbolic. The oil is going to get pulled out of the oilsands and transported either way, it only seems logical (and probably more ecological) to use a giant pipe instead of trucks/trains.

robertfw 10y ago
What would be more ecological is to leave the stuff in the ground in the first place. This is not a symbolic fight.
- ars 10y ago
  You are arguing the wrong side. What would be more ecological is using less oil. You can't block supply while demand is there, because the demand will be filled by someone, only this time by someone with less oversight [from you]. You want to make a difference add more "good" supply, or reduce demand. Bad supply will automatically go down if you do this, with no extra effort.
  - wutbrodo 10y ago
    Supply and demand don't only flow in one direction. Oil demand is absolutely responsive to price (and thus supply), in the form of energy users turning to alternative sources of energy, focusing more on energy efficient machinery, using less energy (driving less when the cost of driving rises).
    - deleted 10y ago
      [deleted]
    - ars 10y ago
      You are assuming no one else would sell them oil. This is incorrect. The is currently enough oil supply for everyone. Reducing/removing an oil source just means the oil comes from somewhere else, but it does NOT reduce oil consumption.

rm_-rf_slash 10y ago

Pipelines are much safer than trains or trucks at delivering oil or LNG. That subject is not up for debate. The problem is that when you build this infrastructure, it comes along with long-term financial contracts. Which is to say, if you build it, you're gonna use it. As a result, it discourages investments in other energy infrastructure projects. Once the pipeline is in, we are stuck with it until it ages out of usefulness or if green energy radically undercuts the profitability of fossil fuels such that the pipeline is abandoned. But because of those long-term financial contracts, the likelihood of the pipeline being abandoned is far less than it would have been if trucks were used instead. Small short-to-medium-term risk, larger long-term risk.

gr3yh47 10y ago
>Pipelines are much safer than trains or trucks at delivering oil or LNG. That subject is not up for debate. source(s)?
- cmdrfred 10y ago
  A pipeline is 4.5 times safer. https://www.fraserinstitute.org/research/safety-transportation-oil-and-gas-pipelines-or-rail https://www.fraserinstitute.org/research/safety-transportati...
  - LungButta 10y ago
    I think we need better sources than research coming from a conservative/libertarian think tank.
cryoshon 10y ago
... we should be resisting any and all modalities of future fossil fuel exploitation. who cares if pipelines are "safer" when we know that there is no planet-safe way to burn the oil they carry. if pipelines are the most efficient way to move the resource of oil, we need to be preventing their deployment because oil will kill us if we let it. we're in the midgame of climate change... better to take radical action to prevent the worst possible end case.

analog31 10y ago

In my view, each method needs to be justified on its own merits, since there is no a priori entitlement to extract and ship the oil in the first place. There's also no good justification for burdening the public with the risk of the pipeline, just because it replaces a greater risk somewhere else. If the pipeline is safe, prove it. If the trains and trucks are safe, prove it. If neither, then leave the oil in the ground.

ars 10y ago
> If neither, then leave the oil in the ground. Nothing is ever perfectly safe. Nothing you do ever has no impact. Everything in life is about tradeoffs, and the right thing to do is pick the best one. NOT wait for the perfect one!
- disantlor 10y ago
  their point is that it's a false choice. perhaps those resources are better spent developing energy technology that does not require that we accept a certain amount of "unavoidable" environmental damage. it is avoidable, but perhaps a completely free market does not encode that effectively
- jcoffland 10y ago
  Waiting generally has a very low environmental impact. Higher energy costs and a slower economy are not necessarily bad. Unbridled growth is not the only option.
  - jessaustin 10y ago
    Higher energy costs and a slower economy are not necessarily bad ...said no politician, ever. This proposition may even be true, but it's a terrible argument.
  - ars 10y ago
    > Higher energy costs and a slower economy are not necessarily bad. Said no poor person ever. You can't just bury your head in the sand and pretend your policies/idea don't impact anyone. If you understand that and choose to do so anyway because you feel it's better, fine, at least you understand that you are making a tradeoff. But just pretending there is no harm is disingenuous.

ika_ 10y ago

Yes. Trains and trucks use up more fuel and are much more dangerous than pipelines. Look up "oil train derailment". Oil trains can and do explode when they derail, and they pass through population centers. One reason existing pipelines have a lot of problems today is because a lot of them are very old, which makes them much more dangerous than any pipeline built today. This is a good article about that: http://insideenergy.org/2014/08/01/half-century-old-pipelines-carry-oil-and-gas-load/ http://insideenergy.org/2014/08/01/half-century-old-pipeline... A brand new pipeline would be less dangerous than the existing pipeline infrastructure we use today.

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

protomyth 10y ago

North Dakota has some recent oil spills with trains. http://articles.latimes.com/2014/jan/13/nation/la-na-nn-north-dakota-oil-train-crash-investigation-20140113 http://articles.latimes.com/2014/jan/13/nation/la-na-nn-nort... http://www.cbsnews.com/news/north-dakota-town-evacuated-after-oil-train-derailment/ http://www.cbsnews.com/news/north-dakota-town-evacuated-afte...

KirinDave 10y ago

Or we could decline to expand our oil industry further, on the grounds that the long term economics of the industry are a poor prospect and it makes little sense to continue encouraging its growth in the US. This project really doesn't have many positive externalities for its host nation. For an administration that's "America First" they're been very quiet about who actually benefits. Some few Americans do.

VickBear 10y ago
Can you actually explain how it doesn't benefit USA? All the studies I read explained the economic impact it will have on the states it goes through after completion.
- snuxoll 10y ago
  Sure, it'll benefit executives at Energy Transfer Partners, Phillips 66, etc. since they'll have an easy way to transfer oil to be shipped overseas. The states as a whole? Please. The number of permanent jobs this pipeline will create are pathetically low, a couple of people to man an oil field and a couple dozen to deal with the pipeline itself. Eventually there's going to be less reliance on the USA for refined petrol as more nations move towards renewable energy sources, so the market will eventually correct itself I suppose - but I don't see any reason to help the oil companies make one last push to milk it for all they can before the money dries up.
  - VickBear 10y ago
    You are forgetting about taxes going to states. A lot of indirect economic boom surfaces as well. Check out the economic studies for the pipeline.

wang_li 10y ago

It used to be that oil would just seep to the surface. That generally stopped once we figured out we could usefully burn it and began draining the easily access sources. I wonder which is "worse" what there was prior to petroleum becoming a commodity or the pipeline leaks that happen now. There are well known ocean seeps that have been ongoing for tens or hundreds of thousands of years[1]: >Researchers have found that natural offshore seeps near Goleta, California, alone have leaked up to 25 tons of oil each day – for the last several hundred thousand years. 1. http://aoghs.org/offshore-history/california-oil-seeps/ http://aoghs.org/offshore-history/california-oil-seeps/

beat 10y ago
Not in the middle of the water supply for 10,000 people.
socialentp 10y ago
The difference is that on the scale of tens or hundreds of thousands of years, wildlife populations have a chance to adapt or relocate. We are causing oil leaks in areas that have been historically relatively pristine, resulting in severe damage to sensitive ecosystems.

danielvf 10y ago

Trucks are the worst in every way, by a lot. Comparing rail to pipelines, with the same amount of oil moved the same distance, trains cost 2x more and use more energy. Most years trains spill less per oil moved than pipelines, which is their one win. Unfortunately, when trains have accidents, they tend to be both in towns and have fire. 45 people died in a single Canadain oil train accident in 2013. Pipelines have great record in terms of human safety.

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

wtf_is_up 10y ago

Yes, it is approximately 4x "safer" to transport oil via pipeline than rail. And many times more safe than using trucks. In addition, most pipeline failures occur at compressor stations and processing stations, instead of along the pipeline itself. [1] [1]: https://www.fraserinstitute.org/research/safety-transportation-oil-and-gas-pipelines-or-rail https://www.fraserinstitute.org/research/safety-transportati...

JumpCrisscross 10y ago

> is it safer (or energy efficient) than carrying the oil on trains/trucks? In essence, pipelines spill more across fewer locations while trains spill less across more locations: Our calculation implies 0.09 incidents and 26 barrels released per 1 billion barrel-miles of crude oil transported by pipeline during a 2004-12 period. Comparing that with figures for rail, we quantify the risk of a train incident to be 6-times higher than that of a pipeline, while pipelines spill 3-times more per 1 billion barrel-miles of crude oil transported, over the 2004-12 period. [1] http://www.iea.org/publications/freepublications/publication/MTOMR2013_free.pdf http://www.iea.org/publications/freepublications/publication...

jadell 10y ago
I'm all for "socializing the risk" of oil. If more people had the same worries about their water being contaminated, maybe more people would start to demand investment in cleaner sources of energy. As it is, most people don't live near pipelines or water sources that could be contaminated by them, and so the risk is largely abstract.