If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Russia Today)   Nothing to see here. Move along. FAA puts no-fly zone over Arkansas oil spill   (rt.com) divider line 97
    More: Followup, Federal Aviation Administration, Arkansas, Exxon, Lynn Lunsford, Mayflower  
•       •       •

8375 clicks; posted to Main » on 04 Apr 2013 at 12:51 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



97 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-04-04 12:13:26 PM  
It's only up to 1,000 feet.  That's not going to prevent people from seeing anything.
 
2013-04-04 12:52:25 PM  
Nothing but a skid mark on the anus of the South.
 
2013-04-04 12:55:15 PM  
You only need to go below 1000 feet for takeoff and landing.
 
2013-04-04 12:59:23 PM  

ChipNASA: Nothing but a skid mark on the anus of the South.


Oh come on now. We all know that's Mississippi.
 
2013-04-04 01:00:53 PM  
Tar sands are awesome.
 
2013-04-04 01:01:19 PM  
An FAA spokesman told reporters that the flying ban applied to aircraft flying at 1,000 feet or lower and within five nautical miles, so that emergency support are able to respond to the disaster immediately.

Bullshiat. What kind of air support is needed to clean up an oil spill?
 
2013-04-04 01:02:23 PM  
The FAA announced a temporary no-fly zone would be enacted indefinitely over the Arkansas oil spill

Inigomontoya.jpg
 
2013-04-04 01:03:49 PM  

Lionel Mandrake: Tar sands are awesome.


Maybe you should shut the hell up and walk everywhere then.
 
2013-04-04 01:03:59 PM  
Sounds like an anti drone measure.
 
2013-04-04 01:04:06 PM  
However, there's been rampant speculation that the ban was enacted to censor news cameras from taking shots of the disaster area.

There's something a little fishy about all of this. They need to get the EPA in there. You don't want to f*ck with the EPA.
 
2013-04-04 01:04:22 PM  

wxboy: It's only up to 1,000 feet.  That's not going to prevent people from seeing anything.


Done in one.  This is an incredibly stupid article.  You newsies paid how much for a camera that can't see what's going on 1000 feet below?

/ChopperDan in Chopper6 has his ChopperPanties in a ChopperWad because he can't hover right over or land among the workers/ trucks, etc.
 
2013-04-04 01:06:42 PM  
 
2013-04-04 01:06:54 PM  
 
2013-04-04 01:07:14 PM  
Arkansas Attorney General Dustin McDaniel, who spoke of future litigation as a "certainty," derided attempts by ExxonMobil representatives to manage his visit to the site.

Wow. You can't really work an AG like he's a ref. They'll come to regret this.
 
2013-04-04 01:07:55 PM  

NutWrench: An FAA spokesman told reporters that the flying ban applied to aircraft flying at 1,000 feet or lower and within five nautical miles, so that emergency support are able to respond to the disaster immediately.

Bullshiat. What kind of air support is needed to clean up an oil spill?


They don't, they need to use objects that way less than 50 pounds and the damn news choppers were buzzing them.
 
2013-04-04 01:10:52 PM  

change1211: Lionel Mandrake: Tar sands are awesome.

Maybe you should shut the hell up and walk everywhere then.


shiat, we can continue to drive our cars just like we are without ever tapping tar sands, I doubt they have had a significant impact on the price of gasoline or motor oil in this country.
 
2013-04-04 01:11:24 PM  
This same story came out during the Deepwater Horizon spill.
 
2013-04-04 01:12:10 PM  

change1211: Lionel Mandrake: Tar sands are awesome.

Maybe you should shut the hell up and walk everywhere then.


Take your tar sands and shove 'em up your beaver.
 
2013-04-04 01:12:40 PM  

NutWrench: Bullshiat. What kind of air support is needed to clean up an oil spill?


Ninjas.
Expensive, invisible, tax dollar funded, Big Oil hired, ninjas.
 
2013-04-04 01:14:51 PM  
More info on the spill....in conclusion, fark you, Canada and Exxon.

http://www.salon.com/2013/04/04/6_things_you_need_to_know_about_the_ ar kansas_oil_spill_partner/
 
2013-04-04 01:14:55 PM  
Now that he does not have to worry about re-election you know Obama is going to approve the Keystone Pipeline.
 
2013-04-04 01:21:32 PM  
Totally BS article.  The restriction is to keep all the newsies from running into one another, and getting in the way of any aircraft actually WORKING there.  Above 1000', it's assumed that if two newsies do run into each other, folks on the ground will have time to get out of the way of all the aluminum, hair gel, and shredded egos fluttering down from the sky.
 
2013-04-04 01:23:56 PM  
Russia Today is quickly becoming an Alex Jones conspiracy website/TV station.  Russian tax dollars at work!

/a no fly zone to 1,000 feet sounds like what exactly it was claimed to be; IE, to protect relief helicopters working in the area
 
2013-04-04 01:28:16 PM  

Geotpf: Russia Today is quickly becoming an Alex Jones conspiracy website/TV station. Russian tax dollars at work!


Following in Pravda's footsteps, I guess.
 
2013-04-04 01:33:26 PM  

change1211: Lionel Mandrake: Tar sands are awesome.

Maybe you should shut the hell up and walk everywhere then.


Those are the only two choices?  Really?  That's a lot of durp.
 
2013-04-04 01:33:26 PM  
It isn't just 1000', it is 1000' and 5 nautical miles around.
 
2013-04-04 01:33:50 PM  
Its not an "oil spill" its a "tar sands oil spill" ... totally different when it comes to corporate liability.

Oils ain't oils.
 
2013-04-04 01:40:04 PM  

anti-nescience: It isn't just 1000', it is 1000' and 5 nautical miles around.


...so you fly at 1500' smack over everything - it really doesn't make THAT much of a difference for what a camera lens can see, but it does reduce the risk of low-level helicopter collisions.

1000/5nm is a pretty typical TFR size for a disaster like a spill, wildfire, etc.
 
2013-04-04 01:40:48 PM  
I'm just amazed that some toothless yokel hasn't come along and tried to set that thing ablaze so far.
 
2013-04-04 01:42:08 PM  

Langdon_777: Its not an "oil spill" its a "tar sands oil spill" ... totally different when it comes to corporate liability.

Oils ain't oils.


Until it hits the anus.
 
2013-04-04 01:47:09 PM  
Shoot, you're not even allowed to fly less than 1000' AGL over a "congested" area, which the FAA can pretty much define however they want and has in the past been defined as a couple people or a house in the area. There's really very little cause to be loitering at <1000' here anyway.

There's plenty of TFRs to complain about but this is not one. (like the uncharted, unannounced stadium TFRs that become active whenever certain teams have home games but yet there's no master list).
 
2013-04-04 01:48:33 PM  

change1211: Lionel Mandrake: Tar sands are awesome.

Maybe you should shut the hell up and walk everywhere then.


False dichotomies, how do they work?
 
2013-04-04 01:49:13 PM  

CoolHandLucas: anti-nescience: It isn't just 1000', it is 1000' and 5 nautical miles around.

...so you fly at 1500' smack over everything - it really doesn't make THAT much of a difference for what a camera lens can see, but it does reduce the risk of low-level helicopter collisions.

1000/5nm is a pretty typical TFR size for a disaster like a spill, wildfire, etc.


Yeah, disregard my previous statement. Someone must have put crack in my coffee this morning.
 
2013-04-04 01:56:25 PM  
1,000 feet is the standard FAA regulation about aircraft that are not in the process of takeoff or landing. This is not a "no fly" zone.

They probably don't want news copters buzzing the area.
 
2013-04-04 01:56:54 PM  

HotWingConspiracy: Arkansas Attorney General Dustin McDaniel, who spoke of future litigation as a "certainty," derided attempts by ExxonMobil representatives to manage his visit to the site.

Wow. You can't really work an AG like he's a ref. They'll come to regret this.


He complained about documents not being available and the "cleanup's going great" attitude.  He wasn't "managed" like a foreign tourist in North Korea.

Here's a bigger  issue:  that pipeline carried Alberta tar sand bitumen, which is specifically exempted from the definition of "crude oil" in the Oil Spill Liability Act of 1980.  Exxon doesn't have to pay into the trust fund that covers such spills.  Better update that law before Keystone XL is approved.
 
2013-04-04 01:58:29 PM  

change1211: Lionel Mandrake: Tar sands are awesome.

Maybe you should shut the hell up and walk everywhere then.


You should probably just shut the hell up, period.
 
2013-04-04 02:02:45 PM  

anti-nescience: It isn't just 1000', it is 1000' and 5 nautical miles around.


And a nautical mile is 6076 feet, about 15% longer than land miles.  Those bastards!
 
2013-04-04 02:08:01 PM  

Pair-o-Dice: Langdon_777: Its not an "oil spill" its a "tar sands oil spill" ... totally different when it comes to corporate liability.

Oils ain't oils.

Until it hits the anus.


And we'll be lucky to live through it.
 
2013-04-04 02:11:43 PM  

Pair-o-Dice: You don't want to f*ck with the EPA.


The idea is to hire people who will literally fark the regulators into ignoring the regulation that is how it works at the SEC.
 
2013-04-04 02:14:44 PM  
I have a question for any geologists or otherwise science-headed people. Please excuse my ignorance:

Reading TFA, it sounds like a large part of the problem involves transporting this stuff thousands of miles through pipelines over some pretty precarious area in the form of environmentally hazardous toxic sludge form, as opposed to refined crude which is comparatively easier to clean up. It doesn't get refined until it hits places like Texas and Louisiana, before being shipped to China or wherever.

So my question: why don't they just refine it on site when it is extracted, before its transported anywhere? I assume the answer is "cost", but would appreciate details.
 
2013-04-04 02:17:42 PM  
I drive past this clusterfark every day going back/forth to work.....so I'm getting a kick.....
 
2013-04-04 02:26:13 PM  
I think that you are all missing the point. Has Congress apologized to Exxon-Mobile for getting dirt in their oil yet? I think that at the very least they are entitled to large government bailout for having to put up with the inconvenience of cleaning up their mess. Maybe another tax break and a few more subsidies will help them feel better. Oh, and those homeowners need to shut the hell up and quit their whining. Just because Exxon-Mobile is the most profitable company in the history of the world doesn't mean that they are responsible for compensating you for damage and/or loss of value to your property that is a direct result of their actions. That's just class warfare, and you should all feel ashamed.
 
2013-04-04 02:27:39 PM  

gilgigamesh: I have a question for any geologists or otherwise science-headed people. Please excuse my ignorance:

Reading TFA, it sounds like a large part of the problem involves transporting this stuff thousands of miles through pipelines over some pretty precarious area in the form of environmentally hazardous toxic sludge form, as opposed to refined crude which is comparatively easier to clean up. It doesn't get refined until it hits places like Texas and Louisiana, before being shipped to China or wherever.

So my question: why don't they just refine it on site when it is extracted, before its transported anywhere? I assume the answer is "cost", but would appreciate details.


Why ask scientists about cost?  Ask economists.

Yes, of course it's cost.  There are lots of extraction sites, fewer shipping sites.  Extraction sites change, requiring movement of refineries. Galveston ain't going nowhere.
 
2013-04-04 02:28:46 PM  

Cortez the Killer: I drive past this clusterfark every day going back/forth to work.....so I'm getting a kick.....


Toss a burning cigarette out the window and spare everyone a lot of trouble.
 
2013-04-04 02:29:21 PM  
Was Alex Krycek seen in the vicinity?
 
2013-04-04 02:30:42 PM  

gilgigamesh: I have a question for any geologists or otherwise science-headed people. Please excuse my ignorance:

Reading TFA, it sounds like a large part of the problem involves transporting this stuff thousands of miles through pipelines over some pretty precarious area in the form of environmentally hazardous toxic sludge form, as opposed to refined crude which is comparatively easier to clean up. It doesn't get refined until it hits places like Texas and Louisiana, before being shipped to China or wherever.

So my question: why don't they just refine it on site when it is extracted, before its transported anywhere? I assume the answer is "cost", but would appreciate details.


Ever been through South Texas? Oil refineries are humongous!!
 
d23 [TotalFark]
2013-04-04 02:34:30 PM  

BarkingUnicorn: Cortez the Killer: I drive past this clusterfark every day going back/forth to work.....so I'm getting a kick.....

Toss a burning cigarette out the window and spare everyone a lot of trouble.


And "Fire" isn't as easy for a farking insurance company to split hairs with, as they are doing with this oil, I mean TAR SANDS oil spill.
 
d23 [TotalFark]
2013-04-04 02:37:59 PM  

uncleacid: Now that he does not have to worry about re-election you know Obama is going to approve the Keystone Pipeline.


yes. Worst socialist ever.
 
2013-04-04 02:42:29 PM  

anti-nescience: It isn't just 1000', it is 1000' and 5 nautical miles around.


And soft as a downy sheep.
 
2013-04-04 02:43:12 PM  
This has nothing to do with the risks associated with the Keystone pipeline. This is a separate incident that Exxon can manage without interference from the press. Exxon is a responsible corporate citizen. Any reporting on this "pipeline concern" is un-American. Examining and reporting on this concern is playing into the hands of Al Qaida and the North Koreans. For all we know international enviro-terrorists have created this situation to weaken our country.

God Bless America
Exxon
 
Displayed 50 of 97 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report