Albert Lea Discussion Forum » Printable Version of Topic

Forum: Current Events
Topic: Trains for people
started by: Self-Banished

Posted by Self-Banished on Feb. 27 2014,12:00 pm

I've been listen to people whine this week about the Northstar line and the terrible service they've been receiving, one of them bitching about being to work 90 min. Late. Then I saw Bammer speaking at the Union(yuck, there's that word again) Depot yesterday pretty much saying that he'll circumvent congress with grants and excecutive orders to expand public transportation. I guess congress is no longer necessary.

< http://minnesota.cbslocal.com/2014...n-depot >

Also, I can't find the link right now but there where folks chanting "trains for people, not for oil" I thought this funny since the tracks that the Northstar runs on belong to the BNSF.

I'm sure if Bammer asks nice ol'Warren will make the oil trains go away. :sarcasm:

Posted by Expatriate on Feb. 27 2014,12:45 pm

Trains do transport people more economically than jets, the jet engine is the biggest fuel-hog man has ever invented!

I’d think a trucker would want to see less traffic congestion, if it would have been a Bush speech you’d be cheering.

You saying "I’m not a Republican" is like Nixon saying "I’m not a crook"!

Posted by Self-Banished on Feb. 27 2014,3:50 pm

(Expatriate @ Feb. 27 2014,12:45 pm)

QUOTE

I agree jets are not very fuel efficient but we're just talking local commuter. The ironic point I found was officials and riders complaining about the service when the Northstar was set up on existing rail that belongs to the BNSF, main line tracks no less.

Those 1267 tanker trains come through town at least three times a day.

As to mentioning myself and Nixion in the same sentence, I'm honored. Except for the fact he got caught trying to coverup watergate I liked him. The break-in didn't sink him, trying to cover it up did. This (IMHO) compares closely with Bengazi ( though no one died in watergate) and the IRS scandal.

Posted by Expatriate on Feb. 27 2014,10:27 pm

(Self-Banished @ Feb. 27 2014,3:50 pm)

QUOTE

Amtrak has a similar problem they don’t have dedicated track, they share line with several different Railroads who own the mainline and thereby have right-away.
I try to take Amtrak to Chicago when possible (Empire Builder) more than once we’ve been delayed or rerouted because of freight train schedules or derailments.

Posted by Self-Banished on Feb. 28 2014,2:23 am

Amtrak needs to go away, never has been profitable.

Posted by Glad I Left on Feb. 28 2014,7:57 am

Problem with LRT in MN is there is no real enforcement mechanism. Outside of riders getting on after vikings games it is basically an honor system. I know they do random audits but no where near enough to deter anyone.
KARE11 did a report on it a few years ago and they estimated that 40% of riders don't buy a ticket... I guess even when it's damn near free already, it's still too much to pay for some people.

Posted by Self-Banished on Feb. 28 2014,8:08 am

I've heard the Northstar is more strict on ridership(no tickee no ridee) but even then I highly doubt either system is profitable but I'm sure someone will come up with some cooked numbers to prove me wrong.

What the hell is wrong with the bus system

Posted by Expatriate on Feb. 28 2014,8:35 am

(Self-Banished @ Feb. 27 2014,3:50 pm)

QUOTE

As to mentioning myself and Nixion in the same sentence, I'm honored. Except for the fact he got caught trying to coverup watergate I liked him. The break-in didn't sink him, trying to cover it up did. This (IMHO) compares closely with Bengazi ( though no one died in watergate) and the IRS scandal.

you’re not old enough to remember tricky Dick, this guy was a real dictator.

If we would have got a peace agreement in 68 it would have saved over 30,000 of our boys, can you say treason!

Posted by Glad I Left on Feb. 28 2014,8:42 am

(Self-Banished @ Feb. 28 2014,8:08 am)

QUOTE

Northstar is better. My brother in law lives in big lake, he and his wife will take the train to Twins games in the summer quite often. Much cheaper than driving and paying for parking etc..
LRT is a good idea. Public transit, when done right is critical in keeping large cities moving. Htere is just not enough parking downtown in most major cities. And those that do have parking charge a premium for it, I couldn't imagine paying 5-7(or more) bucks a day every day just to park so I can go to work.
Problem with public transit, is you have to have some way of keeping cost in lines, free ridership is a horrible business model.

Posted by Self-Banished on Feb. 28 2014,9:01 am

(Expatriate @ Feb. 28 2014,8:35 am)

QUOTE

(Self-Banished @ Feb. 27 2014,3:50 pm)

QUOTE

you’re not old enough to remember tricky Dick, this guy was a real dictator.

If we would have got a peace agreement in 68 it would have saved over 30,000 of our boys, can you say treason!

Oh I remember Nixon,

A dictator? You mean like we have now?

Posted by Common Citizen on Feb. 28 2014,9:23 am

(Expatriate @ Feb. 27 2014,12:45 pm)

QUOTE

Trains do transport people more economically than jets, the jet engine is the biggest fuel-hog man has ever invented!

You should remind Al Gore.

Posted by This is my real name on Feb. 28 2014,6:45 pm

All those people decrying using trains to ship oil should be okay with a pipeline then, right?

Posted by Expatriate on Mar. 01 2014,10:19 am

SB quote

QUOTE

Oh I remember Nixon,

Posted by grassman on Mar. 01 2014,10:22 am

(This is my real name @ Feb. 28 2014,6:45 pm)

QUOTE

All those people decrying using trains to ship oil should be okay with a pipeline then, right?

And just who does a pipeline benefit?

Posted by Self-Banished on Mar. 01 2014,4:14 pm

^^^everybody.

Posted by grassman on Mar. 01 2014,10:42 pm

You really, honestly, believe that?!
Haw haw haw !

Posted by Self-Banished on Mar. 02 2014,6:03 am

^you're honestly that short-sighted, very sad.

Posted by Expatriate on Mar. 02 2014,9:30 am

(This is my real name @ Feb. 28 2014,6:45 pm)

QUOTE

All those people decrying using trains to ship oil should be okay with a pipeline then, right?

Only 2.5 percent of the earths water is fresh water of that only 1 percent is palatable drinking water, to run a corrosive
pipeline over the Ogalllala Aquifer so oil companies have access to ports for export is playing Russian Rolette with one
of our most valuable resources.

The Ogallala Aquifer is a shallow water table aquifer located beneath the Great Plains, one of the world's largest aquifers.

QUOTE

^you're honestly that short-sighted, very sad.

Posted by Self-Banished on Mar. 02 2014,10:58 am

This...

< http://www.theneweditor.com/index.php?/categories/30-Energy >

Posted by Expatriate on Mar. 02 2014,12:31 pm

There’s a big difference between natural gas, water, even oil pipelines and the proposed high sulfur sludge Keystone XL pipeline.

Posted by Common Citizen on Mar. 02 2014,12:31 pm

< Bloomberg.com >

QUOTE

Democrats who oppose the Keystone XL pipeline have thousands of dollars invested in direct competitors to the company looking to build the pipeline, public records show.

< Freebeacon.com >

Once again, Expat is being duped by his liberal friends. What do you expect from a guy still blaming Bush in Obama's second term for the current deficits we are running.
:clap:

Posted by Common Citizen on Mar. 02 2014,12:34 pm

The donks want to feed you a line of environmental crap while they invest in the pipelines' competitors. Wake up.

Posted by Expatriate on Mar. 02 2014,12:44 pm

I haven’t made a secret of what I do for a living, that’s right I work for a Utility that keeps your lights on as well as supplying your natural gas!
The gas line pressures and alarms appear on the SCADA at my desk, I’m the guy who dispatches emergency response, these things are not foolproof!

What was your expertise again?

Posted by Self-Banished on Mar. 02 2014,1:37 pm

Yep, competitors like Warren Buffet, old Warren makes a ton off the BNSF tank trains transporting that highly flammable crude through cities.
Is it a wonder bammer doesn't want the pipeline?

< http://www.dailykos.com/story...ibution >

Posted by Self-Banished on Mar. 02 2014,1:41 pm

(Expatriate @ Mar. 02 2014,12:44 pm)

QUOTE

...and the monkey flips the switch.

Posted by Common Citizen on Mar. 02 2014,2:32 pm

(Expatriate @ Mar. 02 2014,12:44 pm)

QUOTE

What's your point?

You sit on your arse and call the ERT when an alarm tells you too? No wonder you're brain dead. (Ok that was a joke)
:rofl:

Posted by Expatriate on Mar. 02 2014,10:12 pm

(Self-Banished @ Mar. 02 2014,1:41 pm)

QUOTE

(Expatriate @ Mar. 02 2014,12:44 pm)

QUOTE

...and the monkey flips the switch.

Anytime the G.O.P.(Greedy Oil Party) is for something you and me always end up paying more in one way or another.

Is that your graduation picture from truck driving school?

Posted by grassman on Mar. 03 2014,5:15 am

Wendy Koch, USA Today March 1, 2014

Environmental opponents don't mince words on the Keystone XL pipeline. Some call it the "fuse to the biggest carbon bomb on the planet" because of the carbon emissions from the oil it will carry.

If the pipeline is approved and the fuse lit, climate scientist James Hansen says it's: "Game over for climate."
Hyperbole?

Backers say the Canada-to-U.S. pipeline could lower U.S. dependence on unstable foreign sources of oil and create thousands of jobs.
Hyberbole?

This project, one of the most contentious of Barack Obama's presidency or of any energy proposal in U.S. history, has triggered a multiyear slugfest. Critics have turned the Canada-to-U.S. pipeline into a litmus test of Obama's commitment to fighting climate change.

Tens of thousands of protesters have circled the White House and Capitol, some dressed as polar bears and others carrying an inflatable pipeline with the words: "Climate Champion or Pipeline President." Billionaire activist Tom Steyerhas funded prime-time TV ads against it.

Meanwhile, Obama has been lobbied to approve the project by the U.S. oil industry, Republican members of Congress and Canadian officials including Prime Minister Stephen Harper who told a business group last year that he won't "take no for an answer."

Rhetoric aside, what would the pipeline really do to theclimate and the economy?

Yes, it could lead to a massive spike in heat-trapping greenhouse gas emissions, but only if the oil would otherwise stay in the ground, according to USA TODAY's review of the State Department's 11-volume final environmental report — released Jan. 31 — and interviews with climate scientists.

Yes, it could create jobs — but not as many as some claim. The State Department estimates that during construction, the project would create 3,900 one-year construction jobs and 38,200 indirect ones, but during operation, only about 50 jobs. Keystone's owner, Calgary-based TransCanada, says the pipeline would generate about 9,000 construction jobs.

The State Department's review says the 1,179-mile pipeline, which would carry heavy oil sands from Hardisty, Alberta, through Montana and South Dakota to Steele City, Neb., would do little to change U.S. gasoline prices or oil imports. The reason: Oil is traded on a global market that adjusts to shifts in supply and demand. So even if North America produces more oil, does not mean it stays here.
The biggest debate centers on another question: Would Keystone affect the development of Canada's oil or tar sands, which sit below stretches of Alberta's boreal forest that are about the size of New York state?

Environmentalists say it would. The State Department review — welcomed by supporters of the pipeline, including the oil industry — says it probably wouldn't, arguing the oil would be transported by other pipelines, truck or rail.

The billion-dollar pipeline needs a permit from the State Department because it crosses an international border. Yet Obama has said he'll make the final call. He hasn't publicly shown his hand, but he has said Keystone's approval depends on whether it "significantly" increases global carbon pollution.

The president was widely expected to approve or reject the project this year, following a separate review by federal agencies of whether it's in the "national interest." That time frame could slip, however, because a Nebraska judge invalidated a law in mid-February that allowed approval of Keystone's route through the state.

"The pipeline is significant in size," says Adam Brandt, a professor in Stanford University's Department of Energy Resources Engineering. "It will carry about 1% of global crude oil output, which is a lot for a single project."

Its controversy may be just as big as its capacity. Here are two of the key issues:

Is Keystone XL a "fuse to the largest carbon bomb on the planet"?

Potentially yes. Bill McKibben, author and environmental activist, has used this catchy phrase to mobilize grass-roots opposition. Hansen, who led NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies from 1981 to 2013, agrees Keystone could unload such a bomb.

"The tar sands are about the dirtiest and most carbon-intensive of the fossil fuels, especially when you consider the damage done and energy used in getting them out of the ground," Hansen writes in an e-mail. He says they contain twice the amount of oil burned in human history and if developed, "it is game over — we will not be able to stabilize climate."

Alberta's oil sands have proven reserves of 170.2 billion barrels — about 11% of global reserves. It's the world's third-largest source of these reserves, after Saudi Arabia and Venezuela.

Some climate scientists says Hansen has gone too far. Harvard University's David Keith, a Canadian who opposes Keystone XL, says developing Canada's tar sands would not necessarily emit more carbon than a large coal mine. He says environmentalists have made the pipeline "an arbitrary fight."

"Saying that the tar sands are not necessarily worse than coal is like saying that drinking arsenic is not necessarily worse than drinking cyanide,' says geophysicist Raymond Pierrehumbert of the University of Chicago.

He says fully developing the tar sands could by itself, "even if we suddenly stopped burning coal," warm the planet an additional 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit by century's end — an amount that climate scientists warn could be catastrophic.

The State Department estimates the likely carbon emissions of the 830,000 barrels per day of oil sands that Keystone could carry. It considers the life-cycle or "well to wheel" emissions" of extracting, transporting, refining and burning that amount of oil.

Those annual emissions are huge — 147 to 168 million metric tons of carbon dioxide (MMTCO2e), equivalent to running at least 30 million cars, 7.3 million homes and 42 coal-fired power plants each year. If you add emissions from operating the pipeline, its total carbon footprint over its expected 50-year life is at least 7,422 MMTCO2e — more than all U.S. carbon emissions from human activities in 2010.

Yet State's review focuses on a much smaller number. It says tar sands would likely replace other oil in the global market, so it looks at how the switch would affect emissions. The State Department report estimates tar sands would produce 17% more carbon emissions over its life cycle than average U.S. crude. so its use could add 23.4 more MMTCO2e per year — equal to that of nearly 5 million cars.

"Oil sands are definitely worse than other types of crude," says Sandra Yeh, research scientist at the University of California-Davis' Institute of Transportation Studies. She says conventional mining is now used to extract about half of the tar sands, but increasingly more energy-intensive steam extraction is needed to recover deeper deposits.

Would tar sands be developed even if Keystone XL's rejected?

Potentially yes. State's review says the pipeline is unlikely to cause even incremental increases in emissions, because the tar sands will likely be developed anyway — as long as oil prices remain high enough. It says most of the boom in U.S. oil production in recent years is light crude, but Gulf Coast refineries also want heavy crude such as oil sands.

"Rail will likely be able to accommodate new production if new pipelines are delayed or not constructed,' the review says. It reports the amount of Canadian oil — regular and oil sands — moved by rail has jumped from about 20,000 barrels per day in January 2012 to about 180,000 in November 2013.

State's review says rail is a dirtier way to transport tar sands to the Gulf Coast and, compared with Keystone, could boost annual greenhouse gas emissions 28%. In an editorial last week, former head of the U.S. Geological Survey Marcia McNutt said she supported Keystone because rail and truck transports would be more environmentally damaging.

"Pipelines are the safest way ... by a long shot" to move tar sands, TransCanada's spokesman Shawn Howard says, noting the recent spate of rail accidents.

Martin Tallett, president of EnSys Energy, a Massachusetts-based consulting firm that worked on State's report, says the costs of moving tar sands by rail rather than pipeline aren't much different. He also says Keystone, unlike when it was first formally proposed in September 2008, is now just one of four large pending pipelines, so even if rejected, another will probably move tar sands out of Alberta — to Canada's west or east coast.

Opponents agree the energy market has changed — so much so that Keystone is irrelevant.

"We simply don't need this pipeline," says Anthony Swift, attorney at the Natural Resources Defense Council, an environmental group. He says North Dakota's existing pipelines are not even operating at full capacity, and the U.S. oil boom obviates the need for Keystone, arguing it will simply benefit Gulf Coast refineries. Citing State's 2013 draft review, he says more than half of tar sands will be exported after being refined into products.

The vast majority of Canadian oil now being moved by rail to Gulf Coast refineries isn't tar sands but lighter crude, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration. A 2013 Goldman Sachs analysis said it's costlier to move heavy crude by rail than light crude. It said rail cars have weight restrictions so they can carry more light crude at a time, and they need to be specially built to transport tar sands oil, which is so viscous that it needs to be heated in order to be unloaded.
So tar sands oil needs Keystone, Swift says, to ramp up production. Climate scientist Pierrehumbert agrees, arguing the economics of producing tar sands are now "marginal at best" and will get worse as costlier extraction is needed for deeper deposits.

"Denying Keystone will energize the Canadian opposition to the alternative routes," he says, adding it will make it more difficult to raise capital to expand tar sands development.

Opponents also say tar sands development poses health risks. They cite a 2013 study co-led by the University of Michigan that found significantly higher levels of air pollutants and carcinogens downwind from a tar sands refinery near Edmonton, Alberta.

TransCanada's Howard says Keystone XL provides cheaper transportation and a "security of supply for Gulf Coast refineries." He says the United States, despite its recent production boom, will still need to import oil in coming decades, so Keystone allows it to replace some foreign sources with Canadian oil.

Christopher Field, a climate scientist at the Carnegie Institution for Science in Washington, D.C., agrees the U.S. will continue to need oil and can't turn off that spigot overnight. Yet to avoid catastrophic global warming, he says the planet has to shift away from fossil fuels to carbon-free energy sources such as solar, wind and nuclear.

"The most troubling aspect of the Keystone pipeline is that," he says, "it's an encouragement to use oil longer than we should." Field says the fight over Keystone is largely symbolic but still important, because other countries are looking to the United States to lead on climate change.

Ok, how convenient to have a rash of derailments recently. If this stuff is so thick, that they need to heat it to unload out of a car, it must take tremendous pressure to push it 1700 miles through pipe.

Posted by Self-Banished on Mar. 03 2014,6:51 am

^so do you listen to Rush for the equally intelligent counter point? :sarcasm:

Posted by grassman on Mar. 03 2014,7:26 am

I thought she did give points from both sides. Did you read it?

Posted by Self-Banished on Mar. 03 2014,8:11 am

Yes I did and her favoritism shows through. IMO

Posted by Expatriate on Mar. 03 2014,8:15 am

(Common Citizen @ Mar. 02 2014,2:32 pm)

QUOTE

What's your point?

The point is kid you don’t what you’re talking about.

< http://www.bloomberg.com/news...rs.html >

Keystone XL Pipe Shuns Infrared Sensors to Detect Leaks

I didn’t think the Government allowed this type of stuff anymore, the best Government money can buy.
essentially what these guys are doing is counting barrels and using visual fly overs for leak detection!
This oil is heated to around 150 degrees and pressurized from 200 psi and up, when you have a rupture
and this stuff hits atmospheric pressure you could have a massive spill before it registers.

It’s not a matter of if you’re going to have a leak but when, to run this line over the Ogallala is asking for trouble.

Posted by grassman on Mar. 03 2014,8:42 am

What? Possible trouble? We don't care about possible trouble if there is money to be made! The few that will make money are counting on the talking heads that they have trained to do their bidding. We as a whole cannot stand in the way of riches for the rich, after all it is just water. The bottled water companies deserve to make money too, now don't they? I think ground water is over rated anyway. Anything free can't be all that good, now can it? :sarcasm:

Posted by Self-Banished on Mar. 03 2014,8:52 am

^^ Have you always gone through life with blinders on?
Riches for the rich ?? Do you think that anyone that makes money is evil? Are you that jealous?

Posted by grassman on Mar. 03 2014,8:57 am

You are the one that does not get it. I have no problem with someone making money, just don't do it at the expense of others. That is the part that you don't get.

Posted by Expatriate on Mar. 03 2014,9:07 am

QUOTE

Only 2.5 percent of the earths water is fresh water of that only 1 percent is palatable drinking water, to run a corrosive
pipeline over the Ogallala Aquifer so oil companies have access to ports for export is playing Russian Rolette with one of our most valuable resources.

The Ogallala Aquifer is a shallow water table aquifer located beneath the Great Plains, one of the world's largest aquifers.

I haven't seen any of our rightwing friends try to disputed this statement on water!

The wealthy know water will be the next gold rush, T. Boone Pickens bought up large sections of land on the Texas panhandle and is claiming water rights on the Ogallala.
The Bushes bought 98,000 acres of land in Paraguay that sits on top of the worlds largest aquifer. Nestle a French company is pumping 1/2 million gallons of water
a day out of the Great Lakes tributaries and getting a tax incentive to do it, while exporting much of this water to China.

Posted by Self-Banished on Mar. 03 2014,9:51 am

(grassman @ Mar. 03 2014,8:57 am)

QUOTE

You are the one that does not get it. I have no problem with someone making money, just don't do it at the expense of others. That is the part that you don't get.

What is this, "mother may I"? There are winners and losers in life. What's good for one is not always good for another.

I have "gotten it" I've learned that if you want to get ahead in life that if one doesn't react, one doesn't adapt one's not going to advance.

Posted by Rosalind_Swenson on Mar. 03 2014,9:58 am

Sorry, just a dash and run from Susie Sunshine here.
These are just a few from the last couple of years. And we just have to take the word of the companies as to how much has been spilled.
2.5 million gallons of a mixture of oil, water and chemicals spilled from a 5 year old pipeline in Alberta Canada June 2013.

Over 900,000 gallons of oil, water and chemicals leaked in Alberta in May 2012

Over 1 million gallons of crude oil leaked from a pipeline in Alberta April 2011.

500,000 gallons of oil, water, gas and chemicals leaked in Alberta Oct. 2013.

400,000 gallons of water and chemicals leaked in Alberta Jan. 2014.

A lake had to be drained in Alberta in 2013 because half a million gallons of tarsands and chemicals leaked into it.

63,000 gallons of crude oil leaked from an ExxonMobil pipeline into the Yellowstone River July 2011.

Enbridge is still not done cleaning up it's almost 1 million gallon spill from July 2010.

Over 200,000 gallons of tar sand oil and chemicals spilled from an Exxon pipeline in Arkansas 2013. (Exxon also threatened journalists with arrest just like BP did during the gulf spill).

March 2013 a Chevron diesel pipeline leaked near Willard Bay State Park Utah. 27,000 gallons.
-June 2010 33,000 gallons of crude oil spilled into Red Butte Creek, Salt Lake City Utah. A few months later the same pipeline ruptured again spilling about the same amount.

Mike Klink, an inspector of the XL pipeline turned whistleblower in 2011 was fired for raising concerns to his bosses that the pipeline is crap. TransCanada spilled (6-story geyser) 21,000 gallons of tarsands and chemicals in ND 2011. New pipeline.
-January 2014 a TransCanada natural gas pipeline exploded in Manitoba. Numerous warnings were made about the safety of the pipeline during and right after construction. 6 month old pipeline.
-TransCanada has already had to repair over 100 dents, sags and bad welds in the southern part of the pipeline that has just been laid.

Tarsands and chemicals have been leaking into the Athabasca River from the tailing ponds.

Exxon Valdez is STILL not cleaned up and is still causing problems almost 25 years later.

Natural gas/oil companies refuse to disclose what chemicals they use during extraction, shipment and refining. "Trade Secrets". This saves them quite often from being blamed for polluting water and land. They just say "You can't prove it came from us". These companies have a revolving door of employees with the government agencies that are supposed to be their watchdogs. All the whining about regulations stifling the industry is a bunch of hooey. There's practically no oversight and when something bad happens they are fined a fraction of their earnings.
Meanwhile, taxpayers pay over $1 Billion dollars a year for cleaning up SuperFund sites.
They poison people's land and water, offer them money for their now worthless property and slap gag orders on the family.
Thousands of gallons of chemicals were just leaked into the Elk River in WV. 300,000 people were without water. No testing has been done on the tank that leaked. They just test the water and then the company denies that some of what they find in the water came from them.
Water shortages are going to cause huge devestating problems very soon. Even in MN we are starting to experience shortages. Bees, butterflies, all of our pollinators are dying. Sea life is dying in droves from our toxic environments.
But we can't talk about this mess. Can't expect anyone to change their habits. Let's just keep going and see what happens. It's a world economy, global market. Gotta compete in this race to the bottom.
Maybe the world needs to have a conversation on where we are heading, and what needs to be done.

Sigh, I'm such a downer. I should just be content to live with warnings to people when it's not safe to breathe outside because of pollution. EPA raising "acceptable" limits for toxins. Warning pregnant women and children to not eat certain things because they are so toxic.
Rising rates of cancer, Autism, Altzheimers, diabetes, anti-biotic resistant diseases. Our lifestyles are to blame for all of these things. Not the entirely toxic environment we are creating. Besides, our kids and grandkids can clean it all up.

Posted by grassman on Mar. 03 2014,11:40 am

(Self-Banished @ Mar. 03 2014,9:51 am)

QUOTE

(grassman @ Mar. 03 2014,8:57 am)

QUOTE

You are the one that does not get it. I have no problem with someone making money, just don't do it at the expense of others. That is the part that you don't get.

How do you adapt to not having water? Water is and always has been the requirement of life. You are a selfish, short sighted and self centered individual! Just remember this, birds of a feather flock together. Watch out for the one that CAN be more selfish than you!

Posted by Self-Banished on Mar. 03 2014,11:40 am

(Expatriate @ Mar. 02 2014,10:12 pm)

QUOTE

(Self-Banished @ Mar. 02 2014,1:41 pm)

QUOTE

(Expatriate @ Mar. 02 2014,12:44 pm)

QUOTE

...and the monkey flips the switch.

Anytime the G.O.P.(Greedy Oil Party) is for something you and me always end up paying more in one way or another.

Is that your graduation picture from truck driving school?

Nope, I thought it was you in your office pic. :woohoo:

Posted by Expatriate on Mar. 03 2014,10:25 pm

(Self-Banished @ Mar. 02 2014,1:37 pm)

QUOTE

Buffet must make more money selling pipe than from his railroad he’s actually in favor of XL.
these guys are all about more money, I lost respect for all these fat cats.

If we can believe the article

< http://www.omaha.com/article/20140303/MONEY/140309627 >

Posted by Self-Banished on Mar. 04 2014,5:15 am

(Expatriate @ Mar. 03 2014,10:25 pm)

QUOTE

(Self-Banished @ Mar. 02 2014,1:37 pm)

QUOTE

Yeah, those people that are smart and make money are naughty :sarcasm:

Seriously, he looks at both sides of the coin, he employs lots of people to analyze investments. Because he makes money you have no respect for him? Do you make money at you job? :dunce:

Posted by Botto 82 on Mar. 04 2014,6:25 am

If the fatcats arrived at that level of wealth by playing by the written and implied rules. that would be one thing. But they seldom do. I can use big banks and the repeal of Glass-Stegall as an example. Or Larry Silverstein and 9/11. Or fracking operations that poison peoples' groundwater. That's called taking a dump where you eat. Of course, in your "world economy" model, you can dump here, and then go eat in China.

Stop looking at these billionaire bastardos as though you're of like mind and in the same class. They wouldn't pee on you if you were on fire. :frusty:

Posted by Self-Banished on Mar. 04 2014,6:38 am

^^ oh I know they don't gave a ratsass about me but I keep trying, I use what I can to my advantage. I might make it big someday, then again I'll most likely die penny less. But I try, I never give up and I don't whine about other folks being rich, if anything I try to learn from them.

Implied rules?? Give me an example please.

Posted by Botto 82 on Mar. 04 2014,6:54 am

One implication is that if you make a ton of money in this country, you reinvest it here, not in some account in the Caymans. You kooks always tout trickle-down economics, but do you really understand how that was supposed to work? (It didn't, by the way.)

Laissez-faire capitalism is a failed experiment. Given the chance, the fatcats always run off with the money, leaving taxpayers on the hook for all the infrastructure costs of doing business.

Posted by Self-Banished on Mar. 04 2014,7:11 am

Then write a law, capitalism just plain works. It's all out there, go get some.

Posted by grassman on Mar. 04 2014,9:35 am

(Self-Banished @ Mar. 04 2014,6:38 am)

QUOTE

Posted by Self-Banished on Mar. 04 2014,9:58 am

You put some kind of video there, it's a blank on your post.
Got a different link?

Posted by Expatriate on Mar. 04 2014,10:02 am

YOU just can't see it SB!

Posted by Self-Banished on Mar. 04 2014,11:10 am

(Expatriate @ Mar. 04 2014,10:02 am)

QUOTE

YOU just can't see it SB!

And you're a f'*cking idiot Exlax!

Posted by Expatriate on Mar. 04 2014,11:17 am

QUOTE

And you're a f'*cking idiot Exlax!

Posted by Self-Banished on Mar. 04 2014,11:21 am

(Expatriate @ Mar. 04 2014,11:17 am)

QUOTE

And you're a f'*cking idiot Exlax!

Is that all you have today?
Pretty lame

Posted by Common Citizen on Mar. 05 2014,12:16 pm

I am also unable to view the posts with videos, but only when I am on the Ipad.

Posted by grassman on Mar. 05 2014,3:19 pm

Well you better get connected, you are missing some great stuff here! :cool:

Posted by MADDOG on Mar. 13 2014,5:00 pm

It's nice to know that the tar oil from Canada and North Dakota will continue to be moved regardless of a Keystone pipeline. The AAR has since stepped up movement of oil to the refineries in the south despite the tree hugging Bambino opposition. But that's where the trouble is starting. Moving crude tar oil is relatively safe to move by rail, but not faultless. Also by the rail moving that much oil, goods and especially ag products have fallen far behind. When corn, wheat, sugar and beans aren't being delivered when promised many more problems arise. Elevators and grain storage facilities are not able to move their goods to market when the food products are needed. Delays in shipped farm products cause big increases in costs for farm products.

Thanks to Bambino and his failure to sign the Keystone pipeline bill, this will translate into increases in the products you find on the shelf.

Posted by grassman on Mar. 14 2014,7:41 am

Maybe SB needs to quit reading the internet and start getting these products shipped.

Posted by Self-Banished on Mar. 14 2014,8:22 am

(grassman @ Mar. 14 2014,7:41 am)

QUOTE

Maybe SB needs to quit reading the internet and start getting these products shipped.

I do!

Yes the oil trains are screwing things up, but things have a way of evening out.
It would be far more efficient to build a pipeline.

Posted by grassman on Mar. 14 2014,12:17 pm

Here's a question for you. Why not refine this tar sand oil at the site? We seem to have a shortage of refineries anyway, right?

Posted by Self-Banished on Mar. 14 2014,1:53 pm

^^ very good idea but building a new refinery probably has more regs than a pipeline.

Posted by grassman on Mar. 14 2014,2:25 pm

Regulation!? WHAT THE HECK DO WE NEED REGULATION FOR. This is 2014, regulations were put to bed 30 years ago. Things are running just fine across the board. :laugh:

Posted by Self-Banished on Mar. 14 2014,3:44 pm

Yeah right. :sarcasm:

Posted by irisheyes on Mar. 24 2014,5:21 pm

(Self-Banished @ Mar. 14 2014,8:22 am)

QUOTE

It would be far more efficient to build a pipeline.

I agree, pipelines are better, and we already have them criss-crossing the nation. Including a couple phases of the Keystone pipeline. But, is it too much to ask that the oil companies not build the Keystone XL phase of the pipeline over a very large freshwater aquifer?

There's been about thirty or so spills of the first phases of the Keystone pipeline, so it's inevitable that they'll spill in the XL phase if given the chance.

I know, we can trust the oil companies to be safe and not screw it up. Remember how safe they were in the Gulf of Mexico?! :sarcasm:

You guys were chanting "Drill baby, drill" right up until Deepwater Horizon. :dunce:

Maddog:

QUOTE

When corn, wheat, sugar and beans aren't being delivered when promised many more problems arise. Elevators and grain storage facilities are not able to move their goods to market when the food products are needed... Thanks to Bambino and his failure to sign the Keystone pipeline bill, this will translate into increases in the products you find on the shelf.

What do you think the cost of corn, wheat, sugar, and beans would rise to when bituminous sands and crude oil seep into the Ogallala aquifer?

Farmers depend on water a lot more than they depend on tar sands from Canada.

Posted by Self-Banished on Mar. 25 2014,4:22 am

Of course there's always this option...

< http://www.startribune.com/business/239948631.html >

Posted by Self-Banished on Mar. 25 2014,4:33 am

Oh yeah, trains are safer :sarcasm:

< http://www.bloomberg.com/news...il.html >

Posted by grassman on Mar. 25 2014,5:52 am

I guess there is no sure way of transporting oil. Maybe we need to not use so much. Oh yeah, this is all for export.

Posted by Self-Banished on Mar. 25 2014,8:05 am

^^^so are you suggesting we nationalize the oil industry?

Posted by grassman on Mar. 25 2014,1:42 pm

(Self-Banished @ Mar. 25 2014,8:05 am)

QUOTE

^^^so are you suggesting we nationalize the oil industry?

I really don't know what the answer is. I do know that the oil companies are not the most trust worthy people out there. They have a way of covering up and sweeping under the rug a lot of their flaws. They buy off politicians. They even sometimes become Presidents and Vice Presidents of The United States. How much further of a reach can you get than that? They have no boundaries or policy unless forced. They are driven by greed and anything that gets in the way, will eventually go away. So, what is your opinion of them?

Posted by Self-Banished on Mar. 25 2014,2:56 pm

They are a necessary evil and there are many like them in this world. Farmers are a good example. They buy off politicians, they sweep things under the rug like land pollution, they're greedy and some of them have political aspirations and have gone as far as Vice President and president of the US.

Are we paying attention?

Posted by grassman on Mar. 25 2014,5:31 pm

Monsanto Mafia.

Posted by Self-Banished on Mar. 25 2014,6:27 pm

^^^ding-ding-ding, WE HAVE A WINNER!

Do you want a prize from the first shelf or would you like to try for the big money?

Posted by grassman on Mar. 25 2014,9:54 pm

Been trying to tell you about them for how long now? :hairpull:

Posted by Self-Banished on Mar. 26 2014,3:55 am

Oh it goes much higher than that but there's absolutely nothing we can do about it.
The only thing one can do is work the system to one's advantage.

Posted by Self-Banished on Mar. 26 2014,4:57 am

< http://youtu.be/whJlvn4miHk >

Posted by grassman on Apr. 08 2014,9:49 am

Here is some data. Now we need to think about who is benefiting from all of this oil. I don't know about you but it seems to me even with all of this oil moving, the prices are still up there.

By John Hageman and Kyle Potter
Forum News Service
As the national debate over the safety of crude oil transportation continues to swirl, two high-profile North Dakota incidents illustrate the risks associated with moving the commodity.

More than 865,000 gallons of crude oil spewed out of an underground Tesoro pipeline near Tioga last September, causing millions of dollars in damage and requiring cleanup that may take years.

A few months later, a train derailment outside Casselton spilled about 475,000 gallons of oil and prompted an explosion and partial evacuation of the small town. No one was killed or injured, but local officials agreed the accident was a “near miss.”

Officials representing both the pipeline and rail industries say their method is the safest way to transport crude oil. But while federal data analyzed by Forum News Service confirms that crude oil spills account for a fraction of a percent of the amount shipped by rail or pipeline every year, neither trains nor pipelines operate without risks.

Pipeline operators reported almost 1,900 crude oil spills nationwide between 2003 and 2013, or roughly once every other day, according to data from the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, and a majority were caused by corrosion or equipment issues. Those incidents resulted in roughly 21 million gallons of oil being spilled, and in five fatalities and 11 injuries.

Meanwhile, train incidents spilled more oil in 2013 — 1.15 million gallons — than the four previous decades combined, according to a McClatchy News analysis. And that doesn’t include the crash in Quebec that killed 47 people last summer, a tragedy that heightened concerns over moving crude oil by trains.

Lawmakers in North Dakota and Washington, D.C., are pushing for more pipeline construction, which they say can ease the amount of crude oil moved on the tracks. But they acknowledge that rail transportation will play a heavy role in the energy development that’s propelled North Dakota to its status as the country’s No. 2 oil-producing state.

Comparing records

The relative lack of injuries or deaths associated with a crude oil pipeline spill can at least be partially explained by the rare instances of fires or explosions. Fires occurred in 22 different oil spills since 2003 — or 1 percent of the time — and just four of those resulted in an explosion, according to the PHMSA data.

None of those fires took place in North Dakota, but three of them happened in neighboring Minnesota. That includes an incident that killed two Enbridge Energy workers in Clearbrook, Minn., in November 2007.

Despite such incidents, most say pipelines are a safe way to transport oil, and spills are extremely rare.

“We’re going to be using energy,” said Diana Furchtgott-Roth, a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute for Policy Research, who advocates for pipelines. “We might as well think of the safest way of transporting it.”

Furchtgott-Roth cited accident data compiled by the U.S. Department of State — in its review for the proposed TransCanada Keystone XL pipeline — to make her case that pipelines are by far the safest method.

The State Department’s analysis shows that, for every million ton-miles transported, pipelines spilled more barrels of crude than trains every year except one between 2002 and 2009.

But over that time period, more spills per million ton-miles shipped were recorded on rail. And between 2002 and 2012, more injuries and fatalities occurred on the tracks than from pipeline accidents.

“The data is just blindingly clear,” Furchtgott-Roth said.

Many of the drawbacks of both rail and pipeline are inherent to their design. Pipelines are purposely routed and buried through more rural areas, whereas trains run through towns that sprung up around the tracks.

With those trains, “the containers are moving, and they’re moving with other traffic,” Furchtgott-Roth said. “If there’s an incident, it’s liable to hurt other people too. Plus at the end of it, the container has to come back empty.”

“With a pipeline, you don’t have any of these problems," she added.

Spills add up

Still, pipeline spills aren’t without costs. Between 2010 and 2013, pipelines cost operators more than $700 million in environmental remediation, and more than $1.5 billion in total property damage, according to the PHMSA data.

Some of the most notable examples include a July 2010 Enbridge Energy pipeline rupture that spilled almost 850,000 gallons into a creek that flows into Michigan’s Kalamazoo River. Crews are still cleaning up the oil from the waterway.

Another in Arkansas, this time operated by Exxon Mobil, spilled 210,000 gallons and prompted the evacuation of almost two dozen homes in spring 2013.

Last fall’s Tioga spill resulted in $5.4 million in total property damage, according to the PHMSA data.

However, most of the crude oil spills over the past few years were contained on the operator’s property, PHMSA data shows. And many crude oil pipeline spills are relatively small. About a third of the nearly 1,900 spills reported between 2003 and 2013 were a barrel — 42 gallons — or less.

‘Apples to oranges’

Industry officials say pipelines have improved their safety record over the years. Pipelines spilled about 42 percent less crude oil in the last three years than they did between 2003 and 2005, according to the PHMSA data.

Technological advances, like leak detection and inspection systems as well as pipe coating to prevent corrosion, are aiding that shift, industry officials said. Paul Oleksa, a pipeline safety consultant in Ohio, added that the introduction of one-call systems has reduced the number of pipes being punctured by third-party diggers.

“They’re so much safer than anything that we’ve had over the years,” Oleksa said. But that doesn’t mean most spills aren’t preventable. More than 80 percent of crude oil pipeline spills in the last 10 years were the result of corrosion, equipment failure, incorrect operation or material and weld failures, according to the PHMSA data.

The Association of Oil Pipe Lines points to data showing those issues occur less often today. Instances of corrosion failures in liquid pipelines, for instance, decreased by 79 percent between 2001 and 2012, according to AOPL.

“That reflects a lot of the work that pipeline operators do to improve safety,” said John Stoody, AOPL’s vice president of government and public relations.

But many aging pipes are still in operation. The average age of a pipeline involved in a spill between 2010 and 2013 was between 40 and 50 years, according to the PHMSA data. Stoody said a pipe’s age is only one potential factor in spills.

“What we don’t want to do is replace pipe that’s okay just because it’s of a certain age,” Stoody said. “We want to apply our maintenance budgets to where the actual problems are.”

While acknowledging that “there’s always room for improvement,” Enbridge spokeswoman Katie Haarsager said the company often goes “beyond its minimum regulatory requirements."

Brigham McCown, a former administrator of PHMSA, said comparing the safety records of pipelines and railroads is “apples to oranges.”

“I don’t want to get into which one is safer, because they’re both very safe,” he said.

‘More of both’

As energy production soars in North Dakota and elsewhere, trains have become the primary mover of crude oil out of the Bakken — an anomaly in the transportation of oil nationwide, and one that state lawmakers and regulators never saw coming.

North Dakota’s top oil regulator, Lynn Helms, previously said as much as 90 percent of the oil production here could be moved by rail this year.

The amount of oil moved by pipeline out of the Williston Basin steadily increased in the few years leading up to 2013, when oil prices and market conditions helped push more oil to the tracks.

And as oil production increased, so did the frequency of pipeline spills here. While there was just one reported crude oil pipeline spill in North Dakota in 2009, there were 10 last year, according to PHMSA.

But since the Casselton wreck brought the potential dangers of moving crude oil by rail to the attention of the state and nation, lawmakers are pushing for more oil to be moved by pipeline.

Sen. John Hoeven, R-N.D., acknowledged that trains will continue to play a large role in crude oil transportation, but advocated for a better “mix” of trains, pipelines and trucks.

“We can’t try to move all of this capacity by rail,” Hoeven said. “It creates too much congestion, obviously you have more accidents.”

Hoeven has been particularly vocal about approving the proposed Keystone XL pipeline, which wouldn’t run through North Dakota but would transport about 100,000 barrels of Bakken crude per day. Enbridge’s proposed Sandpiper pipeline would move about 225,000 barrels per day out of the Bakken region to Clearbrook on its way to Superior, Wis.

Josh Mogerman, spokesman for the Natural Resources Defense Council, said the debate over pipeline and rail is a “false choice.”

“The industry wants more of both,” he said. “Not one or the other.”

As pipeline capacity lagged behind the explosive growth of oil production in the Bakken oil region, about a dozen rail facilities were built in the matter of a few years in order to get oil to markets.

Oil producers have found that trains have distinct advantages over pipeline, including their relative speed and an ability to quickly shift where oil is shipped, including places that pipelines don’t currently reach. And the extra cost of shipping by train rather than pipeline can be mitigated if oil prices allow.

Wayde Schafer, conservation organizer at the North Dakota chapter of the Sierra Club, said the only real solution to crude oil transportation concerns is reducing reliance on fossil fuels.

“All forms of transporting the oil are putting the environment and the public at risk,” he said.

Posted by Self-Banished on Apr. 08 2014,10:54 am

^^^ so what do you think of your Prius so far???

Posted by grassman on Apr. 08 2014,11:05 am

What does a Prius have to do with anything. I drive F150s.

Posted by Rosalind_Swenson on Apr. 08 2014,11:06 am

What is also rarely talked about is the huge amounts of water that oil, natural gas, coal and nuclear use and contaminate. America is a huge energy hog, but for some reason we just keep barreling full speed ahead as if the way of life we are accustomed to will be able to go on forever.
There are a vast amount of people who would, and can, live entirely off alternatives if given a chance, but that is not an option unless a person has a buttload of money, or know how. There are reasons for that.
I'm not being a downer pessimist here, but the lifestyle we are accustomed to is going to come to a screaching halt soon if things don't change.

Posted by Liberal on Apr. 08 2014,12:09 pm

What stops people from living off the grid, or using alternative energy sources?

Just the other day I was watching a video on kook news and it was about these people having shacks out in the desert and they're upset because local government has these nuisance abatement team (we call them cso's around here, the kooks call them swat teams) wants them to clean up their junk and tear down their illegally built buildings. Pretty much the same thing every municipality in the country does.

Here's an article that even ties it to Agenda 21. :rofl:

< http://thecommonsenseshow.com/2014...roperty >

Posted by Self-Banished on Apr. 08 2014,12:18 pm

(grassman @ Apr. 08 2014,11:05 am)

QUOTE

What does a Prius have to do with anything. I drive F150s.

A F150? You hypocrite! You complain about big oil and you drive a gas guzzler. I on the other hand (I've been a bad example all my life) look forward to pumping all sorts of hydrocarbons into the air, destroying roads and making little old ladies sh!t their drawers if they f%#k up in front of me.

Pump more oil, build the pipeline. :thumbsup:

Posted by grassman on Apr. 08 2014,1:16 pm

Hypocrite, how so. I never said I drove a Prius. I want to know how does making that pipeline, at the risk of trashing water sources help me? :dunno:

How does it help you? :dunno:

Why are you so gung ho about it? Tell us what is in it for you. You are the one that is always out for number one.

Posted by Self-Banished on Apr. 08 2014,1:36 pm

^ lower fuel prices.

But you seem to think it won't happen. We have pipeline all over the US and yes there have been some mishaps but for the most part they've performed well. They are regulated, do you know what gov. Regulatory branch governs pipelines?

As for the Prius, you seem to think that oil is evil and you should strive to lower your consumption. C'mon, they're only about 20G. Think about how much better you conscience will be. You'd look good in the avocado colored one.

Posted by grassman on Apr. 08 2014,2:31 pm

Lower fuel prices?! :rofl:

You just don't pay attention do you! :hairpull:

Supply and demand for fuel does not apply, that has been proven over and over. If they took fuel off the stock market, we would be paying a dollar a gallon. Maybe you should start hauling gasoline, then you would see what a farce the short supply end is.

Posted by Rosalind_Swenson on Apr. 08 2014,2:59 pm

(Liberal @ Apr. 08 2014,12:09 pm)

QUOTE

< http://thecommonsenseshow.com/2014...roperty >

Reading comprehension problems still

What was the reason I gave in my comment? Cost or know-how.
You always have to twist, spin or lie don't you LIbERal?

Posted by Self-Banished on Apr. 08 2014,3:37 pm

(grassman @ Apr. 08 2014,2:31 pm)

QUOTE

Lower fuel prices?! :rofl:

You just don't pay attention do you! :hairpull:

I have hauled gas

Heat your home with LP this winter, that should give you an idea about supply and demand.

Posted by grassman on Apr. 08 2014,3:48 pm

For any length of time? There are times where there are so many trucks full, they have no where to dump it.

Posted by Self-Banished on Apr. 08 2014,3:56 pm

^^just a couple a months years ago! didn't like the hours.

Posted by Botto 82 on Apr. 08 2014,4:07 pm

(Rosalind_Swenson @ Apr. 08 2014,11:06 am)

QUOTE

That's pretty much the thinking, isn't it? The "I love my kids, but not enough to think about this" crowd.

When the entire human infrastructure collapses (and it will, in some of our lifetimes, of this much I am dead certain) there will be much misery. And fingerpointing. It'll be much harder to laugh at hobo jungles and ramshackle dwellings when we all find ourselves living in them.

Posted by Self-Banished on Apr. 08 2014,5:16 pm

Human infrastructure?

Posted by grassman on Apr. 09 2014,6:46 am

I think he is referring to our infrastructure such as roads, bridges, sewer, gas lines, water lines, and other needed things that have been deteriorating over the years. :thumbsup:

Or he could be meaning that the level of life is slowly but steadily deteriorating in this country and bringing it to a third world nation way of living. Unless of coarse you are on the board of directors.

Posted by Botto 82 on Apr. 09 2014,7:09 am

(grassman @ Apr. 09 2014,6:46 am)

QUOTE

I think he is referring to our infrastructure such as roads, bridges, sewer, gas lines, water lines, and other needed things that have been deteriorating over the years. :thumbsup:

That, and fresh water supplies, healthy ag practices... it's all in trouble. Certain federal and state agencies were put into existence to do the right thing, when the right thing wasn't a by-product of return on investment. And those agencies have been infiltrated by cronies, and bought out. Peoples' tap water has become flammable, due to hydraulic fracking. Where's the EPA? Ground water and streams are being polluted by high-density livestock operations.

These issues have been ignored, because our so-called leaders care more about profit than they do about the public good. But they don't care, because by the time these pigeons come home to roost, they'll either be out of office or dead. And that's the kind of thinking that's killing us.

Posted by Self-Banished on Apr. 09 2014,12:41 pm

Let's not forget about that wonderful farmer welfare generator just south of town,

< http://www.scientificamerican.com/article...quifers >

Posted by Moparman on Apr. 09 2014,2:22 pm

Nice try!

< http://web.extension.illinois.edu/ethanol/wateruse.cfm >

The simple fact is that the ethanol industry is getting more and more efficient where as the petroleum industry gets more and more inefficient simply because every gallon of oil or cubic foot of gas cannot be replaced.

I'm guessing you don't think of big oil subsidies as "welfare"? :dunce:

Posted by Self-Banished on Apr. 09 2014,3:17 pm

(Moparman @ Apr. 09 2014,2:22 pm)

QUOTE

Yep, they most certainly are subsidized, right down to the railroad subsidies. I like your site though, if you look at the resources and references the site quite a few of the organizations that benefit from ethonol subsidies. Thing is that all they said is that they're still using a lot of water.

One thing that ethonol will never have over oil is efficiency, plain physics dictates that.

How about we just end all subsides? Get a over bloated, inefficient, full of cronyism gov. out of the business of doing business.