Quentil
Showstopper 
Posts 743
Registered 5-13-2003 Location Saratoga Springs, NY Member Is Offline Mood:
|
| posted on 11-30-2016 at 05:56 AM |
|
|
The Transport of Oil: Pipelines vs the Alternatives.
I originally posted this somewhere's else, but thought it might also be a good conversation piece here. This is in the topic of how best to
transport oil from the new deposits in the United States being available because of fracking. Please note my numbers are simple averages in most
cases, but do not change my points substantially. An example is that railcars vary in amount of oil they carry, from 680-720 barrels of oil.
It's just easier to simplify it to be "~700" for the sake of understanding. Anyhow, here's the bit, and feel free to comment. Oh, this
is also assuming that the need for oil is a given. Pipe dream garbage like, "But we shouldn't use oil at all!" given the current worldwide
need for oil to support essentially everything would be preferred to be left out of the conversation. I get it, clean energy is nicer. But
we're talking reality here.
For what it's worth, I'm pretty torn on the whole pipeline vs rail/truck issue. Anyhow...
---
Teacher (Quentil) in da house. TL;DR at the bottom.
The case for or against more pipelines:
After replying to someone else's post, it got me wondering exactly how much oil is being transported on rail in the US these days, because of a
lack of pipeline availability. These numbers were found across a couple web sites, which I'll list at the end for anyone interested.
So, in 2011, about 10,000 railcars of oil were transported by choo choo trains to refineries in the United States, Each railcar holds ~700 barrels of
oil. In 2014, that number was up to 400,000 railcars of oil a year. In 2016, it's over 500,000 cars of oil. As a result, we've seen a
number of small cities become important rail hubs. The local one of which is Albany, NY. Which is now one of the biggest oil hubs in the country. Take
that, you Texas fuckers! Err, I mean, anyhow...
Now, let's just say that there's good things happening from this. The rail networks in much of the United States have been improved more
in the past couple of years than in the previous couple of decades, largely as a result of this larger oil movement on them. This has the side effect
of improving rail travel times and comfort of passenger service, as obviously those cars use the same tracks. Jobs in the industry have skyrocketed,
and there's much local trickle down effect on eateries, entertainment services, and the like. That means more tax money, and more jobs.
It also means more expensive oil and a LOT more pollution. A combination of truck and rail transport of oil and gas pumps a far higher amount of nasty
things into the air than a pipeline does. It also means a lot more trains full of explodable boom stuff are rolling through the middle of towns and
cities everywhere. Sometimes, they indeed do go BOOM, often taking out whole city blocks and killing plenty of people when they do so. Google it if
you don't believe me.
Finally, movement by truck and rail costs more. You have to pay all of those people driving and maintaining the equipment, after all. This higher cost
is added to the retail cost, thus meaning higher prices for gas and heating oil for the consumer.
So, by not having pipelines, you have more expensive fuel, you have increased pollution, increased risk of city blocks being vaporized by an accident,
but also increased local jobs and a larger tax base.
Pipelines are more environmentally friendly, provide cheaper gas at the pumps, at the expense of jobs.
I'm not saying which one is better. I'm just saying that there's a lot more going on with the movement of oil than a simple Facebook
meme can express.
TL; DR: Shit's a lot more complicated with oil than you think.
----
https://www.dallasfed.org/�/�/research/swe/2013/swe1302c.pdf
http://www.aogr.com/�/exclusive-story/railroad-oil-shipping�
http://www.eia.gov/petroleum/transportation/
http://www.nytimes.com/�/bakkan-crude-rolling-through-alban�
[Edited on 11-30-2016 by Quentil]
|
|
|
Paddlefoot
Rocco Rock of Jabroni 
Posts 7665
Registered 1-19-2008 Location Stupid Idiot Section Member Is Offline Mood: ChinceMcMahon
|
| posted on 11-30-2016 at 07:06 AM |
|
|
Having worked on pipelines many times here in Canada I can assure you of one thing: they're built to one of the most stringent construction
codes ever written in Canada and the US. The code can't provide a 100% safety guarantee but that's impossible with anything built
anywhere. If a pipeline is built in good faith by a contractor with the correct independent inspection oversight as well as layers of government
involvement then there should be no major problems during the engineered lifetime of the project.
When a line fails it makes a huge media splash, as it should. The vast majority of line failures though happen on old lines and usually occur from
three things. One, an above-ground valve station fails or is damaged during maintenance. Two, the line is accidentally hit by some kind of digging
equipment, either by a farmer or by the construction guys if an in-service section is being excavated for repairs or alteration. And, three, the base
steel material finally gives out due to internal corrosion after forty or fifty years of service. The newer lines though, except in the case of
malfeasance like happened here at one of the oil plants in northern Alberta when the Chinese-headquartered owner half-assed the construction and
falsified the inspection paperwork, are very safe and will last for decades in service without incident. Once again, there's no such thing as a
100% safety guarantee but a proper constructed pipeline built correctly according to code is remarkably safe compared to other projects out there.
I can answer more questions if you want. My background is mostly welding inspection so I can't give you full information on all aspects of
building a line but I should hopefully be able to ballpark it for you.
You know, everyone says it's not supposed to make sense, like that's the whole point, dude. And I'm just saying, you know,
that's like an excuse for lazy storytelling. Just don't sell me shite and tell me it's gold, all right? I might be stoned, but
I'm not high. You know what I mean?
- Cassidy from Preacher, commenting on The Big Lebowski and/or professional wrestling
|
|
|
OOMike
The Great One
Posts 3692
Registered 1-3-2002 Location Columbus, OH Member Is Offline Mood: same ol same ol
|
| posted on 11-30-2016 at 01:36 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Paddlefoot
If a pipeline is built in good faith by a contractor with the correct independent inspection oversight as well as layers of government involvement
then there should be no major problems during the engineered lifetime of the project.
This is the biggest if, and the reason behind so many concerns with environmentalists. Many things made in this country should be safe for the life
of the item, however the fact that I get notification on recalls issued in my mailbox every day, and the news reporting on companies cutting corners
to drive up profits almost every day, has me more than a little concerned. (see Deepwater Horizon where cheaper concrete and time constraints allowed
a fuck ton of oil to leak into the Gulf.)
2017 where Nazis are defended and being against Fascism is a bad thing.
Prejudices are rarely overcome by argument; not being founded in reason they cannot be destroyed by logic � Tryon Edwards
Never let the facts interfere with a good rant.
The only OO columnist that has never written a column.
|
|
|
Paddlefoot
Rocco Rock of Jabroni
Posts 7665
Registered 1-19-2008 Location Stupid Idiot Section Member Is Offline Mood: ChinceMcMahon
|
| posted on 11-30-2016 at 04:12 PM |
|
|
It was more than fitting that BP lost about $32 billion in the aftermath of the Deepwater Horizon disaster and forever destroyed their corporate image
just because some asshole of a project manager tried to save a half-million dollars with an inadequate blow-out preventer. This is the constant
problem in the industry, probably even more now since the oil price collapsed two years ago, that there's so many short-sighted little twits who
think up things like austerity over the dumbest parts of the projects. A half-million for a blow-out device from a well that had the potential to
produce endless billions in revenue? It's the most ridiculous mentality possible but unfortunately it exists in too many departments as some
engineer or manager tries to make himself look good by coming in a few dollars under budget.
You know, everyone says it's not supposed to make sense, like that's the whole point, dude. And I'm just saying, you know,
that's like an excuse for lazy storytelling. Just don't sell me shite and tell me it's gold, all right? I might be stoned, but
I'm not high. You know what I mean?
- Cassidy from Preacher, commenting on The Big Lebowski and/or professional wrestling
|
|
|
CCharger
The Great One 
Posts 3628
Registered 7-21-2010 Member Is Offline Mood: Covfefe
|
| posted on 12-5-2016 at 03:04 PM |
|
|
Figured this would be the best place to put this news?
The Army Corps of Engineers has stopped the Dakota pipeline from going through Standing Rock. This is ostensibly a victory for the protesters and
American Indians who opposed the construction of the pipeline through native lands.
Meanwhile, the company building the pipeline has remained defiant and said they will continue with construction regardless.
http://www.cnn.com/2016/12/05/us/dakota-access-pipeline/index.html
"She was warned. She was given an explanation. Nevertheless, she persisted."
"The powers of the president to protect our country are very substantial and will not be questioned."
--- Stephen Miller, Trump senior White House advisor, Feb. 12, 2017
|
|
|
OOMike
The Great One
Posts 3692
Registered 1-3-2002 Location Columbus, OH Member Is Offline Mood: same ol same ol
|
| posted on 12-5-2016 at 06:27 PM |
|
|
At best this was a temporary reprieve since on Jan 20 there is a new person in charge and they will tell the Army to go ahead and allow it.
2017 where Nazis are defended and being against Fascism is a bad thing.
Prejudices are rarely overcome by argument; not being founded in reason they cannot be destroyed by logic � Tryon Edwards
Never let the facts interfere with a good rant.
The only OO columnist that has never written a column.
|
|
|
Quentil
Showstopper
Posts 743
Registered 5-13-2003 Location Saratoga Springs, NY Member Is Offline Mood:
|
| posted on 12-5-2016 at 06:41 PM |
|
|
The thing that is silly about North Dakota is that there's already a dozen or more pipelines crisscrossing the state under the ground. It makes
the whole protest seem more a symbol than an actual fear of bad things happening. But yeah, I expect lots of pipelines after Jan 20. And likely some
deaths between police/national guard and protesters to come.
|
|
|
OOMike
The Great One
Posts 3692
Registered 1-3-2002 Location Columbus, OH Member Is Offline Mood: same ol same ol
|
| posted on 12-6-2016 at 01:31 PM |
|
|
True, but this one was 1) right next to the reservation 2) dug up a burial ground (allegedly) 3) could poison the water supply for the reservation.
The complaints are not over the pipeline, but where this pipeline was going in reference to the reservation.
2017 where Nazis are defended and being against Fascism is a bad thing.
Prejudices are rarely overcome by argument; not being founded in reason they cannot be destroyed by logic � Tryon Edwards
Never let the facts interfere with a good rant.
The only OO columnist that has never written a column.
|
|
|
Cherokee Jack
Man of a Thousand Holds
Posts 1489
Registered 2-24-2009 Location New Orleans, LA Member Is Offline Mood:
|
| posted on 12-6-2016 at 02:53 PM |
|
|
Also, I might be mistaken (because there's so much half-true and completely-false bullshit floating around out there that it's almost
impossible to really know what's correct these days), but I could swear I've read or heard somewhere that it was originally going to run
through Bismarck, but the (white, non-Native American) people of the town complained that it could pose a health risk, poison the water supply, etc
like Mike said.
So part of the protest could also be against the notion of "Oh, the people of Bismarck are concerned about health hazards and don't want to
assume those risks? We'll just run it through the Indian land then, fuck em."
I'm Cherokee Jack!
|
|
|
Quentil
Showstopper
Posts 743
Registered 5-13-2003 Location Saratoga Springs, NY Member Is Offline Mood:
|
| posted on 12-6-2016 at 03:37 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by OOMike
True, but this one was 1) right next to the reservation 2) dug up a burial ground (allegedly) 3) could poison the water supply for the reservation.
The complaints are not over the pipeline, but where this pipeline was going in reference to the reservation.
Which is entirely true, at least on the surface. But the moment they move the pipeline (if they did) the same protesters would likely move and block
the new route. Or at least a fair number of them. Because for them, any pipelines are "raping the earth" and because of the current political
situation on both sides, nobody feels they have to compromise anymore. You can just take over wall street, or a a park ranger's complex, or a
field in North Dakota and the it's allowed now. For those people it's entirely about the pipeline, and the location doesn't matter.
|
|
|
Paddlefoot
Rocco Rock of Jabroni
Posts 7665
Registered 1-19-2008 Location Stupid Idiot Section Member Is Offline Mood: ChinceMcMahon
|
| posted on 12-6-2016 at 03:57 PM |
|
|
Probably true. This kind of protesting is eventually going to result in someone getting killed, most likely one/some of the protesters when they
finally piss off either the local residents or one of the work crews badly enough. What happens after that I have no idea but with Trump coming in the
sympathy from the government side for the protesters will be slim and none.
As for Bismarck being avoided that's pretty much par for the course. The closer you get to a big urban area the more likely it is that you will
run into other buried utilities, like heating gas/electrical/cable/internet. And it's a bitch to navigate around, especially if you're
installing something like a 36" to 52" diameter pipe which is typical of the sizes used for these kind of oil transportation projects. The
engineering pretty much dictates that they'd much rather go far out into farm country where it's way less likely that they'll hit
another line while digging as opposed to closer to a town limit where the number of buried items increases exponentially. On one pipeline job I worked
one of the crews nailed an internet line and knocked a small town offline for an entire day. It kinda kicks up a fuss, especially for the local
merchants when they can't access debit and credit cards anymore for payments at their businesses. I believe that one accident ended up costing
the construction crew something like a $25000 fine plus the damage to have the line fixed.
You know, everyone says it's not supposed to make sense, like that's the whole point, dude. And I'm just saying, you know,
that's like an excuse for lazy storytelling. Just don't sell me shite and tell me it's gold, all right? I might be stoned, but
I'm not high. You know what I mean?
- Cassidy from Preacher, commenting on The Big Lebowski and/or professional wrestling
|
|
|
Quentil
Showstopper
Posts 743
Registered 5-13-2003 Location Saratoga Springs, NY Member Is Offline Mood:
|
| posted on 12-6-2016 at 04:22 PM |
|
|
I think the most interesting thing that I didn't really see before looking into the issue was the jobs one. It actually creates and sustains a
lot more jobs to NOT build pipelines. Because the other ways to transport oil are less efficient, and require a lot more human bodies to manage.
To remix my original ideas, and see the irony:
They always talk about job creation with pipelines, but the data doesn't support the claim. Sure, there's a few thousand construction
jobs for a year or two. But after that, 99.9% of the system is automated. The real jobs are in denying pipelines, which add tens of thousands of
jobs all through the various rail networks. Which is opposite of the claims of the Republicans. Because pipelines eliminate the middle-man, and
allow the profits to go directly to the home office. Pipelines place the profits in the pockets of the few on top. Not having pipelines places more
of the profit into the hands of the average workers.
The rest is also a bit silly in that less pipelines means more overall pollution. So the far left is protesting pipelines largely because of a fear
of a spill. But the exhaust caused by not having them, along with increased explosion risk and the same exact spill risk (albeit in smaller amounts
on average) is increased noticeably. So the liberal argument that pipeline hurt the environment more is 100% wrong.
|
|
|
Cherokee Jack
Man of a Thousand Holds
Posts 1489
Registered 2-24-2009 Location New Orleans, LA Member Is Offline Mood:
|
| posted on 12-6-2016 at 04:43 PM |
|
|
quote:
They always talk about job creation with pipelines, but the data doesn't support the claim. Sure, there's a few thousand
construction jobs for a year or two. But after that, 99.9% of the system is automated.
I want to say that during all the Keystone XL furor,
amidst all the claims of the tens of thousands of jobs it would create, it was estimated that there would be less than 50 permanent jobs there once
construction finished.
I'm Cherokee Jack!
|
|
|
CCharger
The Great One
Posts 3628
Registered 7-21-2010 Member Is Offline Mood: Covfefe
|
| posted on 12-6-2016 at 09:11 PM |
|
|
This is how the American economy (and even the global economy) has worked for the last 40 to 50 years. It benefits a few people quite a lot for a long
time. And it benefits a lot of people a little bit for a short time.
Over time, that disparity becomes greater and greater. In the past, we had labor unions push back against that disparity along with some populist,
progressive-minded politicians. Those two things basically prevented a full-blown communist revolution in this country in the early 20th century.
Today, we have neither of those safeguards against elite, corporate greed.
Occupy Wall Street and the Bernie Sanders movement are just the beginning. If the wealthy elites don't wise up and realize they can't fuck
people over again and again and again, people are going to stop seeking justice and start seeking revenge.
"She was warned. She was given an explanation. Nevertheless, she persisted."
"The powers of the president to protect our country are very substantial and will not be questioned."
--- Stephen Miller, Trump senior White House advisor, Feb. 12, 2017
|
|
|
OOMike
The Great One
Posts 3692
Registered 1-3-2002 Location Columbus, OH Member Is Offline Mood: same ol same ol
|
| posted on 12-6-2016 at 10:04 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Quentil
But the moment they move the pipeline (if they did) the same protesters would likely move and block the new route. Or at least a fair number of
them. Because for them, any pipelines are "raping the earth" and because of the current political situation on both sides, nobody feels they have
to compromise anymore. You can just take over wall street, or a a park ranger's complex, or a field in North Dakota and the it's allowed
now. For those people it's entirely about the pipeline, and the location doesn't matter.
Well to quote the Trump supporters, "Lets wait and see what happens" because most of the pipeline has already been laid/built/done (whatever the
proper verb is) and this is the part that had the controversy.
As for alternate route north of Bismarck, the official reasoning was that it was too far out of the way for the pipeline and it was more cost
effective to have it go adjacent to Standing Rock Reservation. I'm sure the 90+% white population did not come into the equation at all.
2017 where Nazis are defended and being against Fascism is a bad thing.
Prejudices are rarely overcome by argument; not being founded in reason they cannot be destroyed by logic � Tryon Edwards
Never let the facts interfere with a good rant.
The only OO columnist that has never written a column.
|
|
|
|
