Can we talk about Oil?

Necronic

Staff member
Also, guys, what you are describing is a Zaibatsu. I don't think it's so much a matter of smart business sense and diversification, but more about how the Japanese (and other nearby cultures) manage companies. Tons of companies like this, and they've been around for a LONG time. Mitsubishi, Mitsui, Suimitomo, Daewoo, etc. Its not a particularly new thing. Mitsubishi made fighter planes and escalators. Also cars. Daewoo made microwaves. Also cars.
 

Necronic

Staff member
Whelp, the layoffs have started. Between Schlumberger, Baker-Hughes, Halliburton, and now BP, I think we're looking at 20k+ jobs iirc.
 
Whelp, the layoffs have started. Between Schlumberger, Baker-Hughes, Halliburton
You've just described the only major industries (besides Devon/Apache) in Oklahoma, especially western Oklahoma. Nearly all the guys in my graduating class work for one of those or sub-contractors of them.
 
Williston ND will be in rough shape if there's too many layoffs. The place is already full of crime and people living in their cars due to insane housing prices.
 
And here we go. TransCanada is filing eminent domain against 90 Nebraska families who do not want a pipeline going through their land.

http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-keystone-land-2015-0120-story.html

Selling our citizens and their belongings to the highest bidders.
This isn't even the biggest obstacle... the pipeline is going to be going near/across several key water sources for Indian reservations and they've made it clear they'll fight it till they die. They simply aren't willing to have what little land of theirs that remains face any kind of environmental disaster and they have the money and legal experience to make an oil company breakdown and cry.
 
I hate eminent domain abuse. If they can't find a path through willing sellers, then that should be that, IMO.
When the lawmakers answer to the Bob Murrays and Don Blankenships of the world, it's a surprise that they don't take by lethal force as the first option.

(but at least Blankenship is under indictment for the Upper Big Branch disaster. And the judge is not in the mood for any of his defense team's bullshit)
 
And here we go. TransCanada is filing eminent domain against 90 Nebraska families who do not want a pipeline going through their land.

http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-keystone-land-2015-0120-story.html

Selling our citizens and their belongings to the highest bidders.
I suppose you could argue that an oil pipeline is not important enough to warrant the use of eminent domain, but in that case it would seem to me that few pipelines would ever get built. A pipeline of any substantial length can easily pass through the lands of hundreds of owners, and if all it takes is a few ones who are unwilling to sell or make some such arrangements for the passage, then practical routes might be extraordinarily difficult to come by.

In this case, isn't TransCanada filing for eminent domain for right-of-way rather than complete taking over of the land in question, though? If so, then it would seem to me that the inconveniences suffered by the landowners are not really all that excessive. I think the pipeline would be constructed underground, leaving the land above still fit for most use. The only real inconveniences would happen during the construction phase, and allowing access for maintenance. I'm not sure I see exactly what is all that bad with a right-of-use arrangement, though with the numbers of individual landowners concerned I can of course see some die-hards resisting it on grounds of principle.
 

Dave

Staff member
I suppose you could argue that an oil pipeline is not important enough to warrant the use of eminent domain, but in that case it would seem to me that few pipelines would ever get built. A pipeline of any substantial length can easily pass through the lands of hundreds of owners, and if all it takes is a few ones who are unwilling to sell or make some such arrangements for the passage, then practical routes might be extraordinarily difficult to come by.

In this case, isn't TransCanada filing for eminent domain for right-of-way rather than complete taking over of the land in question, though? If so, then it would seem to me that the inconveniences suffered by the landowners are not really all that excessive. I think the pipeline would be constructed underground, leaving the land above still fit for most use. The only real inconveniences would happen during the construction phase, and allowing access for maintenance. I'm not sure I see exactly what is all that bad with a right-of-use arrangement, though with the numbers of individual landowners concerned I can of course see some die-hards resisting it on grounds of principle.
First, it is for right of way, but some of these pipes are slated to bisect land which would make a lot of it unable to be worked, so in essence taking away a good chunk of their livelihood. I have heard in on instance that it would require a house being demolished, but I don't know the specifics of that and it could be hearsay. Talking away half my yard is an inconvenience. Taking away half of a farmer's land and it's quite a bit more than that. And the land above would not be able to be used for farming, so even underground you have issues.

Pipelines leak. Frequently. And even if they are caught relatively quickly, damage to the environment can be severe. Like aquifers or farmland. This pipeline is not good for the US. It's not good for the farmers. Who is it good for? The Koch brothers. Which is why so many politicians are suddenly all for it. Donation$.
 
Pipelines leak. Frequently. And even if they are caught relatively quickly, damage to the environment can be severe. Like aquifers or farmland.
Do you remember the near-daily reports of problems with the Alaska Pipeline project on the news when we were kids?
 
First, it is for right of way, but some of these pipes are slated to bisect land which would make a lot of it unable to be worked, so in essence taking away a good chunk of their livelihood. I have heard in on instance that it would require a house being demolished, but I don't know the specifics of that and it could be hearsay. Talking away half my yard is an inconvenience. Taking away half of a farmer's land and it's quite a bit more than that. And the land above would not be able to be used for farming, so even underground you have issues.

Pipelines leak. Frequently. And even if they are caught relatively quickly, damage to the environment can be severe. Like aquifers or farmland. This pipeline is not good for the US. It's not good for the farmers. Who is it good for? The Koch brothers. Which is why so many politicians are suddenly all for it. Donation$.
First, I think I might disagree with you on the land usage issue. Most US states have laws requiring pipelines to be built underground sufficiently below plowing depth to make the land usable for farming, and I would imagine this is also true in this case. As I understand, the Keystone pipeline would be built some 4 feet underground, which seems to be sufficient clearance to permit farming. Buildings are why I said the land would be available for "most use", though, as foundations can often go deeper than that.

Second, I'm not sure spillage is quite as big of a problem in this case as one might think. The number of spills has decreased by some 500% over the past 30 years, and the amounts spilled are dominated by a few large events. Structural failure is the most common cause of spills with 75% being attributed to corrosion, which is obviously more of an issue with older pipelines. And the US oil pipeline infrastructure is old, with 46% of it being 30 years old or older. A recently constructed pipeline would be less susceptible to such accidents. (http://www.environmental-research.com/publications/pdf/spill_costs/paper4.pdf)

Third, I'm not sure I agree with you regarding the economic effects of the pipeline. While the jobs it produces are nice of course, the most attractive issue for the US economy might come from piping cheap Albertan crude to US refineries, and for the Canadian economy, incresed capacity to push oil that is currently bottlenecked in Canada to US markets. (http://www.wsj.com/articles/keyston...s-economic-sense-oil-industry-says-1420848058)
 

GasBandit

Staff member
So Keystone got the veto. Now it's possible that it'll come up again after the next election, but if Hillary wins, this is effectively dead for the next decade, especially post 2018 when it's likely the Democrats will retake Congress.
I doubt both those things will happen together. If a Democrat wins in 2016, it's more likely that the Republicans will continue to pick up seats in the House and Senate.
 
I doubt both those things will happen together. If a Democrat wins in 2016, it's more likely that the Republicans will continue to pick up seats in the House and Senate.
Perhaps, but it's also traditional for the majority party to lose seats each election, as voters are far more capricious when it comes to Senate and Congress seats than with Presidents. It could go ether way but I'm betting the public has had enough with obstructionist government.
 

GasBandit

Staff member
Perhaps, but it's also traditional for the majority party to lose seats each election, as voters are far more capricious when it comes to Senate and Congress seats than with Presidents. It could go ether way but I'm betting the public has had enough with obstructionist government.
I don't have the information at my fingertips, but I'm pretty certain the pattern is that the midterms go against whoever holds executive power.
 
I don't have the information at my fingertips, but I'm pretty certain the pattern is that the midterms go against whoever holds executive power.
I don't even know if it's "People" so much as it is the opposition party being more motivated to go to the midterm polls because their candidate didn't get the big chair.

--Patrick
 
And it would probably be the same under President Rodham.
She won the state in the 2008 primaries.

Most of the ugliness of the midterms was thanks to the DINOs having no message or platform beyond sucking up to Big Coal. So you wound up with folks like me disgusted by the whole thing either staying home or writing in someone else in protest.
 
I actually think Hillary is pretty slick, politically. Obama's biggest failure as a president has been allowing his opponents to dictate the public's perception of him... but the Republicans have tried and failed to do the same with Hillary. She's connected enough that nothing gets traction, which is why she polls well with the public. None of her opponents come close to this level of political savvy.
 

Necronic

Staff member
With oil prices so low I know there is a lot less of a push for the pipeline stuff, but man, that accident in WV should be a wakeup call for people. That train dumped 3 million gallons of crude into a river. Which then most of it burned off, which is going to seriously mess with some peoples' lungs/health. I mean, ok, it's WV, so no biggie, but still. I wish I could remember the numbers for pipelines leaks, but I could swear it was orders of magnitude less than this. Like in the 30-50kgal range, which is about one tanker.
 
Top