By Dennis Lund
“The public has been bombarded with misinformation about the oil that will go through Keystone XL.” — Vern Meier, vice president of pipeline safety and compliance at TransCanada
DURING RECENT TRAVELS, a few stories in local papers caught my attention, the first being:
The transportation of tar sands oil was examined in a recent study released by an arm of the National Academy of Sciences, an organization which is strongly associated with the struggle against “man-caused global warming.” The study focused on safety issues associated with the transportation of tar sands crude through pipelines.
Those opposed to fossil fuels are always looking to frame their positions in the scariest of terms to capitalize on the lack of objective information disseminated to the general public. For example, it is said that pipelines used for diluted bitumen are more susceptible to leaks because of higher pressure or increased corrosive factors, among other factors. But the NAS study found that diluted bitumen “is moved through pipelines in a manner similar to other crude oils with respect to the flow rate, pressure and operating temperature.”
The study also found that diluted bitumen did not pose additional risks through the increased presence of corrosives or sediments. And Meir added: “Oil is oil, and the pipelines we build will safely move different blends — as the industry has been doing for decades.”
The study warrants closer scrutiny.
Sending ‘coal to Newcastle’
Well, not Newcastle actually, but China. U.S. coal is to be exported from proposed shipping terminals in the state of Washington, necessarily increasing train traffic in several area communities — where many residents are up in arms, for both valid and predictable reasons.
Under the classification of valid, as reported by the Seattle Times: “A new coal export terminal proposed for Cherry Point north of Bellingham … could increase the railroad traffic from its current level of up to 18 trains each day to more than 30.
“‘This would really lock our city down,’ said Jon Nehring, the mayor of Marysville.”
A second valid reason for opposition: the required upgrades to infrastructure to avoid the expected congestion. Costs for rail line maintenance and expansion, estimated at $100 million a year, would be borne by Burlington Northern (BNSF), while taxpayers would pay for the decongestion projects for public roads.
Again, from the Times: “State Transportation Department officials have identified 29 crossing and highway intersections … But that money often is tough to come by from cash-strapped governments.”
Predictably, those who believe in man-caused global warming are opposed: “In the Pacific Northwest, opposition to the export terminals has become a rallying cry for environmentalists who cite coal’s contributions to global climate change.”
As the old expression goes: Follow the money. In this case it leads directly to Warren Buffett.
BNSF, owned by Buffett, would gain financially from the increased rail traffic. Buffett, of courses is the multi-billionaire who aided the Obama campaign in the last election by coming out in support of increased taxation on capital gains.
BNSF has also gained financially with Obama’s blockage of Keystone XL, which resulted in increased rail usage for Balkan crude.
Coal can also be shipped via pipeline in an economically viable fashion, as was done for about thirty years with the Black Mesa Pipeline (273 miles from the Navajo Nation in Arizona to Bullhead City, Ariz.) or as was proposed for the ETSI Pipeline (1,800 miles from Wyoming to Texas). But such a pipeline project, which would alleviate congestion, has not been proposed.
Such uses of advanced technology, such as cost-effective high-pressure slurry pumps as made by GEHO of the Netherlands or Wirth of Germany, deserve consideration as we seek to balance existing needs versus legitimate community concerns.
Shifting gears to voter ID laws
The White House has surprised many by coming out in favor of helping to assure the integrity of national elections by providing financial support for those who cannot afford photo IDs, which in some states may be required to cast a vote.
Paraphrasing from the White House website: Elections provide citizens with the opportunity to build strong, peaceful democratic systems and give citizens a stake in the future. The U.S. supports efforts across the continent to promote credible, transparent and effective democratic processes …
As well as:
The $53 million program empowers nearly one million youth to use their voices for advocacy in national and local policy-making, while also creating economic opportunities. In advance of general elections, the campaign can help 500,000 youth obtain national ID cards, a prerequisite to voter registration …
Previously, in reference to Texas voter ID laws, White House spokesman Jay Carney stated:
“I can tell you that, as you know, this administration believes it should be easier for eligible citizens to vote — to register and vote. We should not be imposing unnecessary obstacles … to voter participation.”
Is there a conflict between the two positions? Well, the statements taken from the White House were in fact posted during the president’s recent $100 million African tour — and are applicable to elections in Kenya, not the United States.
So it seems election integrity in Africa is more important to the president than assuring integrity in the U.S.
People will predictably argue that the need for voter IDs is a legitimate concern in countries like Kenya, while such concerns are not in play here in the States. That point could be argued, as integrity may be an issue in certain areas, while not in others.
But one point that cannot be refuted: In regards to increasing election integrity, those who benefit the most will be the ones who object the most.
Dennis Lund is a mechanical engineer who lived in Benicia from 1992 to 2013.
Sharing is caring!
As usual, you did a thorough and accurate job. We’ll see if any of the usual suspects care!
Thanks Bruce, always appreciate your comments!
You are correct. Excellent job. Just follow the comments as they appear. Very interesting and in all cases very anti the writer and also off topic.
Dennis did they use slurry pumps to move the coal for the Black Mesa Pipeline ?
The pumps used at Black Mesa were built by Wilson-Snyder, which is now part of National-Oilwell. They are a positive displacement Piston pump which have a high cost of operation due to abrasive wear. New pump designs are far more cost effective, but at the price of a higher purchase price.
Election integrity in Africa can hardly be compared to the bogus issue of election “fraud” in the US, which has been found to be practically non-existent in the states which have tracked it. The states who, within 48 hours of the gutting of the Voting Rights Act, put forth restrictive id laws and clumsily redistricted voting maps are egregious. It is interesting that they are all states with conservative legislatures, so the implication might just be that the ONLY way they can win future elections is to prevent anyone who does not vote their way from voting. As someone who grew up in the south, I can see the writing on the wall, but I don’t think it will be as easy for neo-Jim Crow laws to be as effective as they once were. I would think that the administration’s program to insure valid elections in new democracies should be celebrated by TRUE patriots, rather than being used to try and justify taking votes away from our OWN citizens, but, alas, nothing this president does will ever be acceptable.
taking votes away from our OWN citizens,
How do we know they are citizens if they are not required to offer an ID?
The fact is, voter fraud is about as common as lightning strikes hitting people, it never affects election results because it is miniscule and everyone knows it. One HONEST Republican legislator even admitted that the PA law would allow Romney to be elected in 2011. “Perhaps the most obvious case of the discriminatory purpose of voter I.D. laws is the Tennessee voter I.D. legislation, which permits expired out-of-state hunter’s licenses to serve as acceptable identification, but prohibits current in-state city-issued photo identification from being used for voting. The almost comically obvious purpose of this legislation is to make it difficult for Democrat leaning voters (people more likely to have city issued photo I.D.s such as library cards) to participate in our democracy, while encouraging former out-of-state hunters (which party are they likely to vote for?) to participate in the election.” – See more at: http://cornellsun.com/node/52132#sthash.nNb9mtX1.dpuf
And again, Obama’s comments were pertaining to helping to insure that the elections in NEW DEMOCRACIES, which most of our flag-waving patriots love to tout (unless, of course those democracies elect someone we don’t like, such as in Egypt), so why wouldn’t said flag-wavers be all over the idea of supporting them? Oh, wait, it’s because some columnist could spin it, using great imagination, to imply that this administration supports egregious ID laws, which it clearly doesn’t.
Do a search on: “How Democrats Steal Elections.”
The article is from 2000, when Democrats were very busy trying to steal the election in Florida, and is written by a former Democrat operative who participated in such devious methods, one duplicated in Florida.
Stop reading your DNC talking points and open up your eyes.
BTW, about 24,000 people die per year from lightning strikes, about 75 per year in the USA. Just because something is rare does not mean it does not impact some people.
Here is how rare it is:
Rotten ACORN
And that is just the proverbial tip.
Bunk, and you’re “smart enough to know it.” I think. Open your eyes. Stop ingesting disproven rightwing talking points — and worse, expectorating them around the web.
http://www.brennancenter.org/analysis/truth-about-fraud
I down loaded that and read it about two years ago I think. Old news.
I did like the part though where they do admit that Vote fraud does occur. They just do not know how often.
I know that both sides are guilty of trying to skew election results – both sides – BUT I am talking about RECENT trends, which are overwhlemingly Republican and downright dangerous to our democracy. Pre-2000 events are important historical points, it is true, but the fact is that the past 6 years have shown that, while other parties have tried this, to a small degree in the past, it is an epidemic among Republican-led legislatures. And 24,000 people, if they were all in the same place and voting at exactly the same time, might be important to an election but, other than the mysterious “hanging chads” problem, don’t know of any time when anywhere near 24,000 fraudulant votes were counted in the same ballot box, so that comparison, while visually interesting (imagine 24,000 folks being hit by the same bolt!) it’s bogus in this discussion.
Now for the other side of the story, about tar sands oil pipelines for the community to consider…
A key excerpt:
“Current pipeline regulations were issued long before tar sands oil production ramped up and do not cover the unique aspects of tar sands. Tar sands oil poses more acute risks than conventional fuels shipped through pipelines because the oil is a volatile mix of raw bitumen–an asphalt- like substance–diluted with gas condensates. Diluted bitumen is a toxic, viscous, corrosive substance with the consistency of gritty peanut butter that must be moved at much higher pressures and temperatures than conventional oil Strong evidence indicates tar sands oil threatens pipeline integrity.”
“…Between 2007 and 2010, pipelines in North Dakota, Minnesota, Wisconsin and Michigan–the main states with a history of tar sands oil pipelines–spilled almost three times more crude oil per mile of pipeline when compared to the national average. In a scathing report on the Kalamazoo River spill near Marshall, MI, the National Transportation Safety Board pointed blame at current regulations, calling them ‘weak’ and ‘inadequate’.”
http://grangehallpress.com/Enbridgeblog/2013/03/28/petition-for-pipeline-regulations/
Will,
My piece opened with the following Quote:
The public has been bombarded with misinformation about the oil that will go through Keystone XL.
I would encourage you to read the report from the environmentally friendly NAS, instead of the biased bloggers to which you refer.
As the person responsible for the blog cited above, I hope you aren’t calling me “biased.” For one thing, I’m pretty sure you haven’t bothered to go to the blog and read a single word of it. Nor, I imagine, do you have even the slightest idea of what’s there. And that’s rich since in a reply below you urge “people [to] actually take the time to read the piece they are commenting on.”
The sub title of the blog is “concerned land owners affected by Enbridge”.
That pretty much sounds like a bias to me on the part of….. Maybe… Concerned land owners affected by Enbridge?
And I did look at your blog, even reading some of it. I usually do not read Will’s stuff because he has a habit of inundating this website with tons of material, which is generally very biased in support of his POV.
On the other hand, I referenced a study by an environmentally favorable government entity that pretty much destroys much of the false information that is out there
Oh, I see. To you having a point of view drawn from direct experience means “bias.” (And do you really think your in a position to say anything at all about “landowners affected by Enbridge”?) Of course, I’m sure you see yourself as completely unbiased. But if you really want to have a discussion of the NAS study (that is, if you’re not too biased to take seriously the idea that it has some limitations), you might want to consider what the Pipeline Safety Trust (a far more unbiased organization than, say, TransCanada) has to say about it: “We were disappointed at the limited scope of the study PHMSA assigned to the NAS. . . The report issued today only tells of the probability of a failure of a pipeline carrying dilbit is no different than the probability of the failure of an oil pipeline carrying other types of heavy oils. PHMSA has so far failed to analyze whether the consequences of dilbit pipeline failures are greater than those of conventional oil spills.” http://pstrust.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/Dilbit-study-press-release.pdf
Mr. Jeff Inkso,
Thank you for responding to this thread.
Also for informing me and the community about the Pipeline Safety Trust: Credible. Independent. In The Public Trust.
A key excerpt from your post above, for the community to consider:
Unfortunately, the literature review performed by the NAS (National Academy of Sciences) fails to fulfill PHMSA’s (Pipeline Hazardous Materials Safety Administration) statutory obligation: As the Trust made clear to PHMSA before the NAS study was undertaken, analysis of any risk should include an analysis not only of the probabilities of an occurrence, but also its potential consequences.The NAS reiterated this in the report released today.
PHMSA chose to narrowly constrain the NAS review to look only at the issue of increased probability of a release, without looking at whether the consequences of any release of dilbit are greater than for other hazardous liquids.
The Trust hopes the remainder of PHMSA’s review remedies this since PHMSA clearly has responsibility under 49 CFR 194 to ensure that companies have adequate spill response plans, resources, and spill detection and mitigation measures.
Curious, the author of this piece accuses me of inundating this website with “tons of material.” In this particular blog-post the writer has posted “19” different times, nearly half the posts on this site?
Apples and oranges, Will. You appear on threads on all topics, usually by saying: “more for the community to consider” (or similar wording). You rarely voice an opinion. On the other hand I am responding to people who have posted to my column.
I made no accusation, I stated an accurate observation.
Lund’s previous post told us how the recent IRS kerfuffle was a bigger scandal than Abu Gharib. Laughable on its face, the IRS thing has proven to be a complete non-scandal…with even GOP congresspeople admitting as much. Funny, I don’t see a recanting on Lund’s original absurd claim. Nope, right back on the horse with more drivel, opening with a quote from a rep of the company that stands to profit most from Keystone in support of the most dangerous of crude. Shocking.
Benician stated:Lund’s previous post told us how the recent IRS kerfuffle was a bigger scandal than Abu Gharib
Benician, I always appreciate feedback on my pieces, as such feedback can be helpful, more so though when the people actually take the time to read the piece they are commenting on. I do hope you will do so in the future.
You are referring to my piece: The telling of two tales: Benghazi versus Abu Ghraib
In which I am not comparing one scandal to another, but rather the hypocrisy of those who over reacted to Abu Ghraib (no Americans were killed) and then under reacted to Ben Ghazi (four dead Americans, 16 wounded, at least three line officers removed from command).
As to the IRS, had you read the piece, you would have seen only this mention of the IRS:
Meanwhile, amid the incompetence, any attempt to investigate the recent trilogy of scandals — including the unfolding IRS debacle and the spying on members of the press — has met with expected resistance.
Two comments on the IRS:
1) Watergate occurred in June of 1972, Nixon resigned in August of 1974, over two years later. Time marches slowly in Washington and the IRS scandal is not done:
2) IRS’s Lerner will testify if granted immunity
Comparisons to Watergate are uneducated hogwash. They suggest an irredeemable unfamiliarity with history.
Many Republicans Now Admit That Alleged IRS ‘Scandal’ Has No Legs – Americans Against the Tea Party
http://aattp.org/many-republicans-now-admit-that-alleged-irs-scandal-has-no-legs/
Real-Jill, The “comparison” to Watergate was one of time frame only, as I stated.
Switching subjects just a tad: What is your take on Lerner demanding immunity from prosecution if she in fact did no wrong?
Just a timeline. Right. Of course even that is pure fantasy.
As for Lerner, given the propensity of congressional Republicans to go witch hunting and gin up charges on the merest pretense (see Issa, Darrell), I don’t begrudge her taking any and all measures to protect herself. Especially after the GOP threatened to (unconstitutionally) strip her of her 5th amendment rights.
Actually, I am in favor of granting her immunity, but they need to know in advance if she is protecting herself, or others.
As to the 5th Amendment, the first time we discussed this you demonstrated your lack of understanding on the purpose of the 5th and you are doing so again, with the above statement.
Are Republicans not trying to strip Lois
Lerner of her 5th amendment protections? Please don’t lecture me, Mr. Scandal-monger. You have yet to demonstrate any deep understanding of the world or how it works outside the very narrow field of mechanical engineering.
Switching subjects just a tad, how much do you think it’s costing taxpayers to provide security for Laura Bush’s Africa vacation? It’s an outrage!
Real American, I am in too good of a mood to deal with you and your lack of understanding of the Constitution or your attempts to change subjects.
My name is Jill. Jill. Jill. Jill. Have I penetrated the fog yet? Jill. Jill. Jill. Jill.
And in future please don’t project your poor understanding of the Constitution onto others. Now good night.
Jill.Jill.Jill.Jill Stated:please don’t project your poor understanding of the Constitution onto others.
You are the one that termed the right to remain silent as being the right to “protect the innocent” thus demonstrating a lack of understanding of the phrase:
“nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself,”
Like I said, you’re projecting. I didn’t say anything about the right to remain silent — that’s Miranda. For the life of me I can’t figure out what you’re talking about.
Well, Benghazi is another non-scandal, no matter how much you hope and pray it is. Just like Darrell Issa, you consistently try to make something of nothing. But, that’s all you have…nothing. Just like you’re party…the anti-woman, anti-worker, anti-people of color, anti-lgbt, anti-everything party, which has been conclusively documented as being in favor of the nation suffering for political gain (thanks, Mitch McConnell for verifying this). What is it, exactly, that you and your party are actually for? Besides, of course, the oil companies, the insurance companies, the defense industry, the NRA, racists and the banksters.
And, now you’re now attempting to win elections by suppressing the vote (gee, it sure didn’t take long after the most activist SC in history struck down a key provision in the VRA for the most racist states to enact laws previously struck down as too racist, did it?). What is it about democracy you and your party hate so much? These new voter id laws are nothing but an attempt to provide a cure for a disease that doesn’t exist.
Benician: which has been conclusively documented as being in favor of the nation suffering for political gain
Do you have a link for the ‘conclusive documentation?
Besides the quote from McConnell? Just google ‘republicans meet on inauguration day’ and you’ll have more than you need. Of course, we both know you’re already aware of this, but your consistent ignorance of convenience prevents you from admitting as much.
The overused, beat to death, dragged through the democrat sewers McConnell quote?
The one where he said he hopes 0bama fails (he is right on that one BTW, 0bama has failed) and he hopes he is a one-term President?
I would love to hear of the time when a Democrat stated he wants to see a Republican have two successful terms.
McConnell’s mistake was being candid, as he said exactly what every Democrat snake has believed.
McConnell’s #1 LEGISLATIVE priority was for Obama to be a one-term president. Not jobs, not keeping people in their homes, not reversing the near-depression, not peace, not a reduction in income inequality…you know…the things that were the priorities for AMERICANS, and his own constituents…the people that voted him into office to represent them. Instead, he was willing to vote against things he previously SUPPORTED if it would weaken Obama as president…whether it hurt the country or not…a position you, apparently, endorse.
You also willfully ignored the inauguration night meeting of top rethugs confirming the same strategy. Shocking.
In other words, you do not have a link. Thank you.
I am a Conservative and I love America. Now get back on topic.
Dennis doesn’t ‘write an article’…he publishes GOP propaganda talking points which distort the truth. In re the GOP platform, at a time when income inequality is at an all-time high, and is the major cause of the weakness of the economy, the GOP solution is to make the rich richer and the poor poorer. If you support this philosophy, you hate America. If you want to ignore climate change, you hate America. If you want to eliminate the safety net for the poorest of Americans, you hate America. If you want to allow the nation’s infrastructure to crumble, you hate America. If you want to ship jobs overseas, you hate America. If you want the bible to dictate policy, you hate America. If you consider corporations ‘people’, you hate America. Shall I go on?
When i read your comments I now know why I love America.
Show me a few quotes of mine to support your position.
Jillsj said: I didn’t say anything about the right to remain silent — that’s Miranda
I am going behave myself by refraining from hitting that softball comment out of the park.
Jill, there is no such thing as “Miranda Rights” in the constitution. The term stems from a case (Miranda vs. Arizona, as I recall) in which the notification of a person’s Fifth Amendment right against “self incrimination” must be given to a suspect prior to questioning. This is now more commonly referred to as the “right to remain silent”.
In reality the Fifth Amendment is neither a right to “protect the innocent” (as you previously stated), nor is it a “right to remain silent” (the term commonly used), it is a right to not be compelled to give testimony which may be used against you (self incrimination).
Thus when Lerner read a statement of innocence, she abrogated her “right to remain silent” because she was not being silent, she was in fact giving testimony. Legally speaking if a person ones to exercise their Fifth Amendment Rights, they are obligated to refrain from speaking (regarding the case) unless directed to do so by their attorney.
Correction (in last paragraph) should read:
Legally speaking if one wants to exercise their Fifth Amendment Rights…
I never said Miranda was in the Constitution. I understand the 5th amendment perfectly well and did not say or imply what you are suggesting.
Most importantly, why would making a statement of any kind then mean 5th amendment protections couldn’t be subsequently invoked? That lawyer’s argument carries no water.
Let’s keep on target with no name calling. Back on track I do believe the writers article hit on many good points. Voter ID etc. I just happen to agree with the writer and do not have any fear of saying so.