Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
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.
Yea, and the actual results were pretty bad and substantially worse than projected. Cleanup isn't free, y'know? And this was for a scenario that has a lesser punishment as there's no major aquifer and rivers to muck unlike the Keystone XL. It's best broken down into risk, punishment, and reward. The risk is the chances of large spills, the punishment for the Keystone XL is contaminating an extremely important source of freshwater for millions in both people and in the worth of industries reliant on such. The reward is the economic benefit. The risk for these pipelines are using similar models and the model seems to be off so the risk is higher than expected. The punishment for the Keystone XL is much higher. The reward is much lower given the price of oil per barrel even pre-pandemic and doubtfully going to be fantastic for quite a while due to the pandemic.
So let's revisit the analogy:
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 chance that burrito is packed with really gnarly gristle? Would you still take it, it's not too bad, you can deal with it, right? 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? On top of that, the burrito now no longer comes with guac or meat. Well, hell, you still got a good chance of coming out with a delicious free burrito, so I guess you'd definitely say yes! Buy high, sell low, the erieguy motto!
Yea, and the actual results were pretty bad and substantially worse than projected. Cleanup isn't free, y'know? And this was for a scenario that has a lesser punishment as there's no major aquifer and rivers to muck unlike the Keystone XL. It's best broken down into risk, punishment, and reward. The risk is the chances of large spills, the punishment for the Keystone XL is contaminating an extremely important source of freshwater for millions in both people and in the worth of industries reliant on such. The reward is the economic benefit. The risk for these pipelines are using similar models and the model seems to be off so the risk is higher than expected. The punishment for the Keystone XL is much higher. The reward is much lower given the price of oil per barrel even pre-pandemic and doubtfully going to be fantastic for quite a while due to the pandemic.
So let's revisit the analogy:
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 chance that burrito is packed with really gnarly gristle? Would you still take it, it's not too bad, you can deal with it, right? 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? On top of that, the burrito now no longer comes with guac or meat. Well, hell, you still got a good chance of coming out with a delicious free burrito, so I guess you'd definitely say yes! Buy high, sell low, the erieguy motto!
The actual results were 2 large spills that have been/are being cleaned up.
That analogy is as ridiculous a strawman argument as I’ve ever seen and holds zero water in regards to 2 large spills in 10 years.
My motto is reality...and never buying high. It’s what made me enough $$$ to retire before 50. While I still dabble, I never have to work again because of it.
The actual results were 2 large spills that have been/are being cleaned up.
That analogy is as ridiculous a strawman argument as I’ve ever seen and holds zero water in regards to 2 large spills in 10 years.
My motto is reality...and never buying high. It’s what made me enough $$$ to retire before 50.
2 large oil spills in 10 years on a projection of 1 large oil spill every 50 years is pretty far off. Let me remind you that the oil spills weren't free of consequences--they're just not nearly as bad because that pipeline doesn't go through particularly sensitive areas. The problem is the Keystone XL does and to have that with what seems to be a far higher risk of spill than originally projected isn't nothing, and then to stack on top of that a lower reward due to low oil prices does not seem like a great idea. It does matter where the spill occurs, right? A fire in an abandoned hovel sitting out by itself is a fire, but isn't bad. A fire in a house you're living in on a block that people are living in is arguably worse. It does matter how economically beneficial it is, too, right?
2 large oil spills in 10 years on a projection of 1 large oil spill every 50 years is pretty far off. Let me remind you that the oil spills weren't free of consequences--they're just not nearly as bad because that pipeline doesn't go through particularly sensitive areas. The problem is the Keystone XL does and to have that with what seems to be a far higher risk of spill than originally projected isn't nothing. It does matter where the spill occurs, right? A fire in an abandoned hovel sitting out by itself is a fire, but isn't bad. A fire in a house you're living in on a block that people are living in is arguably worse.
You’re basing your narrative off of projections rather than what actually happened, confirmed by your own post.
Let me remind you that they likely planned it to be away from sensitive areas.
Again, strawman arguments that hold zero water in regards to the results, much like you assuming my motto would be buy high and sell low, lol.
You’re basing your narrative off of projections rather than what actually happened, confirmed by your own post.
Let me remind you that they likely planned it to be away from sensitive areas.
Again, strawman arguments that hold zero water in regards to the results.
What are you talking about? Those projections aren't mine--they are the projections from the company who built the pipeline. They're the ones with their projections wrong because what actually happened was well outside of their projections.
They didn't plan it away from sensitive areas--the point was to have a more direct route which did go through sensitive areas. Why did you think there was controversy around it in the first place? That pipeline, the one with two oil spills, was actually routed away from sensitive areas on purpose. Keystone XL was routed through sensitive areas on purpose in order to have a more direct line--that was one of its key selling points.
Yea, the results couldn't hold water just as they couldn't hold oil properly hence two large leaks in ten years instead of one in fifty years. I know that!
What are you talking about? Those projections aren't mine--they are the projections from the company who built the pipeline. They're the ones with their projections wrong because what actually happened was well outside of their projections.
They didn't plan it away from sensitive areas--the point was to have a more direct route which did go through sensitive areas. Why did you think there was controversy around it in the first place?
Yea, the results couldn't hold water just as they couldn't hold oil properly hence two large leaks in ten years instead of one in fifty years. I know that!
We already decided that projections are often wrong. You’re trying to use those projections to fit your narrative with woulda, coulda, shoulda, while posting the results of 2 large spills in 10 years.
Because “muh oil is bad”.
Except the results are the the results and you’re trying to embellish them.
We already decided that projections are often wrong. You’re trying to use those projections to fit your narrative with woulda, coulda, shoulda, while posting the results of 2 large spills in 10 years.
Because treehuggers insist “muh oil is bad”.
Except the results are the the results and you’re trying to embellish them.
We did, and so you see, the projections were wrong where the risk in reality seems to be much higher than the projections. When you agree to do something that has an understood level of risk, but then it turns out the risk is much higher, do you potentially look back at it and go, "well, maybe I should reconsider"? Yea, probably.
There are treehuggers out there, but that's not really me. I think the pipeline was fine if the risk projections were accurate. The problem is that the risk projections were not accurate--something we both agree can happen and seems to be true in this case. The problem is more that the aquifer is responsible for a massive amount of economic output as it's one of the primary pillars of America's bread basket with a lot of soy, corn, and wheat drawing from that water supply as well as for ranching where a huge amount of American beef for both domestic consumption and international export is created. About a quarter of our nation's irrigated land sits over the aquifer. Now do tree huggers love large scale farming? Probably not so much--hell, there aren't even all that many trees in the area, it's mostly been tilled! That site I posted listing the spills isn't a treehugger group--a massive part of that group's support base is farmers and ranchers.
It's increasingly clear that despite how vocal you are about the issue, you seem to have not actually looked into much of the details. It doesn't seem like you knew of the company's previous modern pipelines, the strangely inaccurate projections they've made for such and how they've not lived up to projections in reality, and the rationale for the routing of the proposed new pipeline and what industries are actually potentially affected. You seem to have concentrated your focus on treehuggers which may be a very important and large demographic in your view, but to me, I think the potential ill effects on a massive amount of agricultural productivity in this nation is realistically the more worrisome negative externality than hurting the feelings of some treehuggers. Why are farmers somehow given less consideration by you than treehuggers?
Last edited by OyCrumbler; 02-04-2021 at 03:13 PM..
We did, and so you see, the projections were wrong where the risk in reality seems to be much higher than the projections. When you agree to do something that has an understood level of risk, but then it turns out the risk is much higher, do you potentially look back at it and go, "well, maybe I should reconsider"? Yea, probably.
There are treehuggers out there, but that's not really me. I think the pipeline was fine if the risk projections were accurate. The problem is that the risk projections were not accurate--something we both agree can happen and seems to be true in this case. The problem is more that the aquifer is responsible for a massive amount of economic output as it's one of the primary pillars of America's bread basket with a lot of soy, corn, and wheat drawing from that water supply as well as for ranching where a huge amount of American beef for both domestic consumption and international export is created. About a quarter of our nation's irrigated land sits over the aquifer. Now do tree huggers love industrial farming? Probably not so much--hell, there aren't even all that many trees in the area, it's mostly been tilled!
It's increasingly clear that despite how vocal you are about the issue, you seem to have not actually looked into much of the details. It doesn't seem like you knew of the company's previous modern pipelines, the strangely inaccurate projections they've made for such and how they've not lived up to projections in reality, and the rationale for the routing of the proposed new pipeline and what industries are actually potentially affected. You seem to have concentrated your focus on treehuggers which may be a very important and large demographic in your view, but to me, I think the massive amount of agricultural productivity is probably the realistically larger negative externality than hurting the feelings of some treehuggers.
No, you solve the problem by making it safer and more efficient, rather than stopping the entire job.
It increasingly clear that you’re embellishing the situation rather than looking at the results and assuming it’s going to be a normal occurrence.
No, you solve the problem by making it safer and more efficient, rather than stopping the entire job.
It increasingly clear that you’re embellishing the situation rather than looking at the results and assuming it’s going to be a normal occurrence.
You absolutely have no idea what you're talking about, but I do agree making it safer and more efficient is really important and I think some entity with a proven track record of being able to do so may one day again propose this and actually get it through. The pipeline probably would've been fine if TC's existing modern pipeline hadn't fallen so short of the safety and efficiency projections they themselves made to get it permitted. That's part and parcel for why people who were originally ambivalent or mildly in favor of the pipeline ultimately turned against it like those pinko-commie travel-a-couple-hundred-miles-to-hug-a-tree Nebraskan farmers and ranchers .
You absolutely have no idea what you're talking about, but I do agree making it safer and more efficient is really important and I think some entity with a proven track record of being able to do so may one day again propose this and actually get it through. The pipeline probably would've been fine if TC's existing modern pipeline hadn't fallen so short of the safety and efficiency projections they themselves made to get it permitted. That's part and parcel for why people who were originally ambivalent or mildly in favor of the pipeline ultimately turned against it like those pinko-commie travel-a-couple-hundred-miles-to-hug-a-tree Nebraskan farmers and ranchers .
I know exactly what I’m talking about. Most any project has obstacles and projections don’t always come to fruition.
You’re so infatuated with the projections that you’re making assumptions that it’s going to be a regular occurrence rather than being realistic via results.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
.
