Bad News For the Keystone XL

Mott the Hoople said:
That's not an accurate assesment. What if they we're building an oil pipeline right next to your property? I'm sure you'd be concerned too and would want the most stringent permitting requirements possible and it goes with out saying you'd prefer them to build it someplace else. So it's not about political ideologues being niave. It's about all politics being local. I'm sure you could give a rats ass if they build a pipeline through my back yard....be a different ballgame when its your back yard.
Click to expand...

Man, I'm just so civic minded, I truly am a patrician.
 
Without reading the whole thread... You do realize you are comparing 1940s technology with today's technology, right?

This would be like saying that because cars didn't have seat belts in the 40s, that all cars today are dangerous...
 
Damocles said:
Without reading the whole thread... You do realize you are comparing 1940s technology with today's technology, right?

This would be like saying that because cars didn't have seat belts in the 40s, that all cars today are dangerous...
Click to expand...
Not really. Actually not at all. It's not about comparing superanuated technology vs modern technology.

It's more like, the technology has inherent risks. So what compromises on cost vs safety are we willing to accept and to what lengths are we willing to go to mitigate these risks? Modern technology just means we have more alternative compromises we can make and have the ability to mitigate more of the risk but those same inherent risks are still there now just as in 1940. In other words Damo, you set your self up for a fall if you overly rely on engineering controls (technology) to mitigate risk. Administrative controls are just as important, if not more so, than engineering controls are at mitigating risk.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
Not really. Actually not at all. It's not about comparing superanuated technology vs modern technology.

It's more like, the technology has inherent risks. So what compromises on cost vs safety are we willing to accept and to what lengths are we willing to go to mitigate these risks? Modern technology just means we have more alternative compromises we can make and have the ability to mitigate more of the risk but those same inherent risks are still there now just as in 1940. In other words Damo, you set your self up for a fall if you overly rely on engineering controls (technology) to mitigate risk. Administrative controls are just as important, if not more so, than engineering controls are at mitigating risk.
Click to expand...

That plus the owner's refusal to maintain his pipeline to maximize profit.
 
ZappasGuitar said:
Oh bullshit, it was your very first contribution to this discussion...
Click to expand...
Again, no, it was not. You are simply making it up.

No...we just think if the oil companies want to make money off transporting their product across our property, then they need to do a better job of maintaining their pipelines than the piss poor job they did in Arkansas.
Click to expand...

I have no problem protecting the environment and making sure infrastructure is maintained. But you are equating a 60+ year old pipeline to a brand new one. You understand that if you build NEW ones, the odds of breakdowns are reduced as the new ones can replace those that are older than you and I? Part of maintaining infrastructure is replacing the old with new when the old costs too much to keep up to standards.
 
Howey said:
Just like Dixie you put words together as a statement of fact when they are mere opinion. Rarely do you provide a source. But whenever someone else makes a claim, you demand one.
Click to expand...

I will ask you again... WHAT are you referring to? What point did I make that has you up in arms? You see it is very hard to discuss this with you when I have no idea which item you think is so egregious.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
That's not an accurate assesment. What if they we're building an oil pipeline right next to your property? I'm sure you'd be concerned too and would want the most stringent permitting requirements possible and it goes with out saying you'd prefer them to build it someplace else. So it's not about political ideologues being niave. It's about all politics being local. I'm sure you could give a rats ass if they build a pipeline through my back yard....be a different ballgame when its your back yard.
Click to expand...

It is an accurate assessment. The left in BC blocked the passage of the pipeline via that route just as the left in the US is trying to block the route to TX. What part of that do you disagree with?

Everyone wants them to be safe Mutt. There are a few million miles of pipelines in the US and CO has many. You have many more in Ohio. TX is packed with them. But this is not about NIMBY, this is about the environmental wackjobs not wanting the oil from the tar sands to be produced. If they can block passage to the refinery capacity, they can stop the production of the tar sands.

Fyi Mutt... check out where all the pipelines already exist... you will then see just how silly it is to be saying we shouldn't build Keystone.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
Not really. Actually not at all. It's not about comparing superanuated technology vs modern technology.

It's more like, the technology has inherent risks. So what compromises on cost vs safety are we willing to accept and to what lengths are we willing to go to mitigate these risks? Modern technology just means we have more alternative compromises we can make and have the ability to mitigate more of the risk but those same inherent risks are still there now just as in 1940. In other words Damo, you set your self up for a fall if you overly rely on engineering controls (technology) to mitigate risk. Administrative controls are just as important, if not more so, than engineering controls are at mitigating risk.
Click to expand...

curious... are the pipes made of the same material and made in the same manner as they were then? Or have they improved (or become worse)?
 
Mott the Hoople said:
Not really. Actually not at all. It's not about comparing superanuated technology vs modern technology.

It's more like, the technology has inherent risks. So what compromises on cost vs safety are we willing to accept and to what lengths are we willing to go to mitigate these risks? Modern technology just means we have more alternative compromises we can make and have the ability to mitigate more of the risk but those same inherent risks are still there now just as in 1940. In other words Damo, you set your self up for a fall if you overly rely on engineering controls (technology) to mitigate risk. Administrative controls are just as important, if not more so, than engineering controls are at mitigating risk.
Click to expand...

Which is why my analogy was apt. Both technologies include risk (cars, pipelines) and have improved over time, true cars are far more dangerous and pollute more, but it is apt regardless. Cars today are safer than they were in the 40s, so are pipelines. The comparison stands as silly and illogical. We shouldn't build something because in the 1940s the technology wasn't as safe is a childlike argument based in fear mongering nonsense.

There's no reason to be illogical or hypocritical when discussing the "inherent" danger of pipelines. They are by far safer than just driving down the highway in every way, including in how much pollution that they may put out into an environment.
 
Superfreak said:
Sorry to break the news to you, but you are a woman and thus your opinion is that of a second class citizen... just ask Darla, she will tell you all about it.
Click to expand...

Darla claims that is your attitude, not hers, you are very confused, lately.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top