US Senate passes Keystone XL bill

[Bring_Back_Shantz]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

I really hope this is the last time that I have to clarify this. I am in no way arguing to bring existing pipelines above ground, or to build all or any new pipelines above ground. I gave an example of a potential measure that could help in one area and some posters felt that I was advocating for something that I wasn’t. Also I haven’t been opposing building new pipelines until they are 100% safe, because to be frank that will never happen. I’m simply advocating to continue to put pressure on the companies building pipelines to ensure that they are looking out for everyone’s best interest.

Yeah, dude, no one thinks your'e saying the first part. Just like none of us are saying pipelines are perfect and there's no room for improvement. The thing is, those of us who are taking issue with you understand why these types of failures happen, and what could be done to prevent them, and sometimes even, why those things aren't done.

The issue we have is that you're the guy who is saying "I think we should ask some questions" when you don't even have a basic understanding of how current pipelines are built or operated.

Aside from that, you've put forth an idea for new (bolded so you dn't go back to "come on guys, I'm not saying that) pipelines that is so comically terrible that it really does show you have no idea what you are talking about.

If you want to be the guy who is asking questions (purportedly on ways to do things better) them maybe your first few questions should be ones that will educate you on the topic you want to discuss, because you clearly haven't asked many of those questions.

The biggest barrier to progress on these types of issues, is that people think that every uninformed opinion is just as valuable as an expert, or even slightly competent one.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by GGG

If you had stated this in the first place we could have saved pages of arguments.

Go back and read my posts, and then read your responses. Most of the posts were me defending people’s misinterpretation. I’m not saying this to be snark, seriously go back and count the amount of times you (or others) posted that I was opposed to pipelines in all forms or that I was arguing to only build pipelines above ground and then go reread my posts and count the amount of times I actually posted an argument for either of those things. If you do so objectively, I’m sure you’ll see what I’m getting at.

I’m not looking to get into a multi quote back and forth here picking apart each others posts during the debate, I’m just trying to explain why it’s really hard to have contructive debates on here at times. People can agree or disagree with me all they want on anything(and you and I have done both in the past) let’s just stick to what people are actually saying though when doing so.

[Sliver]

Originally Posted by Bring_Back_Shantz

Yeah, dude, no one thinks your'e saying the first part. Just like none of us are saying pipelines are perfect and there's no room for improvement. The thing is, those of us who are taking issue with you understand why these types of failures happen, and what could be done to prevent them, and sometimes even, why those things aren't done.

The issue we have is that you're the guy who is saying "I think we should ask some questions" when you don't even have a basic understanding of how current pipelines are built or operated.

Aside from that, you've put forth an idea for new (bolded so you dn't go back to "come on guys, I'm not saying that) pipelines that is so comically terrible that it really does show you have no idea what you are talking about.

If you want to be the guy who is asking questions (purportedly on ways to do things better) them maybe your first few questions should be ones that will educate you on the topic you want to discuss, because you clearly haven't asked many of those questions.

The biggest barrier to progress on these types of issues, is that people think that every uninformed opinion is just as valuable as an expert, or even slightly competent one.

Totally. And I'm not saying this about iggy_oi, but in general I'm so sick of dumb fatas bringing opinions to fact fights.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by Bring_Back_Shantz

Aside from that, you've put forth an idea for new (bolded so you dn't go back to "come on guys, I'm not saying that) pipelines that is so comically terrible that it really does show you have no idea what you are talking about.

Tell me what exactly do you think my idea is?

[Bring_Back_Shantz]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

Tell me what exactly do you think my idea is?

Why don't we let you tell us:

Every transport system has flaws, so instead of focusing on why one isn’t as bad as the other, I prefer to focus on how any of the options can be improved. I’m not satisfied with the idea of building a pipeline where the same issue can occur, I think that’s an irresponsible approach. The response time was good, but there should be better preventative measures put in place. I don’t like when oil companies promote how unnoticeable their pipelines look, to me this is a smokescreen sales pitch. Knowing with any pipeline there is a risk of a spill, a solution such as a concrete storm drain style “gutter” system running under pipeplines that may not be as esthetically pleasing to the eyes and may cost more to build yet will also mitigate or potentially eliminate environmental impact during a spill, makes a lot more sense to me than focusing on saving money and making it look “nice”.

Here are a few issues with what you are saying:
Bold part #1: No safety system is 100% effective. Saying that you think it's irresponsible to put in a pipeline where the same issue can occur, is a completely unobtainable goal. We can reduce risk substantially, something that has been done continuously over the years, but the same issues can/will always occur. The severity and frequency are the issue, and those have improved substantially for pipelines, and are miles ahead of other transport methods.

Bold part #2: Your suggestion of a "gutter" style system is based on a few fantastically flawed assumptions, that show you really don't understand how pipelines are built and operated, or their modes of failure. Your suggestion of a gutter would likely result in more failures than the current methods of construction. And your assertion that pipelines are burred for aesthetic reasons (even if it is just a comparison to your gutter idea), and not to protect the lines from corrosion, and collisions, is woefully misinformed.

You stated off with saying you want to focus on how pipelines can be improved. You then suggested a completely unobtainable goal, and a proposed improvement that is vastly worse than what is currently being done.

If you'd like to learn why that is, I'm sure a lot of people on here would be willing to help you out. Problem is you seem intent to just keep saying "Guys I'm not saying no pipelines, I'm just saying you should try to live up to my uninformed and arbitrary standards". If you want to have a productive discussion about a topic, you should take one of two approaches. Either educate yourself on the topic at hand and use that knowledge to build a potion, or ask people who know what they are talking about to help you do the first part of that, so you can one day do the second.

[DiracSpike]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

Who is promoting put all pipelines above ground? When did I suggest that? Go back and read my posts, I gave an example of what could help for above ground or underground portions of pipelines and gave some counterpoints to GGG’s complaints about why it would not work..

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

. Knowing with any pipeline there is a risk of a spill, a solution such as a concrete storm drain style “gutter” system running under pipeplines that may not be as esthetically pleasing to the eyes and may cost more to build yet will also mitigate or potentially eliminate environmental impact during a spill, makes a lot more sense to me than focusing on saving money and making it look “nice”.

These two quotes seem to be irreconcilable. Nobody's making up your position, your arguments and proposals are preposterous. And that's me attacking your ideas and your arguments, not you as a person. In addition to other reasons people have pointed out, your gutter system won't work because the pressure in a pipeline is such that any leak would likely shoot oil over your underlying gutter, thus rendering your extremely expensive and invasive safety measure useless.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by Sliver

lol, there's plenty of pressure. Could they ever get to a point where you would say, "okay, they've done everything they can reasonably be expected to do; let's move on to other concerns"? Of course not, because you're not educated on the industry as it is currently and are not going to educate yourself. But you'll be happy to continue questioning it.

Some people aren’t satisfied with the level of pressure and I’ve given my reasons why. Against there’s plenty of pressure, is there room for more though?

You're the guy that just wants to "question" things without listening to the answers. Like the guy who questions vaccines. Or fluoride in the water. Etc.

I’m the guy who’s asking the questions as to whether or not everything is being done. If your argument is I’m wrong for thinking things can be improved, tell we why they can’t.

Originally Posted by Sliver

Totally. And I'm not saying this about iggy_oi, but in general I'm so sick of dumb fatas bringing opinions to fact fights.

I agree with this, keep in mind though when you tell me I’m uneducated on this industry and that I will not educate myself based on your assessment after reading a handful of posts in this thread you’re culpable of this as well.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by DiracSpike

These two quotes seem to be irreconcilable. Nobody's making up your position, your arguments and proposals are preposterous. And that's me attacking your ideas and your arguments, not you as a person. In addition to other reasons people have pointed out, your gutter system won't work because the pressure in a pipeline is such that any leak would likely shoot oil over your underlying gutter, thus rendering your extremely expensive and invasive safety measure useless.

Thank you, you’ve just made my point.

[DiracSpike]

Well alright then. I'm glad we both agree that you have no earthly clue what you're talking about

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by Bring_Back_Shantz

Why don't we let you tell us:

Every transport system has flaws, so instead of focusing on why one isn’t as bad as the other, I prefer to focus on how any of the options can be improved. I’m not satisfied with the idea of building a pipeline where the same issue can occur, I think that’s an irresponsible approach. The response time was good, but there should be better preventative measures put in place. I don’t like when oil companies promote how unnoticeable their pipelines look, to me this is a smokescreen sales pitch. Knowing with any pipeline there is a risk of a spill, a solution such as a concrete storm drain style “gutter” system running under pipeplines that may not be as esthetically pleasing to the eyes and may cost more to build yet will also mitigate or potentially eliminate environmental impact during a spill, makes a lot more sense to me than focusing on saving money and making it look “nice”.

Here are a few issues with what you are saying:
Bold part #1: No safety system is 100% effective. Saying that you think it's irresponsible to put in a pipeline where the same issue can occur, is a completely unobtainable goal. We can reduce risk substantially, something that has been done continuously over the years, but the same issues can/will always occur. The severity and frequency are the issue, and those have improved substantially for pipelines, and are miles ahead of other transport methods.

Never said any system was 100% effective, I’ll admit my wording could have been better but I don’t agree with continuing to use the same methods without solutions to at least try and avoid similar situations, above and beyond what is currently being done.

Bold part #2: Your suggestion of a "gutter" style system is based on a few fantastically flawed assumptions, that show you really don't understand how pipelines are built and operated, or their modes of failure. Your suggestion of a gutter would likely result in more failures than the current methods of construction. And your assertion that pipelines are burred for aesthetic reasons (even if it is just a comparison to your gutter idea), and not to protect the lines from corrosion, and collisions, is woefully misinformed.

You stated off with saying you want to focus on how pipelines can be improved. You then suggested a completely unobtainable goal, and a proposed improvement that is vastly worse than what is currently being done.

If you'd like to learn why that is, I'm sure a lot of people on here would be willing to help you out. Problem is you seem intent to just keep saying "Guys I'm not saying no pipelines, I'm just saying you should try to live up to my uninformed and arbitrary standards". If you want to have a productive discussion about a topic, you should take one of two approaches. Either educate yourself on the topic at hand and use that knowledge to build a potion, or ask people who know what they are talking about to help you do the first part of that, so you can one day do the second.

I think you’ve really got to stop using a quick random suggestion of mine as the basis for your argument. If you want to educate than do so, wasting time explaining why one suggestion won’t work doesn’t move the conversation.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by DiracSpike

Well alright then. I'm glad we both agree that you have no earthly clue what you're talking about

See you’re doing it again.

[Bring_Back_Shantz]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

Some people aren’t satisfied with the level of pressure and I’ve given my reasons why. Against there’s plenty of pressure, is there room for more though?

The problem we have is that you don't seem to know what level of pressure is being applied towards improvement. It's a perfectly valid discussion to have, but to say things like "Putting in lines that could have the same issue is irresponsible" shows that you don't understand how risks are evaluated, mitigated, or what is/has been done to improve upon existing systems/procedures. Or how we can learn from past mistakes to prevent future ones.

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

I’m the guy who’s asking the questions as to whether or not everything is being done. If your argument is I’m wrong for thinking things can be improved, tell we why they can’t.

This just supports my post above. You are saying that you aren't happy with the level of pressure towards improvement, and then you as if whether or not everything is being done. Of course "Everything" isn't being done, but in most cases, everything reasonable is being done. Now if you want to debate what is reasonable, that's also valid, although again, I think you may be a little short on background knowledge to have that discussion.

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

I agree with this, keep in mind though when you tell me I’m uneducated on this industry and that I will not educate myself based on your assessment after reading a handful of posts in this thread you’re culpable of this as well.

Ahhh, no that's not the same thing at all.
Someone assuming that pipelines are bad (not you necessarily, but a whole bunch of people with no knowledge whatsoever, who oppose everything on principle) and arguing against them, is not the same as saying that someone who has shown a lack of understanding of how the pipeline industry operates isn't the most qualified person to be making suggestions on how to improve how things are done in that industry.

[llwhiteoutll]

Pipelines and their construction are already incredibly regulated and in some cases, potentially over regulated (Trudeau’s direction to the NEB re GHG emissions).

A lot of arguments boil down to “I don’t know what happens now, I won’t learn about it myself, but something more NEEDS to be done”. Companies are being required to dig up perfectly intact and functioning lines to replace them at the request of regulators, millimeter deviations in pipe thickness require re-approval from the NEB, continuous environmental monitoring during and post construction is required and new leak detection methods are being brought online. A lot of spills can be traced back to human error, line strikes or flawed responses to alarms, building a porous containment trench won’t solve those issues.

[Bring_Back_Shantz]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

Never said any system was 100% effective, I’ll admit my wording could have been better but I don’t agree with continuing to use the same methods without solutions to at least try and avoid similar situations, above and beyond what is currently being done.



I think you’ve really got to stop using a quick random suggestion of mine as the basis for your argument. If you want to educate than do so, wasting time explaining why one suggestion won’t work doesn’t move the conversation.

To the first part, what you are saying is completely incompatible.
You concede that no system is 100% effective, but then you say you don't agree with continuing to use the same methods without solutions to try to avoid similar situations. So what you are advocating by saying that is that a single failure is enough to deem a process, method, material, piece of equipment ineffective and not fit for use until we can come up with some sort of incremental change. That's not feasible or possible. If we agree that nothing is 100% effective, then we must agree that there is/should be an acceptable level of risk.

Every system/process will fail eventually, the real challenge is finding the point where incremental changes don't cripple a project.

As for your second point, I'm using it as an example to point out that you may not know as much as you think you know.
I'm not trying to be a jerk about it, but it's true.
You've got a lot of people who know a lot more about this industry than you, and me, and you seem to be ignoring them because you want to say "I'm just asking the question". Well they are trying to answer you and you don't seem to want to listen.

The first step to a productive discussion is knowing what you are talking about. The impression most folks are getting is that you don't really, and that's okay, we all can't be experts on everything. But if that's the case, try to be a bit more self aware about it.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

Go back and read my posts, and then read your responses. Most of the posts were me defending people’s misinterpretation. I’m not saying this to be snark, seriously go back and count the amount of times you (or others) posted that I was opposed to pipelines in all forms or that I was arguing to only build pipelines above ground and then go reread my posts and count the amount of times I actually posted an argument for either of those things. If you do so objectively, I’m sure you’ll see what I’m getting at.

I’m not looking to get into a multi quote back and forth here picking apart each others posts during the debate, I’m just trying to explain why it’s really hard to have contructive debates on here at times. People can agree or disagree with me all they want on anything(and you and I have done both in the past) let’s just stick to what people are actually saying though when doing so.

Your first two posts were reasonable. Then it went off the rails with the one I quoted above.

You are still making the same mistake that people are jumping on.

You can't do Everything that is possible without making pipelines uneconomic. And even if you did everything that is possible you would still have leaks due to unforeseen events.

So if your standard is doing everything possible as opposed to everything reasonably possible then you oppose pipelines as your standard will never be met.

[Regorium]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

Never said any system was 100% effective, I’ll admit my wording could have been better but I don’t agree with continuing to use the same methods without solutions to at least try and avoid similar situations, above and beyond what is currently being done.

Why do you think that the pipeline industry has been standing still for 50 years?

The industry has drastically improved. The regulations have gotten stricter, technology has gotten better.

And results from a factual point of view has showed that it's working. We spill less, have fewer accidents and fewer fatalities, all while transporting more product on infrastructure that is now well past its original lifespan (due to the inability to rebuild new pipelines).

Spilling 5000 barrels on a major failure is actually quite a feat compared to even 20-30 years ago. This spill was contained within 15 minutes. So many things have improved:

1) The pressure monitoring system and control room training - with the failure of Enbridge 7 years ago, the entire industry learned that alarms are serious business and you don't just restart a pipeline for no reason. That learning came through and Keystone was immediately shut down when an anomaly was detected.

2) The pressure monitoring system is now extremely accurate and immediately detected a change. The interface (again, learnings from Enbridge) for data acquisition were vastly improved across the industry to help operators make their decision.

3) The valves on either end of the failed segment were automated and could be controlled remotely. The valves were high speed valves that could be closed nearly instantaneously, which is what happened. 20 years ago, you'd be sending an emergency crew to both ends to manually turn that valve shut - even the "turning the crank" part would take minutes rather than seconds.

4) Due to the regulator pushing hard against oil pipelines in the last decade or so, the spacing between multiple valves has been modified to be lower than it was previously. This, again, reduced the amount of oil that was released.

5) The training of emergency crews meant that over 150 people were mobilized in the span of a day. The fact that the industry is required (by new regulations) to perform and document emergency exercises has led to vastly improved preparedness. This mitigated the spread of the product and the overall environmental impact of the spill.

I hope I've already showed that the pipeline industry continues to improve. As we find out more about what happened, I'm sure there will be new procedures, new industry learnings and new regulations to do things in better ways.

Many "similar" situations have both been avoided and made less bad by the vast improvements in technology and process. You only hear about the situations that somehow make it through every layer of defence and even those events are decreasing in both frequency and severity. You don't hear about the situations where the system worked, and an accident was prevented through the use of improved processes or technologies.

[MotoRacer]

Gutter system... why didn’t they think of that

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by MotoRacer

Gutter system... why didn’t they think of that

Maybe it cost more than they would have preferred to spend? I’m glad this simple suggestion has gotten so many people worked up, maybe while the subject is on their minds they can ask themselves how regulations that set the minimum acceptable standards for pipeline construction and safety are somehow convincing O&G corps to voluntarily go way above and beyond these standards, to the point where someone suggesting they can do more is ostracized for making such an insulting suggestion.

[Coach]

iggy man, I think you got to take the loss here. You're talking in circles and just throwing out random suggestions and expecting them to be taken seriously. It is in the the oil company's best interest that pipelines don't leak and move the product as efficiently as possible. People much smarter than you or me (or most people on the planet) design and redesign these things constantly. Leaks are going to happen no different than plane crashes are going to happen. There are no perfect machines.

IMO where things fall apart is maintenance and monitoring. Not enough people to properly maintain, weak regulatory care/oversight on a day-to-day basis, things like that. But it's a loooooong way to walk. You can't have someone sitting there 24 hrs watching weak points. And when a spill happens, it's not like you just put some gum in the hole and call it day. It takes time to shut stuff down and seal of a leak.

We all want better things for the environment, but we have to deal with realism to. And realistically, a gutter system would cause much more environmental issues just to build.

I think we have to accept that this is the way to move oil. We should focus on trying to reduce the things we use oil for (starting with fuel) instead of building very costly, ultimately useless structures.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by MattyC

iggy man, I think you got to take the loss here. You're talking in circles and just throwing out random suggestions and expecting them to be taken seriously. It is in the the oil company's best interest that pipelines don't leak and move the product as efficiently as possible. People much smarter than you or me (or most people on the planet) design and redesign these things constantly. Leaks are going to happen no different than plane crashes are going to happen. There are no perfect machines.

IMO where things fall apart is maintenance and monitoring. Not enough people to properly maintain, weak regulatory care/oversight on a day-to-day basis, things like that. But it's a loooooong way to walk. You can't have someone sitting there 24 hrs watching weak points. And when a spill happens, it's not like you just put some gum in the hole and call it day. It takes time to shut stuff down and seal of a leak.

We all want better things for the environment, but we have to deal with realism to. And realistically, a gutter system would cause much more environmental issues just to build.

I think we have to accept that this is the way to move oil. We should focus on trying to reduce the things we use oil for (starting with fuel) instead of building very costly, ultimately useless structures.

I’m comfortable with my assessment that more can be done. What exactly am I to take a loss on? People’s argument that everything possible is already being done? I’m not advocating that a gutter system is a be all end all approach, I threw out a random example and the responses I received reinforced my views. When the argument is made that certain precautions wouldn’t make pipelines economically viable I can’t help but question the faith they put in these companies. The amount of money that is already invested and more importantly the profits made from these pipelines is astronomical. To suggest that investing more in prevention is going to make it unviable for the same corporations that are paying 100’s of millions of dollars in clean up efforts while continuing to apply to build new pipelines to me is a little questionable.

If you’d like to believe that these same companies that have spent decades being forced to accept increased regulations due to the fact that they were not operating responsibly without them are now all of the sudden are going above and beyond what’s required instead of doing what is most cost effective to achieve the minimum requirements then that’s your opinion and you or anyone else are welcome to it. But please respect the opinions of those who look at the historic patterns and are not convinced. This isn’t about a gutter system.