Pittsburgh or Paris (buying, gated, safety)

[OyCrumbler]

Originally Posted by erieguy

I see many small leaks and only 2 large ones.

Right, I updated that. The two large ones weren't supposed to happen though with their risk projections. Both leaks were near the top end of the 1,000 to 10,000 barrels range in their projections which were supposed to happen once every 39 years. The two were just shy of the 10,000 barrel projection that's supposed to run a risk of once every 50 years. Unfortunately, in just a ten year period (well, ten year period of operation so far, but the leaks happened two years apart), these once in a 39 year, nearly once in 50 year leaks happened twice which is what makes TC Energy's projections somewhat suspect.

Of course, they could have just been very, very unlucky.

[erieguy]

Originally Posted by OyCrumbler

Right, I updated that. The two large ones weren't supposed to happen though with their risk projections. Both leaks were near the top end of the 1,000 to 10,000 barrels part which in their projections were supposed to happen once every 39 years. The two were just shy of the 10,000 barrel projection that's supposed to run a risk of once every 50 years. Unfortunately, in just a ten year period (well, ten year period of operation so far, but the leaks happened two years apart), these once in a 39 year, nearly once in 50 year leaks happened twice which is what makes TC Energy's projections somewhat suspect.


Of course, they could have just been very, very unlucky.

It’s still only 2 large leaks that are being/have been cleaned up.

Risk projections and predictions are often wrong. I’d wager the zero emission prediction by executive order Joe is wrong, and I’d wager Kerry’s statement is accurate.

[OyCrumbler]

Originally Posted by erieguy

It’s still only 2 large leaks that are being/have been cleaned up.

Risk projections and predictions are often wrong. I’d wager the zero emission prediction by executive order Joe is wrong, and I’d wager Kerry’s statement is accurate.

Right, risk projections and predictions can be wrong, and so the Keystone XL pipeline was put forth on the idea of the risk projections being a fairly good guideline and the pipeline would be a good idea as the risk wouldn't have been so bad. The approval of the pipeline is predicated on that risk assessment and weighed against the economic benefit. The problem is that their risk model for another recent pipeline using modern technology seems to point towards their risk projections being wrong and being wrong in a very negative way. It'd be fantastic if the projections for that pipeline were wrong in that their projections over the decade of operation dramatically overstated the risk, but it actually went in the opposite direction and the projection seems to have dramatically understated the risk. That's important because Keystone XL, the one that's cancelled now, was using similar risk models for spills, but the ramifications for that pipeline are larger because of it going over important rivers and aquifers.

This would be a much different conversation if the risk projections for their existing modern pipeline had at least met if not dramatically overstated risk, but that's unfortunately not what happened. So the risk then appears to be understated rather than overstated, and the economic boon it's supposed to generate also can't really work out without the high oil prices needed to make the Alberta tar sands economically productive and OPEC has definitely signaled their will and ability to crash prices to squeeze out more expensive producers. This is having the worst of both sides of the equation. Someone who looks at this and is still all in then isn't really all there or is the kind of person who recommends that you buy high and sell low in the market.

[szug-bot]

i dont want to see the pipeline because things point to a drastic reduction in gasoline usage in the coming decades. add to that the US is still the biggest oil producer in the world. the pipeline will neither harm nor help gas prices as much as geopolitics outside the continent, consumer trends, and innovation.

and, F canada.

[erieguy]

Originally Posted by OyCrumbler

Right, risk projections and predictions can be wrong, and so the Keystone XL pipeline was predicated on the idea of the risk projections being a fairly good guideline and thus the pipeline would have been a good idea as the risk wouldn't have been so bad. The approval of the pipeline is predicated on that risk assessment and weighed against the economic benefit. The problem is that their risk model for another recent pipeline using modern technology seems to point towards their risk projections being wrong and being wrong in a very negative way. It'd be fantastic if the projections for that pipeline were wrong in that their projections over the decade of operation dramatically overstated the risk, but it actually went in the opposite direction and the projection seems to have dramatically understated the risk. That's important because Keystone XL, the one that's cancelled now, was using similar risk models for spills, but the ramifications for that pipeline are larger because of it going over important rivers and aquifers.



This would be a much different conversation if the risk projections for their existing modern pipeline had at least met if not dramatically overstated risk, but that's unfortunately not what happened. So the risk then appears to be understated rather than overstated, and the economic boon it's supposed to generate also can't really work out without the high oil prices needed to make the Alberta tar sands economically productive. This is having the worst of both sides of the equation. Someone who looks at this and is still all in then isn't really all there or is the kind of person who recommends that you buy high and sell low in the market.

All said and done, it’s 2 large spills and some other smaller ones, and nothing more.

[erieguy]

Originally Posted by szug-bot

i dont want to see the pipeline because things point to a drastic reduction in gasoline usage in the coming decades. add to that the US is still the biggest oil producer in the world. the pipeline will neither harm nor help gas prices as much as geopolitics outside the continent, consumer trends, and innovation.

and, F canada.

What’s your problem with Canada?

[szug-bot]

Originally Posted by erieguy

What’s your problem with Canada?

you have a problem with my having a problem with canada?

[erieguy]

Originally Posted by szug-bot

you have a problem with my having a problem with canada?

Nope. Just asking why you have a problem with them?

I’m looking forward to seeing this drastic gasoline reduction. Better get some engineers that can get a lot of miles per charge, and a gigantic amount of charging stations that can recharge a vehicle very fast. I’m also interested in hearing about electric bills. Those that are touting all electric obviously have no idea the expense of electric heat/A/C, appliances, charging a vehicle, etc...

[OyCrumbler]

Originally Posted by erieguy

All said and done, it’s 2 large spills and some other smaller ones, and nothing more.

I guess so, but you would think that it makes sense to realistically weigh the risk and reward.


Like, what if you were offered a tasty Chipotle burrito for free. That's kind of nice. Now you need to commit to biting into it first sight unseen, but there's a one out of fifty change that burrito is packed with poop? Would you still take it? Now let's say you said yes, but then I switched it around and it's actually one out of five chance it's packed with poop? Well, hell, you still got a good chance of coming out with a delicious free burrito, so I guess you'd definitely say yes!

[erieguy]

Originally Posted by OyCrumbler

I guess so, but you would think that it makes sense to realistically weigh the risk and reward.


Like, what if you were offered a tasty Chipotle burrito for free. That's kind of nice. Now you need to commit to biting into it first sight unseen, but there's a one out of fifty change that burrito is packed with poop? Would you still take it? Now let's say you said yes, but then I switched it around and it's actually one out of five chance it's packed with poop? Well, hell, you still got a good chance of coming out with a delicious free burrito, so I guess you'd definitely say yes!

There’s no guessing about it. You posted the results and they’re plain as day.

That’s an extreme reach of a strawman argument, especially since you posted the actual results.