×
INTELLIGENT WORK FORUMS
FOR ENGINEERING PROFESSIONALS

Log In

Come Join Us!

Are you an
Engineering professional?
Join Eng-Tips Forums!
  • Talk With Other Members
  • Be Notified Of Responses
    To Your Posts
  • Keyword Search
  • One-Click Access To Your
    Favorite Forums
  • Automated Signatures
    On Your Posts
  • Best Of All, It's Free!
  • Students Click Here

*Eng-Tips's functionality depends on members receiving e-mail. By joining you are opting in to receive e-mail.

Posting Guidelines

Promoting, selling, recruiting, coursework and thesis posting is forbidden.

Students Click Here

Pipeline Problem down South
8

Pipeline Problem down South

RE: Pipeline Problem down South

There are already lines at gas stations here. Ugh.

Please remember: we're not all guys!

RE: Pipeline Problem down South

Ugh...

Living in Canada, there are huge debates about oil pipelines for getting Alberta tar sands bitumen to the coast and the potential for damage to the environment.

The pipeline companies all say that they will follow best practices, but then there is this one line that has now had 2 problems in the last few months. The environmentalists are going to have a field-day.

RE: Pipeline Problem down South

Which is why the Keystone XL pipeline has been such a political 'hot-potato' here in the U.S. And even if the oil would have eventually made it into the gas tanks of American cars/trucks, which there was little actual evidence of that ever taking place, it was still seen as too big a risk by most people considering where the pipeline was going to routed.

John R. Baker, P.E. (ret)
EX-Product 'Evangelist'
Irvine, CA
Siemens PLM:
UG/NX Museum:

The secret of life is not finding someone to live with
It's finding someone you can't live without

RE: Pipeline Problem down South

At the risk of their children and grandchildren having clean drinking water...

And to your point that people "along the way" would make money, I assume you're referring to the people who would be hired to help build the pipeline, correct? Exactly how long do you think that any one person would be employed during the construction activity in their immediate area? In fact, I suspect that very few people from "along the way" would actually be hired, at least not for any well paying jobs. I would bet dollars-to-donuts that if the pipeline were ever built, that the vast majority of the people working on it would be members of a permanent crew that moved with the progression of the construction, as it would be impractical to try and train unskilled workers hired from the local area just to let them go when they moved further down the road only to have to hire and train another work crew from the next town's pool of unemployed workers. And once it's built, there will be virtually no permanent jobs created as a result, at least not "along the way".

John R. Baker, P.E. (ret)
EX-Product 'Evangelist'
Irvine, CA
Siemens PLM:
UG/NX Museum:

The secret of life is not finding someone to live with
It's finding someone you can't live without

RE: Pipeline Problem down South

2
Pipelines can have some advantages. They generate temporary employment for steel makers and welders, wood choppers, excavators, a few engineers .. for a year or two. Some property tax revenue. And they can remove (up to 10s of) thousands of oil tankers from the highways and put thousands of truck drivers out of work. Then 100 or less guys can run it, including the lawyers and the CEO. That's an advantage, right???

RE: Pipeline Problem down South

Taking the trucks off the roads is definitely an advantage.

RE: Pipeline Problem down South

The railroad can also take trucks off the road, but that's not an issue because there seems to be a shortage of truck drivers, and roads for them to drive on.

Pipelines (like power lines) can be a good thing, if the value of the land is low, something like much of the farm land. But if purchasing new right of way (or reworking old right of ways) the pricing model does not fit for some landowners (or renters). I recall several such things in the past. Like farming hills to allow pivot irrigation systems cross above pump jacks, or moving a power line because the farmer was willing to pay us to do so.

Then there is the unreasonable people who just don't like any intrusion on there land (even if the right of way was there before they purchased the land).

It sounds like a pain to fix, and it will take some time to fix.

RE: Pipeline Problem down South

Railroads cost more than pipelines to ship petroleum products, but they are cheaper than highway trucking. Both, statistically speaking, are more dangerous than pipeline transport and have higher emmissions as well. In fact the only real "relative" disadvantage is that they don't employ a lot of people. If the truth be known, even permanent environmental damage, provided they don't leak, is far less for a pipeline than either building a highway, or a railroad. Where these Canadian pipelines get into trouble is there is no to little advantage to allow them to cross the USA. Basically it's introducing unwanted competition for a reward of very slight tax revenue, with no real gainfull, long term employment benefits. It only adds a disproportional amount of risk of environmental damage, which many people don't think is worth giving them the permit. The Gateway Pipeline and Transmountain Pipeline projects in Canada ran into the same problem within Canada itself between two adjacent provinces when Alberta tar sand oil was proposed to cross British Colombia and be exported at Kitimat and Vancouver, then on to Japan and China. BC did not think it was worth the risk of having all that Alberta oil floating around in the straits. The US is simply voicing the same concerns as BC.

RE: Pipeline Problem down South

From what I've read, railroads are already basically full of traffic. In many areas, passenger train trips are inconvenient and time consuming beyond reasonable expectations because they have to always yield right of way to coal and oil/gas transportation, which leaves them sometimes sitting for an hour at a time, waiting for the other to pass, before continuing. It was relatively frequent on some trips I've been on. I've read many articles before, stating that the rail system just can't handle the volume, so it's either going on roads or going in pipes.

RE: Pipeline Problem down South

Well railroading is 7-10x pipeline cost.
Trucks are around 15-20x.
Only ocean tanker shipping is cheaper than pipelining.

Back to this happening. It appears to be a construction accident. They damaged the line that they were working on. Pretty much takes it out of being a pipeline design or operation problem.

RE: Pipeline Problem down South

Rail companies are not allowed to disadvantage passenger traffic over that of other rail traffic. But they also are not required to give passenger traffic preference. Passenger rail is faster where the rail is owned by the company providing the service. And the reason most rail companies exited passenger service is in was not cost effective.

If risk is the only reason to not build a pipeline, or rail the oil, or even truck it, then the conclusion is simple. We do without the oil, and tell the production company to get out of the business.
The fact is if we all felt that way, then going to work is too much of a risk.

RE: Pipeline Problem down South

JB,

I was thinking mostly the lease agreements, if any, and the operator itself, which, after the sunk costs, only has maintenance and the product traffic control. Given such a high disparity in cost, pipeline operators have lots of headroom for profit with only a small risk of encouraging other transport mechanisms.

TTFN (ta ta for now)
I can do absolutely anything. I'm an expert! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKorP55Aqvg
FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies forum1529: Translation Assistance for Engineers

RE: Pipeline Problem down South

2
Railroads were first, pipeline's second. If railroads were cheaper, pipelines would never have come into existance, as transport of unperishable comodities doesn't generate prime revenue. Passenger service did generate good rail revenue, before airlines. Rail is not at all competitive with pipeline transport. Now passenger rail is only competitive where rail can offer, and there is a high demand for, fast service with travel times less than or equal to the sum of flying time, security check, and taxi ride and cost to city center. I personally willingly pay more for rapid rail service simply because of the convenience of city center to city center movement of the rails and the herding stress of airport security routines. More personal space for legs and laptop makes it even better. And don't forget that railroads cost 5-10 times as much to build and are immensely more complicated to operate anyway. Generally rail is only affordable for petroleum transport when there is existing rail service nearby and a pipeline is not available. Rail transport of petroleum is therefore generally only a temporary solution, that can be highly useful, but only until a pipeline can be built.

RE: Pipeline Problem down South

I don't have a lick of data to prove it, but my gut feeling is that if you compare the environmental impact of pipeline transport vs. rail, including rail spills/waste/process overhead and all that, a well operated pipeline is going to come out way, way ahead on the environmental side.

RE: Pipeline Problem down South

jgKRI, IMO and that of many others, you are absolutely correct. Pipelines, as eco-unfriendly as many think they may be, actually are the best way to move petroleum products, presuming that, once built their environmental impact is relatively finished. Ocean tankering, although the cheapest, doesn't work well for mid-continent transport and it may have the highest risk of massive environmental damage in the shortest amount of time, as one can easily lose 1-2MM BBLS in the space of a few hours or less. Rail and trucking are simply too costly, relatively high risk and too dirty to be an effective long term solution.

What most people find objectionable about the Dakota Access Pipeline is that it will be hauling heavy tar sand oil.

RE: Pipeline Problem down South

2

Quote (BigInch)

What most people find objectionable about the Dakota Access Pipeline is that it will be hauling heavy tar sand oil.
Exactly.

Of all the evils of oil, transport is the least of them. That pipeline is a just a facilitator. It's like the heroin/cocaine mule hauling the drug through the airport. No harm, no foul, no problem. Right?

All of this is driven by cheaper is better; and that consuming as much as possible is good. Negative externalities be damned.

RE: Pipeline Problem down South

Let the chips fall where they may . . . There are groups of people who are perpetually offended, angry, resentful, disgruntled, disenfranchised, indignant, and otherwise in a generally miserable state of emotion. If they had enough good sense to cover the head of a pin, they would fully realize that a pipeline, as others have mentioned, will present the least risk and least negative impact of any method of transport. If they had the previously mentioned sense, they would be negotiating with the company to be involved in the oversight and monitoring of the future maintenance and inspection, and maybe encourage some of their children to enter technical fields that would promote such involvement, instead of proudly standing on the ancient pedestal of ignorance and loudly proclaiming "nope - nope - nope" while their young people self-medicate and repeat the vicious cycle of social ills and poverty. Progress happens, whether certain people groups like it or not. This is not pre-contact America, and it never will be again. You have to play with the hand that life deals you, you may as well learn the game and try to benefit from it rather than clinging to obsolete ideology and being relegated to the sidelines.

Rant over.

It is better to have enough ideas for some of them to be wrong, than to be always right by having no ideas at all.

RE: Pipeline Problem down South

For some people, the question isn't whether we should use pipelines or trucks.

For some, it's whether or not we should continue investing in petroleum at all.

For others, it's simply /where/ the pipeline goes.

So far, this conversation has been mostly whether or not a pipeline is better when compared to trains, planesships, and automobiles. When talking about the DAP, it's a different question.

RE: Pipeline Problem down South

In general I agree, but I heard something of secraid ground, which if true maybe part of a god thing. So it maybe worthwhile to just move the pipeline route.

After all we don't hear much about demolishing churches for pipelines.

But I also haven't been keeping up with all the facts.

In the case of a pipeline with no backup, would it not be prudent to keep rail, or truck loading facilities as a second transportation method?

RE: Pipeline Problem down South

For people groups with no written history, "sacred ground" is largely fuzzy logic after about 3 generations, barring the discovery of artifacts. My ancestral Norse cohorts established encampments all over the north-eastern coast of north America and inland at Kensington MN and near Bigstone SD and possibly several other locations. Can I now lay claim to those areas? I agree in principal though, if remains and artifacts are found, we should not be desecrating those sites. However, with DNA technology available, I think efforts should be made to connect remains to currently living groups, both for the purpose of scientific discovery and to help settle disputes where ancient remains may very well have no relevancy whatever to the currently living. There is a case like this in the last few years, but the details escape me at the moment. Life is messy!

It is better to have enough ideas for some of them to be wrong, than to be always right by having no ideas at all.

RE: Pipeline Problem down South

I think you're being belligerently obtuse and insensitive to absolutely justifiable concerns by a people that deserve a little more respect than you're displaying.

RE: Pipeline Problem down South

Your opinion. Yes, I tend toward insensitivity, no apologies. Too much sensitivity would kill every project before it gets off the drawing board. You can't please everyone.

Bells are not easily un-rung. This is the way history played out. I display profound respect to those that work toward betterment of their lives in ways other than becoming giant thorns in the posterior of others.

In addition, I believe that when human remains are found in any construction dig, work stops so a proper investigation and disposition can be made. That much is already in place. Whether this is always followed is a function of company culture and whether the guy on the Cat is keeping a sharp eye or not.

It is better to have enough ideas for some of them to be wrong, than to be always right by having no ideas at all.

RE: Pipeline Problem down South

Yes, you could say that. Petroleum is the coak of the industrial age. Tar sand is the heroin. Pipelines, las mulas. Should the transporter be punished? I don't know. Certainly yes, if they do something wrong in the process, but if the pipeline stays togther in one piece and doesn't leak, you might be inclined to say, "No, not really". Same logic as the Colombians used at one time. "We are just supplying the demand. Get rid of the demand and you will have no problems from us, because we will be out of that business well before the demand dries up."

From what I understand of the motive, those protesting just just don't want the heroine, as it only increases the demand for petroleum in general, which makes it that much harder to get off of it later. Many think, rightly or wrongly, that tar sand has heavy metals that drop to and get embedded in the bottom mud, so that makes it that much worse. If society gets any more used to using any more than what is used now, then it will be simply that much harder to adapt when supply comes to the end and, in the meantime, there will be no further incentive to fund developent of alternatives. From what I gather the same logic, among other arguments, is used to resist fracking.

RE: Pipeline Problem down South

Quote (ornerynorsk)

This is the way history played out. I display profound respect to those that work toward betterment of their lives in ways other than becoming giant thorns in the posterior of others.
The way history played out was the attempted, systemic extermination of these peoples' ancestors; complete with lies, misdealings, and outright thievery by our government in the taking of their lands. It was the USA's Holocaust, if not worse. You can bet they have a thorn in their posterior that they'd like to place elsewhere, and this is all too familiar to them.

RE: Pipeline Problem down South

Thorns and sides are relative.

Those you perceive to be a thorn in someone's side has the opposite view. They are the side which suffers from the thorn.

Genocide and forced relocation is a helluva thorn.

Despite forced relocation, our country /has/ promised them, through treaty, that the lands they are protesting on, which the planned pipeline would traverse, are actually owed to the tribe because of the Fort Laramie Treaty which has been trampled on, since.

I expect that simple Eminent Domain desires can't take land granted to the Dakota/Lakota Nation through treaty.

RE: Pipeline Problem down South

Spartan5, et al. No, I don't think you can say it is worse than the holocaust. Not even close. So what is the remedy? I'm simply stating a fact - this is the way history played out. 130+ years and 4 or 5 generations after the fact, how does one get out of the rut of self-pity and self-destruction and move on with life so that there is meaning and purpose? There is no reset button to undo the horrible things that were done. This is not about a pipeline, the pipeline thing is just a passive-aggressive response. I don't have the answer and I bet not a lot of other people do, either.

It is better to have enough ideas for some of them to be wrong, than to be always right by having no ideas at all.

RE: Pipeline Problem down South

It is not the past. They are a different nation of people. That live. Today. Now. They only want promises and treaties honored. Such documents last longer than lives. I don't expect anyone believes that we should ignore our Constitution, Bill of Rights, or any other document important to our nation that was written over 250 years ago simply because we need to "move on" and not worry about what happened 4 or 5 generations ago.

RE: Pipeline Problem down South

OneryNorsk, You've pretty much still got hold of Greenland. Not sure how that happened myself.

"For people groups with no written history, "sacred ground" is largely fuzzy logic after about 3 generations, barring the discovery of artifacts."

What makes unwritten history any less valid than written history. I suppose that makes perfect logic, if your civilization can write. Passing culture down through unwritten means is arguably more meaningful and powerful than, for example, reading the Bible. I myself could far more easily believe what I heard with my own ears what my grandfather told me as opposed to what Luther or King James' scribes wrote in either version of their bibles, which I note don't agree and were made through translation and political negotiations several thousand years after those happenings.

Anyway, I think native North Americans are considerably different from most of us in their cultural beliefs concerning their environment, although I admit I have little understanding of what other native cultures may or may not believe in other parts of the world. Put in simple terms that I am capable of grasping, natives of North American tend to believe that the land owns them, rather than the reverse, which I believe is prevalent in European derived cultures. One North American tribal chief, after observing effects of gold mining, was known for his saying, "The white man is so greedy that he wraps his own snot up in a little cloth and puts it in his pocket." My personal belief is that one day, maybe sooner than we expect, all of us will find out that the Earth does indeed own us. In the meantime I believe that we should respect the ways of the historic land owners of the regions we are working around. They may just turn out to have the best idea in the long run. Just because they didn't write it down, doesn't make it any less valid.

RE: Pipeline Problem down South

That's all fine and dandy, but you know as well as I do, and as well as everyone else does, that there is no amicable closure to what you are suggesting. I'm no lawyer (see, I do have some endearing qualities after all!) but there are time constraints, whether written or not, associated with all legal treaties, agreements, contracts, etc. If a treaty, etc is not exercised, either by force or mutual agreement, at what point in time does it become null and void? The Constitution and Bill of Rights hold water because we exercise it, it is not just a dead piece of paper. I agree with you that the tribal nations got a very raw deal. The time to have done something about it is long past. Like a century ago. Do we create just as large an injustice by stripping ownership of all land and property and returning it to the "rightful" owners? That's a pretty neat formula for civil war. There is no good solution. There is no choice but to move on and make something of oneself with the hand that life has dealt. Quit living in the past. Learn from it, ensure it is not repeated, and move on.

It is better to have enough ideas for some of them to be wrong, than to be always right by having no ideas at all.

RE: Pipeline Problem down South

Ouch, Big Inch. Being confused with a Dane, now that's really low. (humor intended)

It is better to have enough ideas for some of them to be wrong, than to be always right by having no ideas at all.

RE: Pipeline Problem down South

Correct, I have no solution, just saying that respect for the land occupants are always a high priority in a successful pipeline company. Pipeline companies typically are only renters.

Good to see you have a funny bone. Not exactly intended as such, but I do know there exists a multitude of, shall we say, "differences", between the various Scandinavian nationalities, having worked for a Swedish company (not mobile phones) for 10 years. Happily, these days they are usually taken in good humor. smile smile smile

RE: Pipeline Problem down South

Pipeline failures and commercial airplane crashes are similar in that they both are low probability, high order of magnitude events. When either occurs it's big news. But many more people are killed by automobile crashes and the pollution caused by the consumers of petroleum products far exceeds the pollution of spills. Both of these are low magnitude events so they are tolerated more easily and less news worthy.

RE: Pipeline Problem down South

"pollution caused by the consumers of petroleum products far exceeds the pollution of spills"

Yes, exactly. I believe that the pollution by consumers aspect is the real objectionable part of the equation, except perhaps for the people that own land that will be affected. The pipelines are simply a convenient point for attack.

RE: Pipeline Problem down South

But, that's in the aggregate; we, as individuals,have been programmed to think that individuals do not have impact on smog, elections, etc. Pipelines are not aggregates, they are single, high-impact, things. Also, it's always easier to blame someone else than one's self. We blame drug cartels and various countries for importing drugs, but that demand comes from us. No demand, no drug cartels; they've have to go back to doing common extortion and crimes. Likewise, no demand for oil, no pipelines needed. Unfortunately, we've yet to find a substitute that even remotely comes close to the energy density and usability.

Pogo said it best, "We have met the enemy, and he is us."

TTFN (ta ta for now)
I can do absolutely anything. I'm an expert! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKorP55Aqvg
FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies forum1529: Translation Assistance for Engineers

RE: Pipeline Problem down South

Thanks for that link.

I notice there is another link on that page
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-canada-transport...
to an article about how BC hopes to prohibit ocean tankers from entering their coastal area now. This is the direct result of the court case stalling the Gateway Pipeline overland through BC having been recently overturned, so this will be an end-around attempt to keep that project stonewalled.

Red Flag This Post

Please let us know here why this post is inappropriate. Reasons such as off-topic, duplicates, flames, illegal, vulgar, or students posting their homework.

Red Flag Submitted

Thank you for helping keep Eng-Tips Forums free from inappropriate posts.
The Eng-Tips staff will check this out and take appropriate action.

Reply To This Thread

Posting in the Eng-Tips forums is a member-only feature.

Click Here to join Eng-Tips and talk with other members! Already a Member? Login


Resources

White Paper - Design for Additive Manufacturing
With a growing number of parts manufactured directly by additive manufacturing techniques, it is important to lay down design principles suitable for such manufacturing processes and to ensure parts are designed for additive manufacturing. There are several factors that are to be considered at the design stage. Few such design issues in additive manufacturing are discussed in this paper. Download Now

Close Box

Join Eng-Tips® Today!

Join your peers on the Internet's largest technical engineering professional community.
It's easy to join and it's free.

Here's Why Members Love Eng-Tips Forums:

Register now while it's still free!

Already a member? Close this window and log in.

Join Us             Close