Questions a-begging, or hewers of wood, pipers of oiled_rexJune 10 2012, 00:51:50 UTC
Closer monitoring is a no-brainer, of course, but why are we shipping the raw material in the first place?
If we must have the oil, doesn't it make more environmental and (presumably) more economic sense to ship the end product without all the waste mateiral than to pump unrefined oil all the way to Texas for processing?
The capacity to refine our oil already exists under-utilized in Texas. It doesn't make environmental sense to rebuild that infrastructure north of 49 and then send highly volitile, highly flammable, explosive end product down the pipes.
Economically it doesn't make financial sense to build several pipelines in the same direction, each with different products derived from raw crude. One pipe for diesel, one with low grade gas, one with mid grade gas, one with propane, one with the junk they make plastic out of, etc, etc.
Yeah, nearly everything will eventually make it onto a truck/ship eventually to be sent off to the end user so it doesn't really matter if the refinery/processor is in Alberta or in Texas, so multiple pipelines isn't the answer either. But who's going to invest in the new refinery? Government? Private industry? Industry has already made it's decision.
Natural gas pipeline is not comparable. A natgas leak is highly volatile, yet leaves no lasting stain on the environment. A fire even an explosion is one thing, but an oil spill is completely different.
The only way for market forces to properly increase safety and integrity of pipelines, is for the operating entity to be 100% responsible for all cleanup, and all compensations to locals for reduced usability of their own land. If pipeline operators can be such good stewards, more power to them. If they cannot, then this is a back door subsidy of the oil industry. Such a situation of defacto subsidy of oil transport by public sector cleanup, and reduced usability of private sector third parties, would be 'unethical oil'.
Forcing third parties and governments to clean up ones messes, because cleaning them up ones self, or preventing them by superior infrastructure investment, would make the business less profitable, is unethical.
Ethical oil comes from free and democratic countries like Canada, Norway, etc. Unethical oil comes from the Middle East, Venezuela, etc I guess it's a term more popular here
I wasn't being so specific... I can imagine many ways oil production would be unethical, even when it comes from countries like Canada and Norway. Though dealing with such countries with legal system similar to our own would seem to make legal action to insure cleanup and good environmental stewardship somewhat more likely.
They could also take a cue from the shipping industry and double hull (or triple hull) these pipes along their proposed routes.
My only concern is that if this is empirically proven to prevent spills then it should be regulated. The company should be forced to do this if they want to make pipelines.
I agree. to build a pipeline X of thousands of km long costs lots. Double hulling the pipes ain't going to significantly change the cost. I mean Keystone is said to eventually cost $7billion, double hulling the line and having more monitoring will definetely increase that cost, but by how much? Another billion? Another 2billion? peanuts on that scale.
Comments 158
If we must have the oil, doesn't it make more environmental and (presumably) more economic sense to ship the end product without all the waste mateiral than to pump unrefined oil all the way to Texas for processing?
Reply
Economically it doesn't make financial sense to build several pipelines in the same direction, each with different products derived from raw crude. One pipe for diesel, one with low grade gas, one with mid grade gas, one with propane, one with the junk they make plastic out of, etc, etc.
Yeah, nearly everything will eventually make it onto a truck/ship eventually to be sent off to the end user so it doesn't really matter if the refinery/processor is in Alberta or in Texas, so multiple pipelines isn't the answer either. But who's going to invest in the new refinery? Government? Private industry? Industry has already made it's decision.
Reply
(The comment has been removed)
Reply
(The comment has been removed)
Here's a map of the oil pipelines in North America (Mexico excluded) http://www.capp.ca/getdoc.aspx?DocID=191097
Reply
(The comment has been removed)
Reply
(The comment has been removed)
Reply
Reply
Reply
I wasn't being so specific... I can imagine many ways oil production would be unethical, even when it comes from countries like Canada and Norway. Though dealing with such countries with legal system similar to our own would seem to make legal action to insure cleanup and good environmental stewardship somewhat more likely.
Reply
Reply
My only concern is that if this is empirically proven to prevent spills then it should be regulated. The company should be forced to do this if they want to make pipelines.
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment