TransCanada: Pipeline would not affect climate

Feb 19, 2013 | Posted by: roboblogger | Full story: The Capital-Journal

In a shift in strategy, the company that wants to build an oil pipeline from western Canada to Texas said Tuesday that the project will have no measurable effect on global warming.

Comments

Showing posts 1 - 9 of9
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1
Feb 19, 2013
 

Judged:

4

4

3

Corrected - TransCanada: Pipeline would not affect just climate only

OTTAWA — Tailings ponds from oilsands production are leaking and contaminating Alberta’s groundwater, Natural Resources Minister Joe Oliver was told in an internal memo obtained by Postmedia News.

The memo, released through access to information legislation, said that federal government scientists, including Quebec City-based research geoscientist Martine Savard, had discovered evidence of the contamination in new research that rejected longstanding claims that toxins in the region of the Athabasca River were coming from natural sources.

“The studies have, for the first time, detected potentially harmful, mining-related organic acid contaminants in the groundwater outside a long-established out-of-pit tailings pond,” said the memo from deputy minister Serge Dupont, dated June 19, 2012.

“This finding is consistent with publicly available technical reports of seepage — both projected from theory, and detected in practice.”

Read more: http://www.canada.com/Oilsands+tailings+leaki...

“Seriously guys...”

Since: May 12

The 'Shwa

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2
Feb 19, 2013
 

Judged:

2

1

1

SpaceBlues wrote:
Corrected - TransCanada: Pipeline would not affect just climate only
OTTAWA — Tailings ponds from oilsands production are leaking and contaminating Alberta’s groundwater, Natural Resources Minister Joe Oliver was told in an internal memo obtained by Postmedia News.
The memo, released through access to information legislation, said that federal government scientists, including Quebec City-based research geoscientist Martine Savard, had discovered evidence of the contamination in new research that rejected longstanding claims that toxins in the region of the Athabasca River were coming from natural sources.
“The studies have, for the first time, detected potentially harmful, mining-related organic acid contaminants in the groundwater outside a long-established out-of-pit tailings pond,” said the memo from deputy minister Serge Dupont, dated June 19, 2012.
“This finding is consistent with publicly available technical reports of seepage — both projected from theory, and detected in practice.”
Read more: http://www.canada.com/Oilsands+tailings+leaki...
You're from Texas and you have the nerve to complain about Canadian oil production?
Guess what sport? That oil is heading south whether you like it or not. What isn't already being shipped by pipeline, is being shipped by rail.
Now, maybe you can explain to me how with production being at the same level, running trains instead of pipelines is better for the environment?

“So long to you, Righties”

Since: Jan 12

keep suckin' and whiffin'!

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3
Feb 21, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Um, of COURSE they say that. What else WOULD they say?

The important thing is what the FACTS are, not what a member of Big Energy says.

“Seriously guys...”

Since: May 12

The 'Shwa

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#4
Feb 21, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

tha Professor wrote:
Um, of COURSE they say that. What else WOULD they say?
The important thing is what the FACTS are, not what a member of Big Energy says.
Well then, since the OP punked out, maybe you can explain the "facts" of how running diesel trains from Alberta to the Gulf States affects the climate less than a pipeline would.

Will YOU be the one that has an actual fact based answer? Cuz so far, no one with a mouth big enough to complain about Keystone XL has been able to answer that question.

So c'mon professor, show me the math. Show me how already existing pipelines are affecting the climate more than diesel exhaust.

“So long to you, Righties”

Since: Jan 12

keep suckin' and whiffin'!

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#5
Feb 22, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

1

Whisgean Zoda wrote:
<quoted text>
Well then, since the OP punked out, maybe you can explain the "facts" of how running diesel trains from Alberta to the Gulf States affects the climate less than a pipeline would.
Will YOU be the one that has an actual fact based answer? Cuz so far, no one with a mouth big enough to complain about Keystone XL has been able to answer that question.
So c'mon professor, show me the math. Show me how already existing pipelines are affecting the climate more than diesel exhaust.
Since I never made the claim, of course I won't "defend" it.

I will say that one trouble with the comparison, though, is that ONE big problem with a pipeline could be more damaging to the environment than many years of running diesel trains.

I oppose the pipeline because this doesn't really benefit the U.S. except in relatively short-term construction jobs.

“So long to you, Righties”

Since: Jan 12

keep suckin' and whiffin'!

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#6
Feb 22, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

1

Whisgean Zoda wrote:
<quoted text>
Well then, since the OP punked out, maybe you can explain the "facts" of how running diesel trains from Alberta to the Gulf States affects the climate less than a pipeline would.
Will YOU be the one that has an actual fact based answer? Cuz so far, no one with a mouth big enough to complain about Keystone XL has been able to answer that question.
So c'mon professor, show me the math. Show me how already existing pipelines are affecting the climate more than diesel exhaust.
I also didn't really see you refute SpaceBlues' latest post, you just insulted him and started talking about the diesel trains claim.

What about the environmental impact of the pipeline, or don't you think it will HAVE one?

“Seriously guys...”

Since: May 12

The 'Shwa

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#7
Feb 22, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

tha Professor wrote:
<quoted text>
I oppose the pipeline because this doesn't really benefit the U.S. except in relatively short-term construction jobs.
I respectfully disagree. Canadian oil is blood-free. The US doesn't have to spend trillions of dollars keeping the supply secure.
As for the only benefit being relatively short-term construction jobs, ALL construction jobs are relatively short-term. That's the nature of the construciton industry, going from job site to job site.

“Seriously guys...”

Since: May 12

The 'Shwa

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#8
Feb 22, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

tha Professor wrote:
<quoted text>
I also didn't really see you refute SpaceBlues' latest post, you just insulted him and started talking about the diesel trains claim.
What about the environmental impact of the pipeline, or don't you think it will HAVE one?
There's no need to refute a post from someone living in a state with a MASSIVE petro-chemical industry. I have a hard time believing that the Gulf Coast area of Texas is pristine with clean, clear water. I didn't bother with his nonsense because quite frankly, if you have a large, stinking pile of dog-shit in your yard, it's probably best that you clean it up before complaining about the one in your neighbour's yard.

As for the environmental impact of a pipeline, the only impact I can see that would be a direct result of the pipeline would be a breach in the line. However, pipelines can be shut off to prevent more spillage. A fully loaded train crashing doesn't have that option, you can't shut off a leaking tanker car if it's been breached.
So, the affect on the climate from a pipeline is only potential. But diesel trains hauling oil to Texas are an actual.

“So long to you, Righties”

Since: Jan 12

keep suckin' and whiffin'!

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#9
Feb 22, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Whisgean Zoda wrote:
<quoted text>
I respectfully disagree. Canadian oil is blood-free. The US doesn't have to spend trillions of dollars keeping the supply secure.
As for the only benefit being relatively short-term construction jobs, ALL construction jobs are relatively short-term. That's the nature of the construciton industry, going from job site to job site.
I don't object to Canadian oil, they're already our biggest supplier. I'm just saying that this pipeline is about moving oil to the Gulf for transshipment, and won't do anything for us but endanger our environment and yours.

That's not a good exchange for temporary jobs.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 1 - 9 of9
Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

•••
•••
Enter and win $5000
•••
•••