The Keystone pipeline leaked and spilled about 210,000 gallons of crude in northeast South Dakota.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/ene ... 633eb67a43

After being told how safe it is to transport toxic sludge from Canada and being told this is great for the United State becoming energy independent.

Do you always refer to bitumen or petroleum as "toxic sludge"?

I'd bet that you come into very close proximity of such products daily without toxic consequences.

seb146 wrote:

The Keystone pipeline leaked and spilled about 210,000 gallons of crude in northeast South Dakota.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/ene ... 633eb67a43

After being told how safe it is to transport toxic sludge from Canada and being told this is great for the United State becoming energy independent.

It will never be 100% save to transport oil. Oil spills will continue with all the immediate consequences for nature. Not the first time it has happened and will not be the last.

Dutchy wrote:

seb146 wrote:

The Keystone pipeline leaked and spilled about 210,000 gallons of crude in northeast South Dakota.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/ene ... 633eb67a43

After being told how safe it is to transport toxic sludge from Canada and being told this is great for the United State becoming energy independent.

It will never be 100% save to transport oil. Oil spills will continue with all the immediate consequences for nature. Not the first time it has happened and will not be the last.

And that is what people said when Keystone wanted to build another pipeline across North Dakota. But, supporters of the pipeline tried to make it sound like leaks and spills were rare or would not happen. Not to mention the 10 jobs being created....

BobPatterson wrote:

Do you always refer to bitumen or petroleum as "toxic sludge"?

I'd bet that you come into very close proximity of such products daily without toxic consequences.

Tar sands and the chemicals needed to transport them by pipeline are pretty toxic. Worse than just your standard crude.

https://www.nrdc.org/experts/anthony-sw ... ands-crude

I can handle pretty toxic stuff with the right containers and equipment, doesn't make it any less toxic.

If oil leaks ended up in such containers that would be fine, but no, they end up in the environment.

If you have a major leak like this spill you have bad engineering, poor production (or inspection) or poor work done on site. With the high costs of a pipeline there is no reason for SNAFUs or FUBARs in day to day operation. Something is being done on the cheap and needs to be exposed.

I am sure it was Obama's fault, or it is fake news. I mean nobody but Trump the Rump can be blamed for this. Obama and the Democrats stopped it. Trump approved it. He proves himself a Moron more each and everyday. I hope the not so bright supporters of this pipeline are satisfied. We know the Billionaires sure are. The people not so much.

Now TransCanada is saying it is more like 600,000 gallons. 210,000 gallons, 600,000... who's counting? What's the difference?

https://news.vice.com/story/keystone-pi ... vicenewsfb

WarRI1 wrote:

I am sure it was Obama's fault, or it is fake news. I mean nobody but Trump the Rump can be blamed for this. Obama and the Democrats stopped it. Trump approved it. He proves himself a Moron more each and everyday. I hope the not so bright supporters of this pipeline are satisfied. We know the Billionaires sure are. The people not so much.

You are thinking about Keystone XL, the big brother in the system.

seb146 wrote:

Now TransCanada is saying it is more like 600,000 gallons. 210,000 gallons, 600,000... who's counting? What's the difference?

https://news.vice.com/story/keystone-pi ... vicenewsfb

No, TransCanada has not said that. An activist, Kent Moeckly, has suggested that: (from your cited article).

"Kent Moeckly, a nearby land owner and member of the Dakota Rural Action Group, told VICE News he’s concerned that the spill could be much larger though, in large part because the computers used to detect oil pressure drops don’t always detect small leaks. “Transcanada thought it was 200,000 gallons. What we found out working with Transcanada, it could very well be 600,000 gallons,” Moeckly said."

BobPatterson wrote:

seb146 wrote:

Now TransCanada is saying it is more like 600,000 gallons. 210,000 gallons, 600,000... who's counting? What's the difference?

https://news.vice.com/story/keystone-pi ... vicenewsfb

No, TransCanada has not said that. An activist, Kent Moeckly, has suggested that: (from your cited article).

"Kent Moeckly, a nearby land owner and member of the Dakota Rural Action Group, told VICE News he’s concerned that the spill could be much larger though, in large part because the computers used to detect oil pressure drops don’t always detect small leaks. “Transcanada thought it was 200,000 gallons. What we found out working with Transcanada, it could very well be 600,000 gallons,” Moeckly said."

You're arguing over the precise number of gallons leaked. Really?

A spill of ANY magnitude is unacceptable, whether it's 200k gallons or 600k gallons.

Good grief.

bgm wrote:

BobPatterson wrote:

seb146 wrote:

Now TransCanada is saying it is more like 600,000 gallons. 210,000 gallons, 600,000... who's counting? What's the difference?

https://news.vice.com/story/keystone-pi ... vicenewsfb

No, TransCanada has not said that. An activist, Kent Moeckly, has suggested that: (from your cited article).

"Kent Moeckly, a nearby land owner and member of the Dakota Rural Action Group, told VICE News he’s concerned that the spill could be much larger though, in large part because the computers used to detect oil pressure drops don’t always detect small leaks. “Transcanada thought it was 200,000 gallons. What we found out working with Transcanada, it could very well be 600,000 gallons,” Moeckly said."

You're arguing over the precise number of gallons leaked. Really?

A spill of ANY magnitude is unacceptable, whether it's 200k gallons or 600k gallons.

Good grief.

No, I am not arguing over the volume of the spill.

I am pointing out the lack a veracity by someone posting in this thread.

BobPatterson wrote:

I am pointing out the lack a veracity by someone posting in this thread.

Look Bob, time and time again you have been pointed out some errors in your reasoning, why would you be the person whom does point it out to others? And indeed does it matter in this case? 200k or 600k? Focus on the big stuff, not the little stuff, that is pointless and very irritating.

Dutchy wrote:

BobPatterson wrote:

I am pointing out the lack a veracity by someone posting in this thread.

Look Bob, time and time again you have been pointed out some errors in your reasoning, why would you be the person whom does point it out to others? And indeed does it matter in this case? 200k or 600k? Focus on the big stuff, not the little stuff, that is pointless and very irritating.

The lack of veracity had nothing to do with 200k or 600k.

It had to do with "Now TransCanada is saying......". TransCanada was not now saying......

This has nothing to do with reasoning. It has to do with being truthful and sticking to facts.

Your becoming irritated is no concern of mine. Only you can control that. Good luck.

Dutchy wrote:

WarRI1 wrote:

I am sure it was Obama's fault, or it is fake news. I mean nobody but Trump the Rump can be blamed for this. Obama and the Democrats stopped it. Trump approved it. He proves himself a Moron more each and everyday. I hope the not so bright supporters of this pipeline are satisfied. We know the Billionaires sure are. The people not so much.

You are thinking about Keystone XL, the big brother in the system.

My mistake for sure.

BobPatterson wrote:

seb146 wrote:

Now TransCanada is saying it is more like 600,000 gallons. 210,000 gallons, 600,000... who's counting? What's the difference?

https://news.vice.com/story/keystone-pi ... vicenewsfb

No, TransCanada has not said that. An activist, Kent Moeckly, has suggested that: (from your cited article).

"Kent Moeckly, a nearby land owner and member of the Dakota Rural Action Group, told VICE News he’s concerned that the spill could be much larger though, in large part because the computers used to detect oil pressure drops don’t always detect small leaks. “Transcanada thought it was 200,000 gallons. What we found out working with Transcanada, it could very well be 600,000 gallons,” Moeckly said."

So "...working with TransCanada..." (as you point out the article says) the spill could be well over 600,000 gallons. The company that owns the pipeline and said it was safe is saying that it could be as high as 600,000 gallons. But they don't know. They will just stick with 200,000 so it does not sound as bad as 600,000 and appease people like you.

seb146 wrote:

BobPatterson wrote:

seb146 wrote:

Now TransCanada is saying it is more like 600,000 gallons. 210,000 gallons, 600,000... who's counting? What's the difference?

https://news.vice.com/story/keystone-pi ... vicenewsfb

No, TransCanada has not said that. An activist, Kent Moeckly, has suggested that: (from your cited article).

"Kent Moeckly, a nearby land owner and member of the Dakota Rural Action Group, told VICE News he’s concerned that the spill could be much larger though, in large part because the computers used to detect oil pressure drops don’t always detect small leaks. “Transcanada thought it was 200,000 gallons. What we found out working with Transcanada, it could very well be 600,000 gallons,” Moeckly said."

So "...working with TransCanada..." (as you point out the article says) the spill could be well over 600,000 gallons. The company that owns the pipeline and said it was safe is saying that it could be as high as 600,000 gallons. But they don't know. They will just stick with 200,000 so it does not sound as bad as 600,000 and appease people like you.

You have absolutely no conception of what an honest attribution is. Moeckly claims that he or "we" found out. You have no information (based on that article) that TransCanada suggested that a higher figure is possible, much less probable.

And your suggestion that I will be appeased by any number is utter nonsense.

The spill is serious enough without distorting the truth.

BobPatterson wrote:

seb146 wrote:

BobPatterson wrote:

No, TransCanada has not said that. An activist, Kent Moeckly, has suggested that: (from your cited article).

"Kent Moeckly, a nearby land owner and member of the Dakota Rural Action Group, told VICE News he’s concerned that the spill could be much larger though, in large part because the computers used to detect oil pressure drops don’t always detect small leaks. “Transcanada thought it was 200,000 gallons. What we found out working with Transcanada, it could very well be 600,000 gallons,” Moeckly said."

So "...working with TransCanada..." (as you point out the article says) the spill could be well over 600,000 gallons. The company that owns the pipeline and said it was safe is saying that it could be as high as 600,000 gallons. But they don't know. They will just stick with 200,000 so it does not sound as bad as 600,000 and appease people like you.

You have absolutely no conception of what an honest attribution is. Moeckly claims that he or "we" found out. You have no information (based on that article) that TransCanada suggested that a higher figure is possible, much less probable.

And your suggestion that I will be appeased by any number is utter nonsense.

The spill is serious enough without distorting the truth.

Just pointing out that the spill is larger than TC says ACCORDING TO THE ARTICLE even though you say that never happened.

seb146 wrote:

Just pointing out that the spill is larger than TC says ACCORDING TO THE ARTICLE even though you say that never happened.

And I am just pointing out that what you are saying/claiming is not true, and that you are unable to discern fact from fancy.

The article reports an oil spill of about 5,000 barrels, and claims nothing else.

It does, however, mention/quote the concern and conjecture of an "activist" who suggests that the size of the spill might be larger.

At the time you posted you had no evidence, other than conjecture, that the spill was larger than what TransCanada reported.

There is a difference between fact and fiction.

Dutchy wrote:

seb146 wrote:

The Keystone pipeline leaked and spilled about 210,000 gallons of crude in northeast South Dakota.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/ene ... 633eb67a43

After being told how safe it is to transport toxic sludge from Canada and being told this is great for the United State becoming energy independent.

It will never be 100% save to transport oil. Oil spills will continue with all the immediate consequences for nature. Not the first time it has happened and will not be the last.

But the frequency at which it happens is bloody alarming.

List of pipeline leaks and spills in the USA just this year:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_p ... ntury#2017

Redd wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

seb146 wrote:

The Keystone pipeline leaked and spilled about 210,000 gallons of crude in northeast South Dakota.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/ene ... 633eb67a43

After being told how safe it is to transport toxic sludge from Canada and being told this is great for the United State becoming energy independent.

It will never be 100% save to transport oil. Oil spills will continue with all the immediate consequences for nature. Not the first time it has happened and will not be the last.

But the frequency at which it happens is bloody alarming.

List of pipeline leaks and spills in the USA just this year:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_p ... ntury#2017

Indeed, nevertheless, permission was granted today for building the Keystone XL variant. A bad idea on multiple levels, not the least of which is the economics, extracting oil from the Canadian tar sands is difficult thus expensive and certainly not in line with the Paris agreements.

Dutchy wrote:

Redd wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

It will never be 100% save to transport oil. Oil spills will continue with all the immediate consequences for nature. Not the first time it has happened and will not be the last.

But the frequency at which it happens is bloody alarming.

List of pipeline leaks and spills in the USA just this year:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_p ... ntury#2017

Indeed, nevertheless, permission was granted today for building the Keystone XL variant. A bad idea on multiple levels, not the least of which is the economics, extracting oil from the Canadian tar sands is difficult thus expensive and certainly not in line with the Paris agreements.

The completion and use of the pipeline is wholly dependent upon demand for product and economic viability.

The "Paris agreements" have little or nothing to say about the mix of strategies that may be employed by nations in meeting their voluntary goals for greenhouse gas reductions.

If I am wrong in these statement, please enlighten me.

BobPatterson wrote:

The completion and use of the pipeline is wholly dependent upon demand for product and economic viability.

The "Paris agreements" have little or nothing to say about the mix of strategies that may be employed by nations in meeting their voluntary goals for greenhouse gas reductions.

If I am wrong in these statement, please enlighten me.

Done with helping you for a while, no gratitude, no answers when cornered and lot's of ad hominems. You find out yourself.

Dutchy wrote:

BobPatterson wrote:

The completion and use of the pipeline is wholly dependent upon demand for product and economic viability.

The "Paris agreements" have little or nothing to say about the mix of strategies that may be employed by nations in meeting their voluntary goals for greenhouse gas reductions.

If I am wrong in these statement, please enlighten me.

Done with helping you for a while, no gratitude, no answers when cornered and lot's of ad hominems. You find out yourself.

My, oh my, what a bitter person you have turned out to be.

"Done helping you", indeed.

I suspect that, if you had found something wrong with those statements, you would have gleefully jumped all over them.

BobPatterson wrote:

seb146 wrote:

Just pointing out that the spill is larger than TC says ACCORDING TO THE ARTICLE even though you say that never happened.

And I am just pointing out that what you are saying/claiming is not true, and that you are unable to discern fact from fancy.

The article reports an oil spill of about 5,000 barrels, and claims nothing else.

It does, however, mention/quote the concern and conjecture of an "activist" who suggests that the size of the spill might be larger.

At the time you posted you had no evidence, other than conjecture, that the spill was larger than what TransCanada reported.

There is a difference between fact and fiction.

"...WORKING WITH TRANSCANADA..." says the article. Not "conjecture" on my part. It is what the article says. That this man was working with Transcanada. I hope you understand that. Not just some random guy behind a keyboard, but a man on the ground at the spill working with the pipeline owner. Go back and read the article. It says it in black and white.

seb146 wrote:

BobPatterson wrote:

And I am just pointing out that what you are saying/claiming is not true, and that you are unable to discern fact from fancy.

The article reports an oil spill of about 5,000 barrels, and claims nothing else.

It does, however, mention/quote the concern and conjecture of an "activist" who suggests that the size of the spill might be larger.

At the time you posted you had no evidence, other than conjecture, that the spill was larger than what TransCanada reported.

There is a difference between fact and fiction.

"...WORKING WITH TRANSCANADA..." says the article. Not "conjecture" on my part. It is what the article says. That this man was working with Transcanada. I hope you understand that. Not just some random guy behind a keyboard, but a man on the ground at the spill working with the pipeline owner. Go back and read the article. It says it in black and white.

You are making up the part about "a man on the ground at the spill working with the pipeline owner". You are reading into the article what you wish it to mean, not what it says. Let's look at what the actual words in the article say:

"Kent Moeckly, a nearby land owner and member of the Dakota Rural Action Group, told VICE News he’s concerned that the spill could be much larger though, in large part because the computers used to detect oil pressure drops don’t always detect small leaks. “TransCanada thought it was 200,000 gallons. What we found out working with TransCanada, it could very well be 600,000 gallons,” Moeckly said."

"His concerns aren’t unfounded. After the last major Keystone oil spill in South Dakota, in April 2016, TransCanada revised its initial estimate of the spill from 187 gallons to 16,800 gallons after the company started digging up the field where the spill occurred. .....".

Where Moeckly is quoted as saying "What we found out working with TransCanada..........." doesn't tell us where or when this "working with" took place. He might well have been speaking about the April, 2016 spill. It may well be (probably is in my opinion) that Moeclky is extending the findings of an earlier investigation to this one as a hypothetical.

If there was actual evidence that this spill far exceeded the 200,00-210,000 gallons being reported, you can be pretty sure that the author of the article would have presented that as fact and not merely as Moeckly's conjecture.

You have a very bad habit of making statements that are not supported by facts. You do it often, not just once in a while.

The fact of a 200,000 gallon spill is bad enough. Let's even call it awful, terrible. That would be honest.

Introducing fiction into the discussion is not.

I wonder how this can happen, does the USA not use pipe in pipe technology for their pipelines?

seahawk wrote:

I wonder how this can happen, does the USA not use pipe in pipe technology for their pipelines?

Something mechanical, so it can break. Lot's of pressure so if it breaks the spill is great.