Pipeline politics

posted at 11:30 am on August 14, 2011 by Jazz Shaw

Having just finished a three part series on Canadian oil sands, I’ve been paying particular attention to how both the American media and our politicians approach the subject. Of course, I can usually rely on the steady, conservative outlets to give a fair hearing to the subject, such as this one.

Wait a minute… this is from the editorial board of the Washington Post????

TO ANY ENVIRONMENTALLY conscious American, building the Keystone XL oil pipeline doesn’t sound like a great deal: a new pipeline that would transport dirty tar sands crude from Canada, over the Great Plains and to the Gulf Coast. Why would America “double down” on Canadian oil, when it takes more water and energy — which means more pollution — to extract? Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, who will decide before the end of the year whether to approve the project, has to answer that question.

Here’s what she should say: Even if the U.S. government adopts stringent policies to cut oil use, the United States will be dependent on crude for decades. Oil demand across the world, meanwhile, is rising, which applies upward pressure on prices — and makes it economical to extract oil from Canada’s tar sands. Canada will produce its oil. We will burn a lot of it, no matter what, because there’s still spare capacity in existing U.S.-Canada pipelines. But when Canada produces more oil than it can send south, the Canadians won’t just leave it in the ground; they will ship it elsewhere. And America won’t be kept from importing and refining more low-grade crude oil; the United States will just get it from the Middle East, the Energy Department has concluded.

Somebody pinch me. I had to check several times to make sure the link hadn’t been misdirected, but in fact the above piece did come from the wapo. And they are correct, of course, except for the sweeping assumptions that oil sands exploration is a de facto greater source of both water pollution and atmospheric pollutants. As I found on my inspection of the process, they have gone a long ways in slaying those particular monsters and continue to improve.

The more important point which this editorial addresses is the inherent resistance in the administration to approving new pipeline work and keeping an open spigot for the United States from our neighbor to the north. That oil is going to be produced anyway, and if we don’t support the pipeline, the producers in Canada were very clear when speaking to us that they have no problem with building a shorter line to the west coast and just shipping their oil to China. And that, of course, leaves us where we are now… buying even more supplies from places like Venezuela and the middle east.

Canada remains, in many ways, the best friend the United States has, and a solid, productive relationship remains in the best and most vital interests of both countries. They are happy to sell us the bounty of energy they are tapping and will soon be the chief producer of such supplies in the world. It is unfortunate that this bonanza is taking place just when we have a White House with the most dysfunctional, anti-energy jobs policy in living memory.

The clock is ticking. If this opportunity slips away and Canada invests the time and effort into establishing large scale sales to China via a western pipeline to a sea port, we will be unlikely to regain the upper hand. I hear everyone in the West Wing reads the Washington Post. Let’s hope they read this one.

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

It’ll get built.
And evidently we already have a Canadian pipeline connection.

Badger40 on August 14, 2011 at 11:36 AM

Oil demand across the world, meanwhile, is rising, which applies upward pressure on prices — and makes it economical to extract oil from Canada’s tar sands.

Do you see the nonsense here? Why would they oppose us getting the easy cost effective stuff out of the gulf, Anwar, etc. for the purposes of meeting the increased demand they speak of, and driving down the price, while promoting the expensive imported stuff that OPEC will be able to put out of business with a wave of their hand?

Answer: They’ll be able to justify price controls.

Buddahpundit on August 14, 2011 at 11:39 AM

Libturds decide to strangle the USA of energy just to make their point they can do it.

The lies about carbon are getting old and tired, as is obammunism.

Why should the country with the world’s largest fossil fuel reserves buy this liberal claptrap any longer … Perry 2012. Expunge liberalism ….

tarpon on August 14, 2011 at 11:40 AM

Use it, or lose it!

OldEnglish on August 14, 2011 at 11:40 AM

Talked to someone who worked the pipeline and he said that an eagle started building a nest near the planned path of the pipeline and the environmentalists made them move the pipeline so as not to interfere with the eagles nest after the new path was started the eagle move the nest to where they were headed. The workman laughed because the eagles main source of food was the mice feeding on the grass seed blown onto the ground with paper machete to the finished pipeline. My friend said this happened many times.

mixplix on August 14, 2011 at 11:42 AM

Somebody has to get their numbers up. And the only way to do it is the anti-lefty way to reduce energy prices.

If that doesn’t work, they may actually try…drilling.

cozmo on August 14, 2011 at 11:44 AM

Who cares what the Post thinks and spare me the command of the obvious, “best friend to America.” Stephen Harper should condition the Keystone deal with immediate suspension of all the border bullshit Canada puts up with in attempting to trade with its “best friend.” While Obama is clueless and a barrier to this deal, so is every nativist in the US. You can get the oil when you open the damn border to your bestfriend.

jbutson on August 14, 2011 at 11:45 AM

And America won’t need to be kept from importing and refining more low-grade crude oil; the United States will just pump its own get it from the Middle East, the Energy Department President-elect Palin has concluded.

Akzed on August 14, 2011 at 11:45 AM

Admittedly uninformed about this, but couldn’t we put our own drilling stations somewhere up there, say Montant about 3inches from the border and extract our own? Is the deposit that far north to be inaccessible to us? We cab ship the 4 speckled grouses that would be affected to the gulf for some R & R at considerable savings.

Huckabye-Romney on August 14, 2011 at 11:47 AM

The Washington Post editorial page is actually center-left and usually pretty fair. The rest of the paper, however, is far-left, unfair and unrelentingly partisan. I fear the former will change before the latter does.

BuzzCrutcher on August 14, 2011 at 11:49 AM

Do you see the nonsense here? Why would they oppose us getting the easy cost effective stuff out of the gulf, Anwar, etc. for the purposes of meeting the increased demand they speak of, and driving down the price, while promoting the expensive imported stuff that OPEC will be able to put out of business with a wave of their hand?

Answer: They’ll be able to justify price controls.

Buddahpundit on August 14, 2011 at 11:39 AM

I’m glad that I am not the only one who can read between the lines.

“You fool some of the people some of the time and jerk the rest off”

George Carlin
American humorist and philosopher

darwin-t on August 14, 2011 at 11:50 AM

Even if the U.S. government adopts stringent policies to cut oil use, the United States will be dependent on crude for decades. Oil demand across the world, meanwhile, is rising, which applies upward pressure on prices — and makes it economical to extract oil from Canada’s tar sands. Canada will produce its oil. We will burn a lot of it, no matter what, because there’s still spare capacity in existing U.S.-Canada pipelines. But when Canada produces more oil than it can send south, the Canadians won’t just leave it in the ground; they will ship it elsewhere.

-
Shorten this a bit… make it more generic… Add in “what does your car run on?”. Drop in a few cuss words to make it easier for the average person to absorb…
-
I said this hundreds of times to the lefties during the Bush administration… Maybe one time since Barry took the WH has this even come up. (Oops… WaPo’s reason for the switch… Obama).
-

RalphyBoy on August 14, 2011 at 11:51 AM

I hear everyone in the West Wing reads the Washington Post. Let’s hope they read this one.

Correcting his mistakes is not an Obama trait…he’s too busy making new ones. Expect this opportunity to help America, as with all others he’s actively thwarted, to pass right on by.

AUINSC on August 14, 2011 at 11:52 AM

The WaPo editorial page and it’s columnist list has gotten a lot less liberal doctrinaire over the past 5-6 years, much to the anger of some on the left. The newsroom is still PC liberal loopy, but the editorial page is no longer out there where the buses don’t run (or the pipelines don’t go).

The lack of pipelines, not just in Canada but in any area where new oil and gas developlment is in play, is a major problem — even here in West Texas, where the energy transportation infrastructure is long established, they’re having to bring trucks in to move crude oil and natural gas, because the pipeline system isn’t big enough to handle what’s being produced in the new development areas.

jon1979 on August 14, 2011 at 11:54 AM

We have large amounts of oil sands, oil shale and just plain oil underground in States from CO to the Dakotas… we can make plenty on our own from the same resources and North Dakota is doing just that.

All we have to do is convince States to pull their agreement on letting the US government hold so much land in the western States.

And tell the EPA to go away. Permanently.

ajacksonian on August 14, 2011 at 11:56 AM

It’s against all of bo’s education to allow the pipeline to be built. It just wouldn’t be fair to use more dirty oil and allow people to prosper. He just won’t be able to say yes, it’s against all he believes.

tim c on August 14, 2011 at 11:56 AM

Jim Wallis and his Liberal blog, Sojourners, is revealing their hypocrisy on this. There was a post about how they plan to protest this pipeline. For a blog that claims to care about working men and women, such action will kill good paying jobs for the very men and women they claim to care about.

http://www.bluecollarphilosophy.com/2011/08/hypocrisy-at-sojourners-over-keystone-pipeline-protest.html

Siding with the environment over people.

Blue Collar Todd on August 14, 2011 at 12:00 PM

We can’t allow leftists to put an irrational stigma on the use of fresh water everywhere in the world.

blink on August 14, 2011 at 11:47 AM

I always thought that the stigma of using “fresh water” for anything but drinking was absurd. The stuff falls from the sky so often that we have to build massive infrastructure just to deal with it all.

Mord on August 14, 2011 at 12:01 PM

And tell the EPA to go away. Permanently.

ajacksonian on August 14, 2011 at 11:56 AM

I’m pessimistic. I don’t think it will ever happen.
Bcs people erroneously believe that all capitalists involved in industry are nothing but evil polluters who want to kill Bambi.
And they think the government is what has saved Mother Earth.
The govt didn’t save the environment.
Capitalists did.

Badger40 on August 14, 2011 at 12:03 PM

The Republican candidates should pound the Obama administration on this, now through the election. Perhaps that will shame Obama into saying OK on the pipeline. If not, it will further demonstrate that his plan is to destroy the American economy.

GaltBlvnAtty on August 14, 2011 at 12:04 PM

Siding with the environment over people.

Blue Collar Todd on August 14, 2011 at 12:00 PM

The communists that went over to the environmental cause have been quite successful at duping the hippies & tree huggers.
They are pawns in a sick game for control.

Badger40 on August 14, 2011 at 12:05 PM

Consider this….

How long does the development of the pipeline and oil sands have to be obstructed or delayed to more seriously damage the U.S.?

How many other facets of American infrastructure are being obstructed?

Is there a pattern here?

CrazyGene on August 14, 2011 at 12:06 PM

How many other facets of American infrastructure are being obstructed?

Is there a pattern here?

CrazyGene on August 14, 2011 at 12:06 PM

Local ‘concerned’ citizens do this all the time.
The South Heart gasification plant has been held hostage for a while now.

Badger40 on August 14, 2011 at 12:08 PM

And that gasification plant actually was delayed by the planners themselves bcs of Obama’s election to POTUS. Even Sen. Dorgan was worried about what his election might do to the proposed plant.
They stopped it for a while bcs they did not know what the EPA was going to do with them. I imagine they might even could have completed it by now if they weren’t worried about that kind of shit.

Badger40 on August 14, 2011 at 12:11 PM

It’ll get built.
And evidently we already have a Canadian pipeline connection.

Badger40 on August 14, 2011 at 11:36 AM

Nothing new at all. Keystone XL is different in that it brings heavy syncrude to the area of the country where it could replace Venezuelan crude, not so much Middle East crude.

Once again, you don’t just put any crude oil into any refinery. EACH refinery is designed for a narrow range of types of crude. A high grade high API gravity crude oil would only lower production in a refinery configured for low grade heavy (low API gravity) crude.

Kermit on August 14, 2011 at 12:12 PM

BTW, it seems like fake farmers are protesting in Nebraska against the Keystone XL, just like fake ranchers protested against the proposed Trans Texas Corridor. In fact it was regional municipal transit authorities who did not like private business playing in their sandbox who made TTC look like some big giant evil Alex Jones type thing.

Kermit on August 14, 2011 at 12:15 PM

The communists that went over to the environmental cause have been quite successful at duping the hippies & tree huggers.
They are pawns in a sick game for control.

Badger40 on August 14, 2011 at 12:05 PM

The communists were the ones behind the environmental movement. They were looking for a means to corral the youth of the 60′s and 70′s.

darwin-t on August 14, 2011 at 12:16 PM

Talked to someone who worked the pipeline and he said that an eagle started building a nest near the planned path of the pipeline and the environmentalists made them move the pipeline so as not to interfere with the eagles nest after the new path was started the eagle move the nest to where they were headed. The workman laughed because the eagles main source of food was the mice feeding on the grass seed blown onto the ground with paper machete to the finished pipeline. My friend said this happened many times.

mixplix on August 14, 2011 at 11:42 AM

Yes it is quite a common occurrence.

Kermit on August 14, 2011 at 12:17 PM

mixplix,
That also happens in manufacturing facilities which have been idle for eons and is a sorry state of disrepair. Right when the facility is to be demolished some bird (not just eagles) is found to be nesting on top of some distillation column and the whole thing is delayed until the eggs hatch and the chicks mature.

Kermit on August 14, 2011 at 12:19 PM

We can’t allow leftists to put an irrational stigma on the use of fresh water everywhere in the world.

AND, it’s a God given, perfect, closed system. It never really runs out and cannot.

We could do WATER pipelines in 6 months to anywhere in the US if need be. I grew up in a place called St Louis. How many gallons of water go by just there in an hour?

silly empty headed green morons!

golfmann on August 14, 2011 at 12:21 PM

Yes, and these things called “rivers” deposit massive amounts of fresh water into the great salt seas every minute of the day. It’s irrational for anyone to object to using that fresh water before it’s lost to the oceans.

blink on August 14, 2011 at 12:15 PM

The location of the majority of the shale and tar sands oil is not anywhere near the termination of rivers. It is generally at the sources where the water is used to irrigate pastureland for livestock. These areas have already had their water supplies drained by residential development and politicians who live downstream.

darwin-t on August 14, 2011 at 12:25 PM

My assumption is it will get approved by the State Department. If it does not there are several other projects that have been proposed that do NOT require the State Department to approve a cross border pipeline. The Keystone XL Pipeline is the only project that had stakeholders sign on to transport oil. If they kill this deal then the other projects will have companies sign on to modify and use existing connections. I believe there is a republican Nebraska that has held this up as well. This pipeline could be in working order about 18 months from approval from what I understand and would get cheaper and steady supply to the gulf coast refineries. Like I said though, there are other alternatives that will be done in it’s stead.

bluemarlin on August 14, 2011 at 12:27 PM

Pfffft, Obama the Destroyer will nix this and anything else that could possibly contribute to America being energy self-sufficient. His leftist minions won’t be happy until we are all living in peat huts, wearing birch-bark clothing, and huddling together to stay warm.

Bishop on August 14, 2011 at 12:31 PM

Admittedly uninformed about this, but couldn’t we put our own drilling stations somewhere up there, say Montant about 3inches from the border and extract our own? Is the deposit that far north to be inaccessible to us? We cab ship the 4 speckled grouses that would be affected to the gulf for some R & R at considerable savings.

Huckabye-Romney on August 14, 2011 at 11:47 AM

I’m pretty sure that the oil sands deposits don’t extend that far South, but if they did we would be further ahead to cede that territory to Canada, as they would be more likely to exploit it than we are. The EPA has no jurisdiction in Canada.

slickwillie2001 on August 14, 2011 at 12:31 PM

Oil is the best cost ratio in terms of foot pounds produced per consumption of fuel, hands down. Nothing comes remotely close. It is portable and easy to use in large and small applications. Until something even comes halfway to meeting the ability of oil to deliver energy we are wasting our money in a time we have none to waste.

itsspideyman on August 14, 2011 at 12:35 PM

I agree, NO pipelines for crude oil in the U.S.

We all should realize that it is much more eco-friendly to put it on a Nigerian flagged oil tanker and transport it a few thousand miles to China where it will be used in the greenest technology advanced power plants.

/sarc

SoCalOilMan on August 14, 2011 at 12:36 PM

AMAZING…

…so now that we are finally “getting real” about oil…
Can we now expect Leftists to admit that we are now (and have been for well over 200 years) growing more trees than we cut down ….so the eco-wacko concept of “saving trees” is just as silly as “saving grass” or “saving wheat”???

landlines on August 14, 2011 at 12:37 PM

“By refining this tar sand oil and selling it on the open market, Canada acted stupidly.”

PBHO

P.S. “How are those loans to Brazil coming along?”

Khun Joe on August 14, 2011 at 12:42 PM

AMAZING…

…so now that we are finally “getting real” about oil…
Can we now expect Leftists to admit that we are now (and have been for well over 200 years) growing more trees than we cut down ….so the eco-wacko concept of “saving trees” is just as silly as “saving grass” or “saving wheat”???

landlines on August 14, 2011 at 12:37 PM

For this project, I believe they are saying some kind of beetle will be endangered. They will never stop, just like tha sand dunes lizard for NM and TX.

bluemarlin on August 14, 2011 at 12:44 PM

We should push the conservative harvesting of trees on the basis of the progs war on CO2. When you cut down a tree and make it into a house or a piece of furniture, that (evil) Carbon is locked up for decades. If you leave the tree alone like the enviros want, it eventually falls to the forest floor and rots, converting itself to CO2.

slickwillie2001 on August 14, 2011 at 12:58 PM

The communists that went over to the environmental cause have been quite successful at duping the hippies & tree huggers.
They are pawns in a sick game for control.

Badger40 on August 14, 2011 at 12:05 PM

The communists were the ones behind the environmental movement. They were looking for a means to corral the youth of the 60′s and 70′s.

darwin-t on August 14, 2011 at 12:16 PM

Excellent points.

Blue Collar Todd on August 14, 2011 at 1:14 PM

I am impressed that it is Washington Post. I am more impressed that it is the editors.

burt on August 14, 2011 at 1:28 PM

The current occupant of the White House is doing everything he can to starve this nation of energy production.

GarandFan on August 14, 2011 at 1:38 PM

…a new pipeline that would transport dirty tar sands crude…

Hey, some good news, though. I know it’s going to sound like one of those urban legends… like the one about the guy who could “run a gas engine on a cup of water” and all.
But this sounded completely legit.
They discovered a completely natural substance, I forget what they called it. It was the color bright blue like the sky, made from all natural ingredients and as earth friendly as a peach. They tested it on internal combustion engines and ran them all flawlessly! They can even use it for all kinds of other miracle life saving products!
I wish I could remember more of the details, but I remember it was all totally earth friendly! All natural! Nobody could possibly find any fault with it and it would change the world… meet the energy needs of the entire world and raise everyone’s standard of living all while being at the same time a natural substance produced entirely by the earth itself!

They said they discovered it just sitting there on the ground.. just like fruit from a tree…. oh wait,… now I remember.. it was oil. Oh that’s right. And it wasn’t blue like the sky, it was black like good fertile soil!

People need to change the way they freaking think and some of us need to stop being lead around by the rings in our noses by a bunch of morons!
Stop freaking apologizing for oil! It is one of the greatest gifts God and mother earth could’ve given us!

JellyToast on August 14, 2011 at 1:58 PM

The communists were the ones behind the environmental movement. They were looking for a means to corral the youth of the 60′s and 70′s.

darwin-t

Never forget – Earth Day falls on Lenin’s birthday. That is not a coincidence!

honsy on August 14, 2011 at 2:05 PM

The WaPo comment is worth noting, but I am skeptical of any concession of fact by the MSM when the cost of the concession is low.

With Obama in the White House, there is little downside in agreeing with reality. Obama’s not going to act on that agreement. It’s when a Republican is in office — one who might do something horrible like drill in ANWR — that it’s so important to keep up the anti-reality talking points.

J.E. Dyer on August 14, 2011 at 2:23 PM

You can bet the Obama administration will do its damndest to stymie buying and shipping oil from Canada. Not enough Muslims and dictators up there.

RebeccaH on August 14, 2011 at 2:29 PM

The best thing about a pipeline is that if there’s a leak, you turn off the flow of oil, unlike, say, the Exxon Valdiz.

Johnny 100 Pesos on August 14, 2011 at 2:31 PM

Reread my comments. I was waging war against the stigma being placed on the use of fresh water in general.

I also stated, “Water is a precious commodity in certain areas, but fresh water is an abundant, renewable resource in many areas of the world such as northern Alberta.”

blink on August 14, 2011 at 1:26 PM

Yes, good points. I’m anti-ethanol, but water use is also often quoted as one strike against ethanol production. Ethanol is generally made though in the Midwest where water is not in short supply, and in fact floods regularly.

Until they start making ethanol in Nevada, it’s also a poor reason to attack ethanol.

Ditto the PETA’s types attacks on beef and other meat production.

slickwillie2001 on August 14, 2011 at 2:34 PM

A little apologetic reality just snook in the backdoor of this article while the Government Media still parrots the “DIRTY” accusation against hydrocarbons which are the only real source of energy apart from Hydo-electric and nuclear, both of which have already been stopped dead by the Federal Government.

The EPA agency is being used as a cover to attack and destroy the USA by the Fifth Columnists in the Soros/Obama Gang.

jimw on August 14, 2011 at 3:46 PM

I think Dear Leader will:

1. Wait until there’s a huge outcry in favor of it.

2. Reluctantly, but very publicly agree to approve it.

3. Then sit on it after letting the ‘watermelons’ in on the ploy.

Knott Buyinit on August 14, 2011 at 3:58 PM

The Democrats only care about the poor and the middle class when they are scheming new was to create dependence, not jobs.

http://www.bluecollarphilosophy.com/2011/07/obamas-push-for-higher-cafe-standards-hurts-the-middle-class.html

Their environmental policy and legislation via regulation ala the EPA is a prime example of this.

Blue Collar Todd on August 14, 2011 at 5:23 PM

The Washington Post editorial page is actually center-left and usually pretty fair. The rest of the paper, however, is far-left, unfair and unrelentingly partisan. I fear the former will change before the latter does.

BuzzCrutcher on August 14, 2011 at 11:49 AM

This is true, but it’s also sadly true that the average WaPo reader commenting on their editorial page content are as nutty as they ever have been.

Del Dolemonte on August 14, 2011 at 6:09 PM

Their environmental policy and legislation via regulation ala the EPA is a prime example of this.

Blue Collar Todd on August 14, 2011 at 5:23 PM

Currently one can go to Europe and buy 11 different cars, each of which get between 65 and 88 MPG.

But here in O’bama and the Democrats’ “America”, they don’t want their Workers in cars. So we’re not allowed to have those energy efficient vehicles.

“All Aboard!”.

Del Dolemonte on August 14, 2011 at 6:13 PM

And during construction of this pipeline, enviro-wacko Leftists will be out in force protesting and their lawyers will be making a federal case out of how every damn snail, slug, salamander, earthworm, and every tick, mosquito, and flea larvae from Billings to Brownsville is being negatively impacted.

Mahdi on August 14, 2011 at 8:34 PM

Oil; dirty petroleum oil saved the whales.

Slowburn on August 14, 2011 at 9:37 PM

Why build a pipeline to the Gulf when there’s already a refinery in Billings, MT? There’s definitely a lot of wide open space to add to the refining capacity. By the time the Canucks get the sands producing, the refinery size could be doubled.

Kissmygrits on August 14, 2011 at 10:06 PM

Now, if we could just start capturing Oil Sand and Shale deposits right here in the U.S.. Between the Bakken fields in the Dakotas and deposits in Texas, there is as much to be tapped right here at home as there is in Canada.

Solly on August 14, 2011 at 11:32 PM

Now, if we could just start capturing Oil Sand and Shale deposits right here in the U.S.. Between the Bakken fields in the Dakotas and deposits in Texas, there is as much to be tapped right here at home as there is in Canada.

Solly on August 14, 2011 at 11:32 PM

“Could be” and “will be” are worlds apart and will only meet in a conservative administration.

SKYFOX on August 15, 2011 at 8:05 AM

If a certain lunk headed president, would put aside his hatred for all things to the right of him, and listened to a certain person who was a Governor who signed one of the largest oil deals with Canada and has extensive energy knowledge, we could have a natural gas line, an oil line, and relieve much of our dependencies on foreign oil.
But he won’t…

right2bright on August 15, 2011 at 8:53 AM

The best thing about a pipeline is that if there’s a leak, you turn off the flow of oil, unlike, say, the Exxon Valdiz.

Johnny 100 Pesos on August 14, 2011 at 2:31 PM

Everyday, in the middle east a “Valdiz” happens…it really wasn’t, in the total earth scheme of things, that big of deal.
When I was a kid growing up in Huntington Beach, I used to walk the beach and see birds covered with oil, the bottom of my feet were stained with tar that was naturally seeping up from the ground.
There were pools of oil…ever hear of the LaBrea tar pits? See a photo of a pelican all oiled up…now imagine a dinosaur…

right2bright on August 15, 2011 at 8:59 AM

The best thing about a pipeline is that if there’s a leak, you turn off the flow of oil, unlike, say, the Exxon Valdiz.

Johnny 100 Pesos on August 14, 2011 at 2:31 PM

WTF is a Valdiz? How old are you? Are you talking about VALDEZ?

And FYI, you can have a “Exxon Valdez” happen with a pipeline (such as the TransAlaska Pipeline in the pictures for this thread) when someone takes a gun and blows a hole in it. It has happened…. but it wasn’t important enough for you to know about …nor is it easy for someone to say Metltaska. Good Lord, research.

upinak on August 15, 2011 at 11:00 AM