I don't know of any - but feel free to link them.

From fast googling:

http://www.bellona.org/articles/arti...0not%20tallied

This says the worst pipeline oil spill was around 250,000 gallons. So about 30 tanker trucks or 6 train cars.

For comparison the Exxon Valdez was 11-32 million gallons and the Deepwater horizon oil spill was 210 million gallons.

Edit: So the point being that pipelines seem like the very best way to move oil from an environmental damage to gallons of oil moved perspective.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trans-A...stem#Incidents[B]

Just because I don't want it to be missed. I think we can agree this is true:

So the point being that pipelines seem like the very best way to move oil from an environmental damage to gallons of oil moved perspective.

Major leaks would still be easy to detect based on pressure. Agreed on smaller leaks - but you can protect against this in environmental sensitive areas and monitor it in other areas as well.

I'm not saying there are no risks - but they sure seem a hell of a lot better than the alternatives. So unless we plan on getting rid of our reliance on oil - we have to accept some risk.

I have a feeling the larger point from our grandkids' POV - when they're staring at a 2-4 degree temp rise and global chaos - is going to be they'll wish Canada hadn't tapped all their tar sands, the US hadn't fracked all that natural gas, and China hadn't burnt all their coal.

ikestoys, do you have any sort of evidence backing up your claim that prices aren't going up in the midwest if this pipeline is built? I haven't seen a single source refuting that claim.

And like I said in the other thread - this point is a silly reason to be against the pipeline. There are much more effective ways to deal with these problems.

Yeah probably. But if you're the environmental lobby you have to start somewhere.

And that's what annoys me about the environmental lobby. Focused on bull**** instead of actual results.

Anyway, I need to take a break from this thread. I'm starting to feel like a big-oil shill.

Are you talking about the pipeline itself, or are you talking about the broader goal of artificially raising fossil fuel prices by whatever means are available?

Suzzer is saying the faster we run out of oil, the faster well be forced to build greener techs.

He's probably right about that.

No I'm saying if we burn all the available fossil fuel WAAF (well our grandkids - probably).

Seriously?

These spills ALL occurred last year, and this is in no way an exhaustive list:

- BP pipeline leak in Alaska - 176,000+ gallons.

- Keystone pipeline leak in Kansas -17,000 gallons

- Marathon pipeline spill in Michigan - 462,000 gallons

- Ruptured pipeline in Texas City, TX - 252,000 gallons

- Pipeline failure near Vinton, LA - 63,000 gallons

- Enbridge oil pipeline spill in Kalamazoo River. - 1 million plus gallons. As of Oct. 31, 2011, more than 1,139,000 gallons of oil are estimated to have been contained in the contaminated waste streams generated by cleanup work.

Enbridge ^^. That's the Canadian company that also bought the Seaway Pipeline from the Gulf to Cushing, OK in order to reverse the pipeline's flow to send crude back to the Gulf for export. That's not my conjecture that Enbridge will reverse flow, that's what they said they'd do when they bought it.

Enbridge is also the company with plans to build the pipeline to the BC coast for re-shipment to China, which has nothing to do with the XL Pipeline as they have different points of origination. Those plans have been put on hold, contrary to your assertions that it has been green-lighted, due to safety and water contamination concerns of the Canadian public. And lol and good luck trying to build an expensive and risky pipeline over the Canadian Rockies. Just lol. Have you seen the animation for the proposed pipeline? LOL. It goes up, over and through tunnels to be built in the Rockies. And, at the end of the animation video, they point out that it's not to scale. LOL.

But that's not the half of it.

Tar sands oil is far more acidic than conventional WTI petroleum, and it requires heat to keep it thin and flowing and additional pressure to pump through pipe, all of which increases pipe stress and makes a pipe rupture far more likely than conventional petroleum.

New Tar Sands Oil Products Increase Likelihood of Spills

Only one of those was in Alaska - which is what I was responding to - and I linked it.

The Alaska leak didn't happen last year.

I like how you left off the size of the leak in Kansas - 17,000 gallons.

These numbers aren't very big when compared with the alternative ways of transporting oil. Adding all of those up is still less than 1/5 the size of the lowest estimate for the Exxon Valdez accident.

I never said the Northern Gateway pipeline was greenlighted. But it also hasn't been put on hold. They're currently (maybe just finished) the public hearings. With the support of the current Canadian Government it's extremely likely to be built. And I already said that it's future is independent of the Keystone pipeline.

Anyway, keep on keeping on.

The article he linked was about the BP leak last year, but it was only like 3000 gallons.

Only 1/5 of an exxon each year is still pretty bad iyam. Not sure how to get around it though if we still have to use oil.

Yes, that's why Obama ordered the release of 30 million barrels from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, and cajoled Euros to release another 30 million from their reserves, and promised to release more if necessary, to increase the price of oil, didn't you know?

Obama Was Right About The SPR Release



P.S. Can we leave the GOP talking points to the GOP?

And, again, the XL Pipeline will increase crude and fuel costs for Americans, especially for Midwesterners, who will pass their increased fuel costs to us at the grocery store. That is not debatable.

So, if Obama green-lights the XL Pipeline as proposed, fuel costs will increase and you would then actually be correct that Obama was trying to increase price.

That many of the Gulf refineries are also located in Free Trade Zones so that Canadian and American oil companies will be able to avoid paying American taxes is another discussion.

Could you explain this?

It seemed that you were implying that you did not know of any leaks period, which, as you can see, is lol.

Yes it did. I initially linked the wrong leak, the one you linked previously, the worst in Alaska's history.

I initially only included that one because it was Keystone specific. And I meant to include the amount. A leak is a leak.

I suppose they are small compared to the Gulf Spill too. What do you think a million gallon leak, like the one that happened in MI last year, would do to farmland and/or the Great Plains aquifer?

Northern Gateway pipeline decision will be delayed until late 2013: panel

I suppose I should have said "they put the breaks on" instead of "on hold".

I grunched some of this, but I recall your making it sound like it's a done-deal and either we should make a decision fast or risk losing the oil to China, which is bs, because they are different pipelines with different points of origination. I missed where you said it was independent. I haven't caught up on this thread yet.

Some of your statements that appeared to me to be extremely shillish were made in the other thread.

One question: Are you Canadian?

Dude what happens when the spr has to be refilled? Im not saying obama is above petty politicking. I'm saying he's purposely holding back oil exploration and the industry because of AGW. Hell, even suzzer is taking that exact position

No it's not. That's just a stupid statement.

Yes, you should have because "On hold" is just wrong. Like your link says (and I already said) they're holding public hearings on it right now.

Yup. And I think I mentioned this somewhere but I'd be fine with the Keystone XL pipeline not being built since it forces Canada to expand our own refining capacity and sell to non-US markets.

It just annoys me when people are against the pipeline for ******ed reasons.

are ppl seriously handwaving away oil spills of 40k gallons as being a trivial non-concern?

No - I'm saying show me an alternative method of transporting oil that results in less oil spilled per gallon moved (shipping tankers might actually beat pipelines - but I can't see how to utilize them when moving oil from Alberta).

The point of comparing 40K gallons to 5 tanker trucks is that it seems likely to me that we have at least that many accidents with tanker trucks when moving the same amount of oil as the pipeline.

Edit: I mean seriously - people that hand wring over the environmental cost of oil don't seem to have actual practical solutions.

A leak is not a leak? It's something else?

It's a matter of degree. The decision has been delayed over one year, but you seem to think we should not take time to get the decision right here.

Like I said, Good Luck building a pipeline over the Rockies. It would be much easier to lay pipe across the Great Plains, across our Breadbasket, and to the Gulf for export to other countries, all while raising crude, fuel and food costs for us. Sounds like a great deal...for Canadians and US oil companies.

The Rockies are tall and the Pacific Ocean is huge. Much better to sell to Latin America and Europe, by way of the Gulf, eh?

So, let me get this straight. It's ******ed for Americans to not want to pay higher crude, fuel and food prices, and to take monumental and unnecessary risks to our water and food supplies, so that Canada can sell oil at higher prices to countries other than the USA?

I'd say Americans are smart ******s.

The fact is that American oil and fuel consumption, due to higher fuel economy standards and alternative energies, has been declining and that does not bode well for the Canadian loon and economy.

JFC, Canada's economy dipped into recession just last year when oil went down to $70. One trick pony ftw. Push your dirty oil on someone else.