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
 
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
 
2013-04-04 02:48:57 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.


Tar sands recovered oil is no worse (ie still very bad) for the environment than other oil, by the time it's in a pipeline, anyways. The reason they don't refine it 'on site' (I assume you mean in Alberta or Canada) is multifold. First, know that there is a lot of political pressure for them to do just that. Second, refineries are very, very expensive, and there are already built, existing refineries ready for heavy oil on the Gulf Coast. Third, once you refine oil into the multitude of products it produces-different plastic stocks, diesel, gas, lubricants, bunker oil, etc-you have to ship those products separately.

You could do some 'upgrading' in Canada first, but you'd still have to ship the upgraded oil, and the refineries you're shipping to already have 'cokers', which do the same thing. The upgraded oil is still oil, and still nasty stuff to spill.
 
2013-04-04 02:52:13 PM  
I'LL BET THE LIBS DID THIS
 
2013-04-04 02:53:04 PM  

anti-nescience: 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.


You aren't allowed to fly below 1,000 feet within 5 NM of the spill, that doesn't mean you can't fly over it, you just need to have some altitude.

Besides, with the cameras they have they don't need to be close at all.
 
2013-04-04 02:54:13 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.


Short answer cost.  Long answer: for starters geography comes into play - most of the places where the oil is extracted from the ground arent places you can build an oil refinery due to being a) offshore or b) around terrain that isnt suited for building something of that scale.  Its no surprise that many refineries are situated in port cities or inland cities with major rivers suitable for shipping.  And also the places where the oil is extracted are going to change.  eventually wells dry up, you need to drill elsewhere, and you can't just pack up a refinery or build a small scale one along side every new drilling operation.  Theres a capacity point where its just not cost effective to to build lets say a 5,000 bbl a day refinery.  There are certain costs of the operation that don't scale 1:1 with throughput, so from an investment sense bigger is better so the infrastructure has developed such that you generally have large refineries which are close to their markets.

Also if you were to build the refinery at the point of extraction - youd need something like 6x or more the number of pipelines that you do for just crude oil.  Don't forget that crude is refined into more than just gasoline, theres diesel, jet fuel, heating oil, and lighter gas components, among others. Now you could mix them back together in the pipeline, but then you'd need another refinery on the other end of the pipeline to re-refine it!  And even so, you may have gotten rid of some harmful stuff, but even refined "clean" gasoline/other refined products aren't something you woudl want to just dump 12,000 barrels of into a residential neighborhood - yes, probably better that 12kbd of crude, but I'm not so sure it outweighs the cost.  (in fact high capacity gas lines or LPG lines would be pretty damn dangerous of a risk)
 
2013-04-04 02:55:00 PM  

Maud Dib: 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/


What did Canada do? Hell, we don't even know if this is Exxon's fault yet-could be, but if it's third-party damage that caused the leak, will you blame the a-hole with a backhoe for the leak?
 
2013-04-04 03:00:27 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 don't we slaughter and butcher cattle out in the fields where they are grazing?

/your question is equally stupid
 
2013-04-04 03:02:48 PM  
I have a hard time beveling that there is a massive coverup when googling "Arkansas oil spill" nets me 72.000 hits in the news reader.
 
2013-04-04 03:05:14 PM  

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


They'll use air support sometimes to determine the extent of the area to be cleaned up....happened quite often during BP's spill.
 
2013-04-04 03:07:44 PM  
Probably just trying to get the news choppers off their back (thats the only thing that regularly flies below 1000 feet).

Ever try to do your job with a bunch of helicopters swooshing around? It doesnt help.
 
2013-04-04 03:11:06 PM  

BigHarv: What did Canada do?


We exist.
 
2013-04-04 03:15:04 PM  

BarkingUnicorn: 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.


He also was irritated that Exxon reps repeatedly tried to usher him onto a bus for a "tour" of the area, instead of examining the area on his own.
 
2013-04-04 03:15:18 PM  
img825.imageshack.us
I'll just get this out of the way.
 
rxs
2013-04-04 03:15:48 PM  
This is sop for any oil spill response. The have lightweight response gear, absorbent pads and boom to collect oil, and will use low flying helicopters to.visualy inspect the spill from altitude if necessary.
You also want to manage any VIPs that want to observe the spill and "collect evidence". They only want to look like they are doing something, but only cause problems and stupid media distractions. See bobby Jindal from dwh
 
2013-04-04 03:19:00 PM  

Reverend J: I have a hard time beveling that there is a massive coverup when googling "Arkansas oil spill" nets me 72.000 hits in the news reader.


well to this point I don't believe there is any evidence of big time gross negligence (correct me if I'm wrong).  its a pipe, it corrodes over time and possibly leaks.  the leak is found (arguably not as quickly as we might like), and the operator of the pipeline starts a competent response to fix and clean up, and would like to not have the media obstructing a fast, effective, and safe response.  the media has a filter for contains "oil" + "spill" and they are licking their chops for another BP horizon fiasco, plus the public loves reading about clusterfarks.  this particular event tends to be more vanilla in nature, so we have to assume theres been a cover up or mass conspiracy.
 
2013-04-04 03:24:29 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.


There is no such thing as "refined crude". It's refined or it's crude. You don't get it both ways.

You're probably thinking "light,sweet crude", which is about the consistency of #6 fuel oil. Oil tankers actually burn the stuff at sea.
 
2013-04-04 03:25:34 PM  

chocolate covered poop: Now you could mix them back together in the pipeline, but then you'd need another refinery on the other end of the pipeline to re-refine it!


This part is BS.... they already regularly use the same pipelines for multiple kinds of fuel. They dont mix all that much, and the 100-1000 gallons that does get tainted is peanuts compared to the hundreds of thousands of gallons they move every day.

That being said... I think the mix does get collected & then sent back to refinery eventually.
 
2013-04-04 03:27:35 PM  

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


Don't you have any idea how much kitty litter they're going to have to airdrop over this site?
 
2013-04-04 03:27:46 PM  

algrant33: 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.

There is no such thing as "refined crude". It's refined or it's crude. You don't get it both ways.

You're probably thinking "light,sweet crude", which is about the consistency of #6 fuel oil. Oil tankers actually burn the stuff at sea.


He was thinking 'upgraded' crude-basically, stuff that's been through a coker but not refined. There are some projects to do this in Alberta, not sure how many if any are off the ground.
 
2013-04-04 03:29:10 PM  

red5ish: [img825.imageshack.us image 462x355]
I'll just get this out of the way.


I live about 10 miles from the spill area and I can tell you, that isn't too far from the truth.

/For what it's worth, I love living here, but there are a farkton of good ole country folk once you get out of the Little Rock metro area.
 
2013-04-04 03:32:34 PM  
FTFA: "However, there's been rampant speculation that the ban was enacted to censor news cameras from taking shots of the disaster area."

Yeah...no. FAA regs already prohibit* flying below 1000' over built-up areas, and below 500' over rural areas. This is just to keep the newsies from ignoring the law as it stands (which they do routinely).

Oh, and "censor news crews"? Hardly. Hint: how do telephoto lenses work?

* - except when landing or taking off
 
2013-04-04 03:38:19 PM  

Lionel Mandrake: Tar sands are awesome.


Tar lawns are even better.
 
2013-04-04 03:40:13 PM  
FTA: The FAA announced a The FAA announced a temporary no-fly zone would be enacted indefinitely over the Arkansas oil spill. no-fly zone would be enacted indefinitely over the Arkansas oil spill.

How does this even work?
 
2013-04-04 03:43:24 PM  

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


I don't seem to recall a time when it wasn't Kremlin-funded anti-US govt. propaganda. They mix just enough truth in with the conspiracy theories to hook the gullible.
 
2013-04-04 04:12:11 PM  
Aircraft and a no-fly zone for 10k gallons of oil?!  That would barely fill a decent swimming pool!  WTF?!
 
2013-04-04 04:15:04 PM  
All this nonsense with the oil spill took a lot of media light off ANO. Which is how it should be I guess.

/just laid off from ANO
//still kinda in shock
 
2013-04-04 04:19:19 PM  

kosherkow: How does this even work?


Temporarily closed indefinitely might be a bit of word soup, but it's not contradictory. The airspace is restricted until further notice. It'll open again, but the airspace will remain restricted until they say it's not.
 
2013-04-04 04:28:02 PM  

chewd: chocolate covered poop: Now you could mix them back together in the pipeline, but then you'd need another refinery on the other end of the pipeline to re-refine it!

This part is BS.... they already regularly use the same pipelines for multiple kinds of fuel. They dont mix all that much, and the 100-1000 gallons that does get tainted is peanuts compared to the hundreds of thousands of gallons they move every day.

That being said... I think the mix does get collected & then sent back to refinery eventually.


yeah i was thinking more along the lines of a continuous process and not wanting to build excessive amounts of tankage at the drilling site.  but what you say is true, I should have been more clear
 
2013-04-04 04:50:42 PM  

algrant33: There is no such thing as "refined crude". It's refined or it's crude. You don't get it both ways.
You're probably thinking "light,sweet crude", which is about the consistency of #6 fuel oil. Oil tankers actually burn the stuff at sea.


Refined:

0.tqn.com

Crude:

thewriteworkshops.com

Don't be crude

encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com
 
2013-04-04 05:25:43 PM  
dl.dropbox.com
 
2013-04-04 05:44:32 PM  

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


Came here to say this.
 
2013-04-04 05:44:39 PM  

chocolate covered poop: Reverend J: I have a hard time beveling that there is a massive coverup when googling "Arkansas oil spill" nets me 72.000 hits in the news reader.

well to this point I don't believe there is any evidence of big time gross negligence (correct me if I'm wrong).  its a pipe, it corrodes over time and possibly leaks.  the leak is found (arguably not as quickly as we might like), and the operator of the pipeline starts a competent response to fix and clean up, and would like to not have the media obstructing a fast, effective, and safe response.  the media has a filter for contains "oil" + "spill" and they are licking their chops for another BP horizon fiasco, plus the public loves reading about clusterfarks.  this particular event tends to be more vanilla in nature, so we have to assume theres been a cover up or mass conspiracy.


On the NPR article, the pipe was corroded and was due to be repaired. They delayed the repair.
Shocking, I know.
 
2013-04-04 05:46:44 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?


10:1 theres a guy flying around in a machine doing "assessments" and "mapping" and "generally hopping around the clean up area checking on people and looking at stuff and wasting government money"

Governments love hiring helicopters because damnit their expensive.
 
2013-04-04 05:48:14 PM  

Maud Dib: chocolate covered poop: Reverend J: I have a hard time beveling that there is a massive coverup when googling "Arkansas oil spill" nets me 72.000 hits in the news reader.

well to this point I don't believe there is any evidence of big time gross negligence (correct me if I'm wrong).  its a pipe, it corrodes over time and possibly leaks.  the leak is found (arguably not as quickly as we might like), and the operator of the pipeline starts a competent response to fix and clean up, and would like to not have the media obstructing a fast, effective, and safe response.  the media has a filter for contains "oil" + "spill" and they are licking their chops for another BP horizon fiasco, plus the public loves reading about clusterfarks.  this particular event tends to be more vanilla in nature, so we have to assume theres been a cover up or mass conspiracy.

On the NPR article, the pipe was corroded and was due to be repaired. They delayed the repair.
Shocking, I know.


Did they use govt. subsidies meant to repair the pipeline to give themselves fat bonus checks, like the operators of the gas main that blew a California neighborhood a few years back?
 
2013-04-04 05:57:39 PM  

Maud Dib: On the NPR article, the pipe was corroded and was due to be repaired. They delayed the repair.  Shocking, I know.


Yeah, I'm gonna ask for a citation......

If you're referring to this NPR article - http://www.wbur.org/npr/176189205/arkansas-oil-spill-sheds-light-on-a g ing-pipeline-system - show me where it says "the pipe was corroded and due to be repaired" and "they delayed repair"....
 
2013-04-04 06:32:19 PM  

cashdaddy: Maud Dib: On the NPR article, the pipe was corroded and was due to be repaired. They delayed the repair.  Shocking, I know.

Yeah, I'm gonna ask for a citation......

If you're referring to this NPR article - http://www.wbur.org/npr/176189205/arkansas-oil-spill-sheds-light-on-a g ing-pipeline-system - show me where it says "the pipe was corroded and due to be repaired" and "they delayed repair"....


But even if that were the case, they delayed the repair, does that in itself prove intentional negligence or any unethical behavior?  Maybe they delayed it in order to work on other sections of the pipeline that needed the repairs even worse and would have resulted in a bigger spill.  But thats boring, lets assume that there aren't actually any maintence technicians for the pipelines,its just a shell corporation to channel funds to the executives so they can go skiing in the alps and have 3 ways with $10,000 an hour hookers.
 
2013-04-04 06:58:13 PM  

chocolate covered poop: cashdaddy: Maud Dib: On the NPR article, the pipe was corroded and was due to be repaired. They delayed the repair.  Shocking, I know.

Yeah, I'm gonna ask for a citation......

If you're referring to this NPR article - http://www.wbur.org/npr/176189205/arkansas-oil-spill-sheds-light-on-a g ing-pipeline-system - show me where it says "the pipe was corroded and due to be repaired" and "they delayed repair"....

But even if that were the case, they delayed the repair, does that in itself prove intentional negligence or any unethical behavior?  Maybe they delayed it in order to work on other sections of the pipeline that needed the repairs even worse and would have resulted in a bigger spill.  But thats boring, lets assume that there aren't actually any maintence technicians for the pipelines,its just a shell corporation to channel funds to the executives so they can go skiing in the alps and have 3 ways with $10,000 an hour hookers.


I'm sorry, but ExxonMobil is the largest company on the planet.  They can afford to maintain their systems.  If their pipeline is in such disrepair that they are having to pick and choose which worst part to fix, then there is a serious problem, and it's likely driven by greed.
 
2013-04-04 07:00:55 PM  

vrax: I'm sorry, but ExxonMobil is the largest company on the planet.  They can afford to maintain their systems.  If their pipeline is in such disrepair that they are having to pick and choose which worst part to fix, then there is a serious problem, and it's likely driven by greed.


Like I said earlier - someone show me where this was caused by corrosion or poor maintenance/upkeep...
 
2013-04-04 07:29:51 PM  

dukeblue219: 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).


Except helicopters can fly lower than 1000 agl, as FAR 91.119 says.

Also, apparently the media only cares if they can make a story bashing corporations out of it. Nobody cared about the TFR when they raided the religious nut compound in Texas. Or the hundreds of wildfire TFR's issue each year. It's all about preventing sightseeing.
 
2013-04-04 07:35:33 PM  

Maud Dib: chocolate covered poop: Reverend J: I have a hard time beveling that there is a massive coverup when googling "Arkansas oil spill" nets me 72.000 hits in the news reader.

well to this point I don't believe there is any evidence of big time gross negligence (correct me if I'm wrong).  its a pipe, it corrodes over time and possibly leaks.  the leak is found (arguably not as quickly as we might like), and the operator of the pipeline starts a competent response to fix and clean up, and would like to not have the media obstructing a fast, effective, and safe response.  the media has a filter for contains "oil" + "spill" and they are licking their chops for another BP horizon fiasco, plus the public loves reading about clusterfarks.  this particular event tends to be more vanilla in nature, so we have to assume theres been a cover up or mass conspiracy.

On the NPR article, the pipe was corroded and was due to be repaired. They delayed the repair.
Shocking, I know.


Man, I cannot find that article! Are you thinking of the disaster in California from a few years ago? Because today's article was clear: "It's not yet clear what caused the spill. "
http://www.npr.org/2013/04/04/176189205/arkansas-oil-spill-sheds-lig ht -on-aging-pipeline-system

I imagine the failure investigation will have some results soon.
 
2013-04-04 07:38:21 PM  

vrax: chocolate covered poop: cashdaddy: Maud Dib: On the NPR article, the pipe was corroded and was due to be repaired. They delayed the repair.  Shocking, I know.

Yeah, I'm gonna ask for a citation......

If you're referring to this NPR article - http://www.wbur.org/npr/176189205/arkansas-oil-spill-sheds-light-on-a g ing-pipeline-system - show me where it says "the pipe was corroded and due to be repaired" and "they delayed repair"....

But even if that were the case, they delayed the repair, does that in itself prove intentional negligence or any unethical behavior?  Maybe they delayed it in order to work on other sections of the pipeline that needed the repairs even worse and would have resulted in a bigger spill.  But thats boring, lets assume that there aren't actually any maintence technicians for the pipelines,its just a shell corporation to channel funds to the executives so they can go skiing in the alps and have 3 ways with $10,000 an hour hookers.

I'm sorry, but ExxonMobil is the largest company on the planet.  They can afford to maintain their systems.  If their pipeline is in such disrepair that they are having to pick and choose which worst part to fix, then there is a serious problem, and it's likely driven by greed.


largest company =/= infinite funds to mitigate every risk.  and also most of the profit Exxon make comes from the upstream segment - actually selling the oil before it goes in the pipeline.  The pipeline company likely does not make all that much of a profit.  Likewise most of the reinvestment of the upstream profit is likely going back into upstream improvements and maintenance, and not shared with the parts of the company that don't make the same amount of profit.  Its not necessarily lining the pockets of the executives, while I will grant you that they make too much money for the jobs that they do.

I don't think theres anything wrong with media attention and scrutiny when these things happen, because it drives progress and helps to avoid future incidents.  I just feel like we are too fast to presume that there was unethical practices involved whenever something like this happens.  If I get a flat tire, should I immediately assume that the executives at discount tire have conspired to drop nails all over roads in order to bring in more business?  Or should I think that maybe sometimes shiat just happens, and rather than wasting time pointing fingers at who to blame I should pull my car over and just fix the farking flat tire?
 
2013-04-04 08:00:35 PM  
chocolate covered poop:
largest company =/= infinite funds to mitigate every risk.  and also most of the profit Exxon make comes from the upstream segment - actually selling the oil before it goes in the pipeline.  The pipeline company likely does not make all that much of a profit.  Likewise most of the reinvestment of the upstream profit is likely going back into upstream improvements and maintenance, and not shared with the parts of the company that don't make the same amount of profit.  Its not necessarily lining the pockets of the executives, while I will grant you that they make too much money for the jobs that they do.


I'd agree that pipeline failures are often not caused by the pipeline company. Say a bulldozer used by the homebuilder carelessly drives over the pipeline, shifts the soil which loads the pipe and a decade later, the pipeline bursts. Not much the evil oil company can do about that.
 
2013-04-04 08:35:23 PM  

BarkingUnicorn: 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.


If you refined it at the source, you'd have to have 6 or 8 pipelines.  One for each product.
 
2013-04-04 09:12:07 PM  
I have seen no such NOTAM/TFR.  So... uh...
 
2013-04-04 10:20:39 PM  

vodka: I have seen no such NOTAM/TFR.  So... uh...


FDC 3/9344...
 
2013-04-05 12:22:20 AM  

chocolate covered poop: vrax: chocolate covered poop: cashdaddy: Maud Dib: On the NPR article, the pipe was corroded and was due to be repaired. They delayed the repair.  Shocking, I know.

Yeah, I'm gonna ask for a citation......

If you're referring to this NPR article - http://www.wbur.org/npr/176189205/arkansas-oil-spill-sheds-light-on-a g ing-pipeline-system - show me where it says "the pipe was corroded and due to be repaired" and "they delayed repair"....

But even if that were the case, they delayed the repair, does that in itself prove intentional negligence or any unethical behavior?  Maybe they delayed it in order to work on other sections of the pipeline that needed the repairs even worse and would have resulted in a bigger spill.  But thats boring, lets assume that there aren't actually any maintence technicians for the pipelines,its just a shell corporation to channel funds to the executives so they can go skiing in the alps and have 3 ways with $10,000 an hour hookers.

I'm sorry, but ExxonMobil is the largest company on the planet.  They can afford to maintain their systems.  If their pipeline is in such disrepair that they are having to pick and choose which worst part to fix, then there is a serious problem, and it's likely driven by greed.

largest company =/= infinite funds to mitigate every risk.  and also most of the profit Exxon make comes from the upstream segment - actually selling the oil before it goes in the pipeline.  The pipeline company likely does not make all that much of a profit.  Likewise most of the reinvestment of the upstream profit is likely going back into upstream improvements and maintenance, and not shared with the parts of the company that don't make the same amount of profit.  Its not necessarily lining the pockets of the executives, while I will grant you that they make too much money for the jobs that they do.

I don't think theres anything wrong with media attention and scrutiny when these things happen, because it drives progress and helps ...


We're talking general maintenance here by an extremely rich company.  If infinite funds are required to maintain functionality then they have the worst business model in existence.

Considering ExxonMobil's control, the absurd no-fly order, as well as a media lock-out on this one, I'm going to pretty much guarantee that there is at the very least a certain level of malfeasance on ExxonMobil's part.  It reeks of the same type of suspicious BS from PG&E after the San Bruno gas explosion.
 
2013-04-05 01:11:45 AM  

vrax: We're talking general maintenance here by an extremely rich company. If infinite funds are required to maintain functionality then they have the worst business model in existence.


Heres how it goes:

Company builds pipeline -- or uses existing pipeline to move oil across your country. The pipeline was not designed for such a long lifetime. The regulations that concern building pipelines are stricter today than when the pipe was first layed and pipelines that were built back in the 50's or 60's probably wouldn't have been approved by today's standards.

So building new lines is expensive, time consuming and great big NIMBY projects -- this means the old pipes are used longer and longer because people have gummed up the process. The old over used pipes become more and more expensive to fix and they become less and less reliable.

Its a great model of business if you have proper infrastructure and a decent approval process. No cross country shipping company could have a good business plan if nobody wanted to build new roads and repairs to existing ones were prohibitively expensive because they were so beat up.

New pipes would make everything much cheaper and much safer...
 
2013-04-05 03:03:21 AM  

mikefinch: vrax: We're talking general maintenance here by an extremely rich company. If infinite funds are required to maintain functionality then they have the worst business model in existence.

Heres how it goes:

Company builds pipeline -- or uses existing pipeline to move oil across your country. The pipeline was not designed for such a long lifetime. The regulations that concern building pipelines are stricter today than when the pipe was first layed and pipelines that were built back in the 50's or 60's probably wouldn't have been approved by today's standards.

So building new lines is expensive, time consuming and great big NIMBY projects -- this means the old pipes are used longer and longer because people have gummed up the process. The old over used pipes become more and more expensive to fix and they become less and less reliable.

Its a great model of business if you have proper infrastructure and a decent approval process. No cross country shipping company could have a good business plan if nobody wanted to build new roads and repairs to existing ones were prohibitively expensive because they were so beat up.

New pipes would make everything much cheaper and much safer...


Sure, and in the farkin' 65 years Pegasus has been operational they should have been working on updating the entire line.  They already have the right-of-way, unlike any future projects.  FFS, by now they could have run a modern, higher capacity, parallel line and taken Pegasus off-line.
 
Displayed 97 of 97 comments

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