Skip to main content

View Diary: The traditional media's shoddy reporting on the Keystone XL pipeline is no surprise (112 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Is there a link to them in your diary? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Eric Nelson

    Maybe I overlooked it,.

    It rubs the loofah on its skin or else it gets the falafel again.

    by Fishgrease on Sun Apr 21, 2013 at 06:22:04 PM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  read the diary to the end (7+ / 0-)

      and you'll find it.

      The cold passion for truth hunts in no pack. -Robinson Jeffers

      by Laurence Lewis on Sun Apr 21, 2013 at 06:25:48 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  So where do you use their data? (0+ / 0-)

        I mean besides the data that they just won a Pulitzer?

        It rubs the loofah on its skin or else it gets the falafel again.

        by Fishgrease on Sun Apr 21, 2013 at 06:33:23 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  given that this post (5+ / 0-)

          is about the media, i provide links. although i did re-post the data about jobs. from my earlier post that had much more about the environmental impacts. which also is linked. since this post is about the media.

          granted, i could have put it all into one massive post, but then i doubt people would have read it through. particularly given that some don't seem to have made it all the way through the post as it is. the post which is about the media.

          The cold passion for truth hunts in no pack. -Robinson Jeffers

          by Laurence Lewis on Sun Apr 21, 2013 at 06:40:53 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Good answer. (4+ / 0-)

            You're right.

            My bad.

            It rubs the loofah on its skin or else it gets the falafel again.

            by Fishgrease on Sun Apr 21, 2013 at 06:42:26 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  If you want to take a look at the ICN reportage, (6+ / 0-)

              it's worth at least skimming some of the material for which they won the Pulitzer--namely, for their coverage of the Enbridge pipeline rupture into the Kalamazoo River in 2010. The list of articles is here. It might be of particular interest to you to read their article on the failure to date of legislative and regulatory bodies to address some of the more serious unanswered questions regarding dilbit and its transport.
              Therein they name five problems that deserve more analysis and answers than appear to be forthcoming:

              1.    Pipeline contents still a mystery
              2.    Little is known about dilbit
              3.    Deadlines for repairing corrosion and other defects still loose
              4.    Access to spill response plans limited
              5.    Spill reporting still lax
              Their coverage was extensive and thorough.

              Some DKos series & groups worth your while: Black Kos, Native American Netroots, KosAbility, Monday Night Cancer Club. If you'd like to join the Motor City Kossacks, send me a Kosmail.

              by peregrine kate on Sun Apr 21, 2013 at 06:59:39 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Lets look at your 5 points. (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                6412093

                1.    Pipeline contents still a mystery

                The contents day to day of most pipelines in the USA are not set. At various times they will use different oils as carriers and dilutants. By the time the pipeline is approved by the Secretary of State and the EPA, contents will be defined just as tightly as the contents of any other oil pipeline on this continent.

                2.    Little is known about dilbit

                This just isn't true. It's not kryptonite. It's not a bunch of Higgs Bosons. Pipelines have been moving it for more than a decade and it is defined down to it's individual molecules.

                3.    Deadlines for repairing corrosion and other defects still loose

                Again. By the time construction begins (and it will) maintenance and repair issues will be as solid as with any other pipeline. Our President says in this case, MORE defined and more stringent. The constructors and operators have already agreed to those requirements.

                4.    Access to spill response plans limited

                Here I agree, but with regard to ALL pipelines and industrial operations capable of spilling. Not just KXL.

                5.    Spill reporting still lax

                Just not true. Such that with the existing XL Pipeline, spills were reported on the level of a gallon.

                It rubs the loofah on its skin or else it gets the falafel again.

                by Fishgrease on Sun Apr 21, 2013 at 07:30:46 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  I don't have the background to argue with you (4+ / 0-)

                  point-by-point. I suppose if you provided your links to support those claims, and if I did more research myself, we could duke it out more effectively.

                  But regardless of the "relative" safety of these pipelines, the extraordinary event--such as a breaking of the Enbridge line--seems not to be so rare as the industry would like it to be. The clean-up efforts in Kalamazoo, for example, are still prolonged and incomplete, and the oversight of the industry still seems to rest with the industry itself more than with any regulatory body with teeth.

                  I must be missing something. Aren't you the guy who so roundly condemned BP and its subcontractors for acting so irresponsibly in the Gulf of Mexico disaster? And didn't you also object to the use of mysterious chemicals in the clean-up when it was not at all clear that they weren't toxic in their own right? Do you really think that the pressure to cut corners and meet production goals doesn't present a huge burden even to those who work hard to maintain the safety of these lines? Without impugning the integrity of those who do this work, aren't human error and mechanical failure inevitable, and not in terms of "hundred year events"?

                  I realize the whole damn continent is criss-crossed with oil pipelines, many of which already pass through very vulnerable areas. But few of them are equipped to handle this different kind of oil, and the retrofitting underway seems again to be done to meet production pressures more than overall safety.

                  Some DKos series & groups worth your while: Black Kos, Native American Netroots, KosAbility, Monday Night Cancer Club. If you'd like to join the Motor City Kossacks, send me a Kosmail.

                  by peregrine kate on Sun Apr 21, 2013 at 07:47:25 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Yes. (2+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    6412093, orlbucfan
                    I must be missing something. Aren't you the guy who so roundly condemned BP and its subcontractors for acting so irresponsibly in the Gulf of Mexico disaster?
                    Yes. Still do condemn them.
                    And didn't you also object to the use of mysterious chemicals in the clean-up when it was not at all clear that they weren't toxic in their own right?
                    Not quite. My argument against dispersants was and is that they sink and hide oil in marine spills and that that isn't a good thing to do, is a stupid thing to do, fully regardless of their chemical makeup -- which is pretty much soap and some glycols - not harmless, but enough so that their chemical make-up is beside the point.
                    Do you really think that the pressure to cut corners and meet production goals doesn't present a huge burden even to those who work hard to maintain the safety of these lines?
                    DOES present a huge burden! Yes! But not more than any other pipeline approved by Obama or 16 prior Presidents. That's where I'm at on this. Why this? Progressives tout Germany as an example of a government helping to fight climate change via new technology. Germany has approved an addition ten (actually 9 to 12, depending on who you listen to)  new coal-fired power plants to be constructed in the next decade. How do they square this with their reputation as being concerned with the environment? They cook the books. The exempt power producers from reporting certain emissions on the basis that "they're working on making it cleaner".

                    China! You'll hear that China has passed the USA in Green Technology. Maybe they have, but they're building coal-fired plants in record numbers. Their CO2 emissions are increasing at the fastest rate on the planet. The USA's CO2 emissions, btw, have actually started decreasing.

                    It rubs the loofah on its skin or else it gets the falafel again.

                    by Fishgrease on Sun Apr 21, 2013 at 08:04:55 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  I agree that every country's record is mixed, (3+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      Sarenth, unfangus, orlbucfan

                      to say the least, Germany and China definitely not excepted.
                      It's still not at all clear to me that we should be any more confident that American or Canadian pipeline operators are less likely to cook the books and to outright lie as long as they can get away with it.
                      I gather that you are in the camp of -- since there is oil to be extracted somehow, it will be extracted. (Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.) My understanding instead is that we have, perhaps, a very small window in which to forestall the huge expansion of this particular extraction technology before the whole AGW phenomenon reaches an irreversible tipping point (if it hasn't already). To that end, objecting to KXL construction seems to me like a reasonable rallying point for several reasons already listed many times over.
                      Most of all: in whose benefit is it, really, that we continue to invest in this technology, putting more and more sunk costs into developing an energy resource that will doom us? So far, the oil companies in whatever version seem to have been able to externalize their true costs. I for one have had enough of subsidizing them and getting so little back besides convenience.
                      You have so much technical and professional experience to offer, I regret that we are still on opposite sides of this issue.

                      Some DKos series & groups worth your while: Black Kos, Native American Netroots, KosAbility, Monday Night Cancer Club. If you'd like to join the Motor City Kossacks, send me a Kosmail.

                      by peregrine kate on Sun Apr 21, 2013 at 08:33:42 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  Let's look at what the President is looking at. (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        6412093

                        Is there anything about KXL that makes it worse than other pipelines, in fact, worse than other sources of heavy sour oil already coming into Southern ports?

                        The answer there is no.

                        All Kerry can look at is one thing:

                        Is Canada an enemy?

                        Again, no.

                        People are drawing a line in the sand on this one pipeline. They're making stuff up. They're saying that the contents of the pipeline are more corrosive than anything, ever. Actually, compared to all the liquids moved by pipeline in this country (including and especially sea water) the contents of KXL are electrochemically bland.

                        All this mis-information. All this bad data. All of it will be used to criticize President Obama once the KXL is approved.

                        And that is what I think is bullshit.

                        It rubs the loofah on its skin or else it gets the falafel again.

                        by Fishgrease on Sun Apr 21, 2013 at 08:46:53 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                      •  Oh and... (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        6412093
                        You have so much technical and professional experience to offer, I regret that we are still on opposite sides of this issue.
                        Me too.

                        It rubs the loofah on its skin or else it gets the falafel again.

                        by Fishgrease on Sun Apr 21, 2013 at 08:47:46 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

              •  peregrine kate, you're right. These companies not (6+ / 0-)

                only pollute, they damage companies and injure human health with impunity.  And, our legislators continue to subsidize them.

                If either of us polluted in any small manner we'd be fined and/or jailed.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

  • Recommended (142)
  • Community (70)
  • Civil Rights (26)
  • Memorial Day (26)
  • Elections (26)
  • Environment (26)
  • Culture (25)
  • Media (25)
  • Law (24)
  • Science (23)
  • Trans-Pacific Partnership (22)
  • Labor (21)
  • Josh Duggar (20)
  • Economy (20)
  • Rescued (19)
  • Marriage Equality (18)
  • Education (17)
  • Republicans (17)
  • Ireland (17)
  • Climate Change (17)
  • Click here for the mobile view of the site