Building the Keystone XL should be required to have a Polymer Tungsten

[CK_John]

lining on the inside and exterior of the pipe.

Due to the sand still suspended in the oil to be sent to the Gulf area for refining this will be like a constant flow of sandpaper in the pipe.

Every bend is a possible rupture point due to erosion. This erosion will also generate very high temperatures to develop all along the pipeline, possibly starting fires and causing burn wounds to people and game.

If they build this we need to demand the high standards needed for this job. This needs to be a pipe within a pipe.

A double hull, like their tankers.

[GitRDun]

1. Better yet

Maybe we should forget about building it in the first place.

This constant struggle for profit without ever taking a step back and looking at the bigger picture is sheer lunacy!

The corrosive nature of the oil, combined with government's inability to ensure adequate construction / inspection tells me we are better off adding friggin' rail cars.

Just because big business wants it does not mean we necessarily have to support it.

[CK_John]

3. No nation or empire can exist without weapons. Weapons require a mining industry.

Ergo, mining is a silent partner of the state.

The pipeline will be built because it can carry at least 10,000 trains per hour to the Gulf. I would worry about the where sand goes from the refining process.

[GitRDun]

4. You are probably right

The pipeline will be built.

And we, collectively will have the results of that build on our collective conscouscies.

I pray only that we wake up before it is too late for the planet.

I do not pretend to single out the Keystone pipeline as the villain, but the collective, self imposed blindness of our society to planetary impacts for the sake of expediency, efficiency and above all else, PROFIT....

[PDJane]

2. Skip building the pipeline, skip the idea of crossing thousands of waterways,

Get a government programme going to change over to renewables NOW, and get on with working on climate change.

[immoderate]

5. But,... but,...

That might save the planet! We can't have that!

--imm

[AverageJoe90]

7. It's already started under Obama.....

the only question is, how much farther do we go this next century?

[PDJane]

9. If it is going to happen, we don't have time; by 2050, according to NASA

The planet will be warm enough to spew methane into the atmosphere.

We need to do it NOW. We have algae lights that use atmospheric carbon, we can retrieve that carbon for use, and we have to get off our fat asses and do it NOW.

[AverageJoe90]

11. Contrary to popular belief, believe it or not, methane isn't an all-or-nothing thing......

I actually found this out on a GreenMan video but I can't remember which one it was at the moment, though I believe that revelation came from a researcher somewhere in the Fairbanks area of Alaska.

In any case, though, I think we CAN both agree that we need to ramp up action ASAP, regardless.

[PDJane]

12. There are already methane plumes in the ocean near Siberia.

They will continue to explode, heating the atmosphere further, because sea ice isn't there to keep the ocean from warming. Understand that this is catastrophe theory in the making.

[AverageJoe90]

13. Not really. Don't listen to the fearmongerers, Jane, they're not doing their thing for our sakes.

In fact, all they do, pretty much, is scream about the end of the world as they envision it, while dodging any talk about real climate issues, and solutions to the problem.....

[PDJane]

14. I have absolutely no illusions about people and motives.

But I am quite sure that what we are doing is a disaster that won't be fixed until it's too late to fix. I am also quite sure that after the greedy and the vile in government have their way, there will be very few left standing.

[AverageJoe90]

15. Well, luckily for us, there really is no such thing as too late......

.....well, to mitigate climate change, that is.....though I'm afraid it might perhaps be too late to stop the Arctic from experiencing its first ice-free day sometime in the next 7-8 years or so(maybe a decade or 11, 12 years if we're a little lucky).

[PDJane]

16. There is too late to do anything constructive to ensure our survival though.

[AverageJoe90]

17. Not true.

Where are you getting this baloney from, anyway? I'm sorry if it sounds a tad harsh, but that's exactly what it is,

I get that some people are feeling a bit pessimistic about this(I'm not much of an optimist myself), but this is just plain absurd. You may remember the eruption of Toba, which was far, far more sudden than AGW; it played out in a matter of days, and with more dramatic consequences overall than many projected AGW scenarios. And our ancestors, being as primitive as they were, other than those who lived in what is now Indonesia at the time, had no knowledge of what was happening to the Earth, nor how to prepare for colder winters and crop failures, or how to adapt quickly. That is probably the primary reason why only around 100,000 of them survived in the end(some reliable alternative estimates suggest it may have been as low as 50,000), and frankly, I doubt it could have been much worse.

At least with climate change's timescale much less speedy, our advancement(yes, it's a vaguish word, but it still fits!), and our adaptability, we will come out far better than they did, and yes, humanity will survive climate change, no matter how severe it can (plausibly) get. That's neither optimism nor pessimism, really, that's just how things are. We should be focusing on real concerns, like how to stop using so much fossil-based energy and deforestation, ground pollution(as what's happened in Ark. recently), etc.

[PDJane]

18. I'm very glad you have that optimism.

However, humanity can become extinct, as we simply destroy the world around us. We are doing so.

I'm getting old, and I watch the things that are happening with dismay. Climate change models have proven to be remarkably accurate, and those models predict a growing temperature rise that is pretty much on target. Those temperatures, if unchecked, will mean that neither we nor the ecosystem that supports us will survive the surface heat of the planet.

Yes, there are things we can do; we're not doing them, and as long as the corporatocracy holds sway, we won't.

[AverageJoe90]

20. I dp appreciate the kindness, but again, it's got nothing to do with optimism, that's just reality.

Humanity cannot, and will not become extinct, thru global warming alone, even if the absolute worst case scenarios do come to pass.....thankfully.

Those temperatures, if unchecked, will mean that neither we nor the ecosystem that supports us will survive the surface heat of the planet.

The latest models I've looked at suggest a probable maximum temperature rise of no higher than 4.5*C by 2100, and that's with all likely associated positive feedbacks(may be a tad higher or somewhat lower, though, perhaps). While it can be surely said that it would unfortunately cause a LOT of problems, without a doubt, it would not be the end of humanity(not by a long shot, really), nor even the complete end of the ecosystem.....TBH, I've become convinced that we don't give Nature the credit it deserves sometimes; there's been supervolcanoes, comet crashes, and even rather sudden temperature fluxes after the end of ice ages, and yet, it's survived all those.

All I'm saying is that with all the real concerns that DO come with AGW, that we ought to step back and take a breath every once in a while, and remember that we could be facing something worse, and/or something that really couldn't be stopped, perhaps.

Yes, there are things we can do; we're not doing them, and as long as the corporatocracy holds sway, we won't.

Certainly, there's still plenty of Establishment opposition to junking the great Big Oil machine. But there is reason to hope for more progress.....

[defacto7]

6. I think triple or quadruple pipes

the inner pipe surrounded on the inside by woven carbon nano tubing.

That should make it a bit more secure, and the cost should keep them busy for a couple hundred years.

[MAD Dave]

8. The alternative is by rail.

If the pipelines are blocked, Suncor et al. will likely ship the bitumen by rail to the West Coast of Canada. Canadian National/Pacific already owns the current rail lines to the coast and the adjacent right of ways. They would likely double or triple the tracks and make a fortune. All with much higher environmental cost than by pipeline.

[PDJane]

19. I argue that statement "much higher environmental cost than by pipeline."

The reason for that is that the stuff, carried by rail, will cause damage, but NOT more damage than sending the pipeline through and under the 1,000+ waterways that it is currently slated for.

[Brother Buzz]

10. I think erosion generating very high temperatures might be a stretch