Hacker News Reader

Comment by julienb_sea | Hacker News Reader

Oil will move and oil will get purchased, so this is a net negative for the environment as the alternative means of transport emit more.

View on HN

The existence of the pipeline very well could induce demand equivalent or greater than what will be wasted transporting it by other means.

But it won’t. The impact on price is negligible because of the size of the market.

But trains and trucks will definitely be used. And will use more carbon.

It’s pretty similar arithmetic that this will result in more carbon released.

Comically, the way to stop production is to lower the price of oil so extraction no longer makes sense from these locations. If anything a higher price for oil means more extraction because it becomes more profitable. And more oil transported using dirtier means.

Making the movement of oil more expensive makes oil more expensive, meaning oil will be purchased less, and alternative forms of energy will be purchased more, no?

Sure but moving by rail emits more greenhouse gas _now_ as opposed to less now later maybe more. Plus there are way more rail accidents like this one from 2013 killing 47 people and destroying a town: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lac-M%C3%A9gantic_rail_disas...

Changes in price aren’t the only issue with oil pipelines - there are also reliability issues (despite repeated promises from pipeline companies, pipelines leak) and issues around treaty lands.

Oil spills from trucks and trains are much more detectable, meaning residents don’t need to worry about them secretly contaminating water supplies. Pipeline spills are harder to detect, so you don’t necessarily know until oil has already seeped into the ground.

There are a lot of good reasons to stop oil pipeline projects.

Do you have sources to support your idea is more than just conjecture? I just finished an engineering risk management course and transporting oil by rail was unambiguously riskier.

Oil use depends on the cost of oil. As such while less efficient than a carbon tax this is a small net benefit to the environment.

Oil doesn't really have an alternative right now for many of its applications. Plus, at the beginning of the pandemic gas was dirt cheap, yet no one needed it. However, this discussion was about transportation of oil, and the idea is that pipelines are more efficient than rail or trucks (if that even makes sense), so it's a pity the decision to halt the project is more political than even environmental.

Increasing the price only needs to reduce usage in any areas to see a net benefit.

As to transportation options, boats and trains are extremely efficient to the point where pipelines don’t make that big of an environmental difference.

According to [1] the cost in 2018 was $5/barrel via pipeline, vs $10-$15/barrel by train. Also, for Alberta boats are not an option since it's a landlocked province. Also, Alberta's oil sands are the world's largest oil reserves after Venezuela and Saudi Arabia, so a pipeline would be very economical once it starts running.

Also, quote from [2]: While long-haul oil and gas pipelines are also more economical and environmentally friendly than other modes of transport like rail or trucking (pipelines create 61 to 77% less greenhouse gas emissions than rail when moving crude over long distances, says one recent study), they also have a safe delivery rate of greater than 99.999%.

This is quoted from Enbridge's website, which is a pipeline company, which may be a bit biased, however I doubt they are lying.

[1] https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2018/10/11/which-is-...

[2] https://www.enbridge.com/Your-questions/User-submitted/Why-a...

As you guessed the source is biased. The question isn’t if pipelines are more efficient in use, the question is if the construction of pipelines + operation of pipelines over their lifespan is a significant net environmental savings. And that’s both much closer and largely irrelevant vs the environmental cost of the oil shipped via the pipelines.

As to being lower cost, again the lower cost isn’t a savings for the environment it’s a savings for the oil company.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com