Pittsburgh or Paris (buy, price, assess)

[erieguy]

Originally Posted by szug-bot

this from Kerry:

"Not when almost 90 percent of all of the planet’s global emissions come from outside of US borders"

that is the single problem i had with the Paris agreement, or other global initiatives - the idea that it was always the American-caused problem. biggest polluter, maybe, but also an incredible machine that in large part keeps the world economy humming along, which down the line provides for all those government social services some nations gloat about.

Paris Agreement is a joke. The money saved can be better spent elsewhere...but Executive order Joe has no regards for $$$. He’s going to keep printing it till it’s value takes a big hit.

[erieguy]

Originally Posted by szug-bot

this from Kerry:

"Not when almost 90 percent of all of the planet’s global emissions come from outside of US borders"

that is the single problem i had with the Paris agreement, or other global initiatives - the idea that it was always the American-caused problem. biggest polluter, maybe, but also an incredible machine that in large part keeps the world economy humming along, which down the line provides for all those government social services some nations gloat about.

And this is how Kerry travels.
John Kerry took private jet to Iceland for environmental award, called it 'only choice for somebody like me'

Throw away all of the money they want at it and they’ll still never stop climate change.

[OyCrumbler]

Originally Posted by erieguy

When was the last time a pipeline leaked?

The only thing canceling the pipeline has done is cost people jobs, will cost double to carry by rail, line Wareen Buffets pockets even more, and raise gas prices.

Overall, emissions are a non factor, it just means the cost of gas will go up, as I previously predicted.

https://nypost.com/2021/01/27/kerry-...limate-change/

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/dem...tent=algorithm

Eh, how recent or major of a leak do you want? There was a pretty large leak in the Keystone Pipeline in 2019, but there have been other smaller leaks. https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/...inally-thought


This was also a modern pipeline that only came into place in 2011 and was supposed to not do this though this is its second major leak (in 2017 and about the same magnitude of spill after an investigation revealed that the pipeline operator initially under reported the extent of the spill by about half) while there were other smaller leaks.

[erieguy]

Originally Posted by OyCrumbler

Eh, how recent or major of a leak do you want? There was a pretty large leak in the Keystone Pipeline in 2019, but there have been other smaller leaks of more recent vintage. https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/...inally-thought


This was also a modern pipeline that only came into place in 2011 and was supposed to not do this.

And it was cleaned up and didn’t affect drinking water.

[OyCrumbler]

Originally Posted by erieguy

And it was cleaned up and didn’t affect drinking water.

Well, cleanup isn't quite finished I think.

Regardless, it was a very rural area and wasn't near any major rivers or aquifers. The potential issue for the Keystone XL pipeline was that it crossed through one of the largest aquifers and a primary water source for several states as well as some notable rivers. I think if the projections made by TC Energy were accurate and oil prices remained high enough to make the Alberta Tar Sands profitable (these are very energy-intensive to extract compared to a lot of other sources so require very high prices per barrel to be economically productive), then this would be a pretty good, solid project.

The problems then are 1) TC Energy's projections for spills seem to be wrong in even recent history as these spills are supposed to be pretty improbable and yet have happened at a frequency that would make one wonder at just how incredibly unlucky they must be, the spills that have happened were usually assessed at much lower volumes initially than what they turned out to be in both the 2017 and 2019 larger spills, and third-party looks at their modeling for spills seems to show that there was a bit of fudging around of the risk factors in their studies that just so happened to greatly bring down projected spills in their models in terms of both frequency and magnitude of the spills and 2) oil prices are way down and had been even pre-pandemic as OPEC had before the pandemic signaled and acted upon their will to up production and slash prices to bury the productivity of marginal sources such as the Alberta Tar Sands so the economic boon from this was cut off at the knees before the pandemic and before this pipeline even started.

It's then pretty reasonably argued that the Keystone XL project is realistically not a fantastic proposition, but given its weight in political football, it just doesn't seem like a realistic assessment is going to matter much for a good chunk of people. Anyhow, it's mostly a moot point for now since it's not going through at least for the time being.

[erieguy]

Originally Posted by OyCrumbler

Well, cleanup isn't quite finished I think.

Regardless, it was a very rural area and wasn't near any major rivers or aquifers. The potential issue for the Keystone XL pipeline was that it crossed through one of the largest aquifers and a primary water source for several states as well as some notable rivers. I think if the projections made by TC Energy were accurate and oil prices remained high enough to make the Alberta Tar Sands profitable (these are very energy-intensive to extract compared to a lot of other sources so require very high prices per barrel to be economically productive), then this would be a pretty good, solid project.

The problems then are that 1) TC Energy's projections for spills seem to be wrong in even recent history as these spills are supposed to be pretty improbable and yet have happened at a frequency that would make one wonder at just how incredibly unlucky they must be, the spills that have happened were usually assessed at much lower volumes initially than what they turned out to be in both occasions, and third-party looks at their modeling for spills seems to show that there was a bit of fudging around of the risk factors in their studies that just so happened to bring down projected spills in their models in terms of both frequency and magnitude of the spills and 2) oil prices are way down and had been even pre-pandemic as OPEC had before the pandemic signaled and acted upon their will to up production and slash prices to bury the productivity of marginal sources of Alberta Tar Sands so the economic boon from this was cut off at the knees before the pandemic and before this pipeline even started.

It's then pretty reasonably argued that the Keystone XL project is realistically not a fantastic proposition, but given its weight in political football, it just doesn't seem like a realistic assessment is going to matter much for a good chunk of people. Anyhow, it's mostly a moot point for now since it's not going through at least for the time being.

Again, how often do the spills happen?

It caused many to lose their jobs and with what Biden wants to do, it will affect many more people, and especially when gas prices go up to Obama levels...all the while trying to eliminate gasoline and fossil fuels won’t make a bit of difference. https://nypost.com/2021/01/27/kerry-...limate-change/

[OyCrumbler]

Originally Posted by erieguy

Again, how often do the spills happen?

It caused many to lose their jobs and with what Biden wants to do, it will affect many more people, and especially when gas prices go up to Obama levels, all the while trying to eliminate gasoline and fossil fuels won’t make a bit of difference.

Two large ones, one in 2017 and one in 2019? That's more often than TC Energy projected. Here's a known spill history: http://boldnebraska.org/keystone-pip...spill-history/


The 2017 spill by itself and the minor spills sort of tip into the possibly bad end but still roughly in bounds, but on the more bad luck-ish end of TC Energy's risk probability that they stated for a 10 year period, nevermind the 50 year period. However, that second spill in 2019 of also similar magnitude of the 2017 spill then makes it look like either their luck is just crazy bad or their projection models are wrong.

[erieguy]

Originally Posted by OyCrumbler

Two large ones, one in 2017 and one in 2019? That's more often than TC Energy projected. Here's a known spill history: Keystone Pipeline Spill History | Bold Nebraska

In how many years?

[OyCrumbler]

Originally Posted by erieguy

In how many years?

Eh? It's in the link you're quoting-21 leaks (2 large ones) in a ten year period for a smaller pipeline that doesn't go over one of the largest freshwater aquifers in the world. It's only been ten years for that pipeline--that link is the listed known spills within the US (the pipeline is transnational and there were leaks in Canada as well), but not even factoring those leaks in Canada puts the leaks pretty decently far from their own projected 10 year leaks.

[erieguy]

Originally Posted by OyCrumbler

Eh? It's in the link you're quoting-21 in a ten year period for a smaller pipeline that doesn't go over one of the largest freshwater aquifers in the world. It's only been ten years for that pipeline--that link is the listed known spills within the US (the pipeline is transnational and there were leaks in Canada as well), but not even factoring those leaks in Canada puts the leaks pretty decently far from their own projected 10 year leaks.

I see small/smaller leaks and only 2 large ones in 10 years.