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.

(Salon)   Six things you need to know about the Arkansas oil spill   (salon.com) divider line 124
    More: Interesting, Keystone Pipeline, Arkansas, Enbridge, Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, Pegasus, bodies of water, tax-exempt, anchors  
•       •       •

13285 clicks; posted to Main » on 05 Apr 2013 at 1:10 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-04-05 01:13:21 AM
3.bp.blogspot.com
RIP Becky.
 
2013-04-05 01:14:24 AM
7: Sand in oil is used as a polishing technique for performance cylinder heads. Do I need to explain this any further.
 
2013-04-05 01:14:37 AM
One weird trick to deal with oil spills.
 
2013-04-05 01:15:37 AM
If it's happening in the south, they bought there ticket they know what they where contracting for.

/No aid, they can lick it up
 
2013-04-05 01:15:52 AM
an Exxon official confirmed the pipeline was "transporting a heavy form of crude from the Canadian tar sands region." Specifically, it has been identified as Wabasca Heavy, Lisa Song writes, "which is a type of diluted bitumen, or dilbit, from Alberta's tar sands region" although you won't hear any Exxon folks calling it tar sands.


I love clear, unambiguous reporting that doesn't leave you confused or saying "uh, wtf?"

Unfortunately it's getting more and more scarce.
 
2013-04-05 01:16:15 AM
Who's footing the bill for the cleanup? The government has an Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund that companies which transport oil must pay into. But, as it turns out, the bitumen that Exxon was transporting in its pipeline isn't oil by government standards.

Fark everything about that.  The next time anyone complains about businesses having to deal with "too much regulation" when it comes to environmental standards, I want them crotchspeared with a rolled-up copy of this report.
 
2013-04-05 01:17:35 AM

Christian Bale: an Exxon official confirmed the pipeline was "transporting a heavy form of crude from the Canadian tar sands region." Specifically, it has been identified as Wabasca Heavy, Lisa Song writes, "which is a type of diluted bitumen, or dilbit, from Alberta's tar sands region" although you won't hear any Exxon folks calling it tar sands.


I love clear, unambiguous reporting that doesn't leave you confused or saying "uh, wtf?"

Unfortunately it's getting more and more scarce.


True though the new speak is oil sands
 
2013-04-05 01:18:19 AM
We have to export it somehow.  We might as well do it in the most cost effective way possible.  Won't someone think of the shareholders?
 
2013-04-05 01:20:04 AM
Item 1: the fact that there even was an oil spill in Arkansas.

Seriously, I have not heard a word about this until now.  I'd like to thank subby for getting this posted; I found the article informative.  Although, it failed to address the ramifications on summer gas prices.  Also, what effect this will have on relations with Canada.

Fun fact: Canada recently pulled out of an international coalition on the issue of preserving freshwater resources.  Canada has the largest freshwater reserves of any nation in the world.
 
2013-04-05 01:20:42 AM

davidphogan: We have to export it somehow.  We might as well do it in the most cost effective way possible.  Won't someone think of the shareholders?

Children/Media

FTFR
(fixed that for reality)
 
2013-04-05 01:21:47 AM
but we were told that pipelines are perfectly safe
 
2013-04-05 01:23:37 AM
Oh, and was this pipeline built in the 1940s or was the ORIGINAL pipeline built in the 1940s and the current active line was built on the same route more recently?
 
2013-04-05 01:24:02 AM

Christian Bale: an Exxon official confirmed the pipeline was "transporting a heavy form of crude from the Canadian tar sands region." Specifically, it has been identified as Wabasca Heavy, Lisa Song writes, "which is a type of diluted bitumen, or dilbit, from Alberta's tar sands region" although you won't hear any Exxon folks calling it tar sands.


I love clear, unambiguous reporting that doesn't leave you confused or saying "uh, wtf?"

Unfortunately it's getting more and more scarce.


Journalist don't know anything about history, science, geology, etc.  So they can't instruct us.  What's worse is they don't have much motivation to learn seeing as how the public doesn't want to hear it.

/ooh a kardashian nip slip...
 
2013-04-05 01:24:06 AM

HotWingAgenda: Item 1: the fact that there even was an oil spill in Arkansas.

Seriously, I have not heard a word about this until now.  I'd like to thank subby for getting this posted; I found the article informative.  Although, it failed to address the ramifications on summer gas prices.  Also, what effect this will have on relations with Canada.

Fun fact: Canada recently pulled out of an international coalition on the issue of preserving freshwater resources.  Canada has the largest freshwater reserves of any nation in the world.


You haven't been paying attention

Also Canada has no fresh water we are sending it all down to the US to FLUSH THEIR CRAPPERS
 
2013-04-05 01:24:22 AM
Really? I sit with my polyester clothes, my plastic everything, making my organic food that I bought with gas and was shipped by a deisel truck paid by my money made from oil.

Oh god, shut up. Find a solution for the population not vilificaction.
 
2013-04-05 01:26:35 AM
Others who were previously in favor or indifferent may have second thoughts, especially considering that the Pegasus pipeline capacity was only about a tenth of what the Keystone XL would carry.

Any pipeline poses risks, but tar sands pipelines pose even more risks than conventional oil. "TransCanada's first Keystone pipeline leaked 12 times in its first 12 months," wrote Sierra Club's Michael Brune. "Because tar sands must be pumped at higher pressures and temperatures than conventional oil, it corrodes pipes faster."


Think about it. The XL will be 10 times bigger with hotter oil going faster. So your oil spill will basically sent cannon shots of oil when it bursts.
 
2013-04-05 01:30:15 AM
Checks list.
Nope, not coming anywhere near me.
Good to know.
 
2013-04-05 01:30:36 AM
#7:
Oil executive talking:

we promise to clean up all the oil and pay for the clean up and

...oh waiter, I need another bottle of your finest 80 year old booze, chop, chop....

OK just send your claims to your local government office who will then send us a bill and

...yea my favorite lawyer, can you start the paper work on why we don't have to pay for this spill cause of the retro-active law that can be backdated on the books....

thank you for being so patient over the next 8 years as we clean up this spill.

....Whoa, the agency sent me a nice one this time. Are the breasts real? Cause that makes the penis of yours that much more special kinky.....
 
2013-04-05 01:32:05 AM
Yeahhhhh; the federal government definitely has our backs on this one.

/ remain calm; all is well!
 
2013-04-05 01:32:47 AM

Bucky Katt: but we were told that pipelines are perfectly safe


www.welovetheiraqiinformationminister.com
 
2013-04-05 01:33:25 AM
Nadie_AZ:
Think about it. The XL will be 10 times bigger with hotter oil going faster. So your oil spill will basically sent cannon shots of oil when it bursts.

It's likely to have problems when the oil hits the seal
 
2013-04-05 01:35:17 AM
They can't afford to spend too much on safety and cleanup -- there has to be enough for  bribes campaign contributions.
 
2013-04-05 01:44:24 AM

albatros183: HotWingAgenda: Item 1: the fact that there even was an oil spill in Arkansas.

Seriously, I have not heard a word about this until now.  I'd like to thank subby for getting this posted; I found the article informative.  Although, it failed to address the ramifications on summer gas prices.  Also, what effect this will have on relations with Canada.

Fun fact: Canada recently pulled out of an international coalition on the issue of preserving freshwater resources.  Canada has the largest freshwater reserves of any nation in the world.

You haven't been paying attention

Also Canada has no fresh water we are sending it all down to the US to FLUSH THEIR CRAPPERS


I'm sorry, you're right.  Canada is third behind Brazil (no. 1 because of the Amazon) and Russia (no. 2).  The US is a close fourth.

And I just checked CNN, and there is f*ck-all reporting about any oil spill.  The mainstream media only reports white girl kidnappings and celebrity scandals.
 
2013-04-05 01:53:57 AM

HotWingAgenda: And I just checked CNN, and there is f*ck-all reporting about any oil spill. The mainstream media only reports white girl kidnappings and celebrity scandals.


You're not mad enough to suit me.  Go read this:

Why the Arkansas Pipeline Spill Won't Hurt Exxon Mobil's Reputation

Synopsis:  your opinion doesn't matter, hippie.
 
2013-04-05 02:03:14 AM

BarkingUnicorn: HotWingAgenda: And I just checked CNN, and there is f*ck-all reporting about any oil spill. The mainstream media only reports white girl kidnappings and celebrity scandals.

You're not mad enough to suit me.  Go read this:

Why the Arkansas Pipeline Spill Won't Hurt Exxon Mobil's Reputation

Synopsis:  your opinion doesn't matter, hippie.


That was interesting from a marketing and PR standpoint, but the issue is that Exon and other oil producers don't need marketing or PR, as that author points out.  They deal in a commodity with inelastic demand and dwindling supplies.  They could have their executives wander down the street throwing buckets of oil on peoples' pet chihuahuas, and it wouldn't have any effect on their profit margins.
 
2013-04-05 02:06:46 AM
Nadie_AZ:

Think about it. The XL will be 10 times bigger with hotter oil going faster. So your oil spill will basically sent cannon shots of oil when it bursts.

But... But... eleventy-billion jobs and all the oil will be American! Cheap gas! Or something.
 
2013-04-05 02:11:54 AM
One of the more amusing Fark threads about the XL had one of it's more staunch soundbite-throwing supporters go from "50,000 jobs" to "ok, it probably won't fark the Dakotas TOO badly."
I'm sure he got over it.
 
2013-04-05 02:12:58 AM

HotWingAgenda: BarkingUnicorn: HotWingAgenda: And I just checked CNN, and there is f*ck-all reporting about any oil spill. The mainstream media only reports white girl kidnappings and celebrity scandals.

You're not mad enough to suit me.  Go read this:

Why the Arkansas Pipeline Spill Won't Hurt Exxon Mobil's Reputation

Synopsis:  your opinion doesn't matter, hippie.

That was interesting from a marketing and PR standpoint, but the issue is that Exon and other oil producers don't need marketing or PR, as that author points out.  They deal in a commodity with inelastic demand and dwindling supplies.  They could have their executives wander down the street throwing buckets of oil on peoples' pet chihuahuas, and it wouldn't have any effect on their profit margins.


I'd buy Exxon Mobil stock to see that. :--)

Like I said, your opinion doesn't matter, hippie.
 
2013-04-05 02:15:19 AM
I want to get peoples' opinion on this: the oil spill in Arkansas has made me MORE in favor of the Keystone pipeline, simply because if we're already relying on potentially-dangerous infrastructure, we ought to rely on NEW potentially-dangerous infrastructure. I feel the same way about nuclear power plants; ie. how do people expect to rally against old plants and simultaneously prevent the construction of new plants? The industry in either case is not going to let anyone shut down their old infrastructure, while on the contrary they will fail to build new infrastructure. It's a case of wanting your cake and eating it too. As long as we rely on oil, or in the second case, nuclear for generating electricity, we're going to need pipelines and/or power plants. And that being the case, do we not want the newest, most technologically advanced, and most reliable alternatives?
 
2013-04-05 02:20:16 AM
BarkingUnicorn:

HotWingAgenda: BarkingUnicorn: HotWingAgenda: And I just checked CNN, and there is f*ck-all reporting about any oil spill. The mainstream media only reports white girl kidnappings and celebrity scandals.

You're not mad enough to suit me. Go read this:

Why the Arkansas Pipeline Spill Won't Hurt Exxon Mobil's Reputation

Synopsis: your opinion doesn't matter, hippie.

That was interesting from a marketing and PR standpoint, but the issue is that Exon and other oil producers don't need marketing or PR, as that author points out. They deal in a commodity with inelastic demand and dwindling supplies. They could have their executives wander down the street throwing buckets of oil on peoples' pet chihuahuas, and it wouldn't have any effect on their profit margins.

I'd buy Exxon Mobil stock to see that. :--)

Like I said, your opinion doesn't matter, hippie.


(waves hand) I own a chunk of Exxon/Mobil. They never put the option of "throwing buckets of oil on people's chihuahuas" on the proxy statement.
 
2013-04-05 02:21:35 AM

kazikian: I want to get peoples' opinion on this: the oil spill in Arkansas has made me MORE in favor of the Keystone pipeline, simply because if we're already relying on potentially-dangerous infrastructure, we ought to rely on NEW potentially-dangerous infrastructure. I feel the same way about nuclear power plants; ie. how do people expect to rally against old plants and simultaneously prevent the construction of new plants? The industry in either case is not going to let anyone shut down their old infrastructure, while on the contrary they will fail to build new infrastructure. It's a case of wanting your cake and eating it too. As long as we rely on oil, or in the second case, nuclear for generating electricity, we're going to need pipelines and/or power plants. And that being the case, do we not want the newest, most technologically advanced, and most reliable alternatives?


Except that you'll still be relying on that old, potentially-dangerous infrastructure, just with the addition of new, potentially-dangerous infrastructure. Which will then get old, and will assuredly be treated with all of the care and loving that the older infrastructure has received to date.
 
2013-04-05 02:29:26 AM

Albino Squid: kazikian: I want to get peoples' opinion on this: the oil spill in Arkansas has made me MORE in favor of the Keystone pipeline, simply because if we're already relying on potentially-dangerous infrastructure, we ought to rely on NEW potentially-dangerous infrastructure. I feel the same way about nuclear power plants; ie. how do people expect to rally against old plants and simultaneously prevent the construction of new plants? The industry in either case is not going to let anyone shut down their old infrastructure, while on the contrary they will fail to build new infrastructure. It's a case of wanting your cake and eating it too. As long as we rely on oil, or in the second case, nuclear for generating electricity, we're going to need pipelines and/or power plants. And that being the case, do we not want the newest, most technologically advanced, and most reliable alternatives?

Except that you'll still be relying on that old, potentially-dangerous infrastructure, just with the addition of new, potentially-dangerous infrastructure. Which will then get old, and will assuredly be treated with all of the care and loving that the older infrastructure has received to date.


Old infrastructure would have to be phased out of use as new infrastructure is installed. Presumably there are laws that can be put in place enforcing this. I truly believe we will see a future where oil is phased out entirely (and nuclear in the current form, likely as well), not least of all because we'll have to do so eventually. But in the meantime, shouldn't we continue to support the infrastructure we're relying on?
 
2013-04-05 02:30:31 AM
kazikian:

I want to get peoples' opinion on this: the oil spill in Arkansas has made me MORE in favor of the Keystone pipeline, simply because if we're already relying on potentially-dangerous infrastructure, we ought to rely on NEW potentially-dangerous infrastructure. I feel the same way about nuclear power plants; ie. how do people expect to rally against old plants and simultaneously prevent the construction of new plants? The industry in either case is not going to let anyone shut down their old infrastructure, while on the contrary they will fail to build new infrastructure. It's a case of wanting your cake and eating it too. As long as we rely on oil, or in the second case, nuclear for generating electricity, we're going to need pipelines and/or power plants. And that being the case, do we not want the newest, most technologically advanced, and most reliable alternatives?

First question you should ask is who's benefiting from the pipeline? If the US is just some terrain to be crossed on the way to China, then maybe your question of infrastructure is pretty far down the list.
We aren't relying on this pipeline. We're not benefiting from this pipeline. This pipeline is for Canada to export to everyone else. Understand that first.

Sure, a newer pipeline might be better. There are pipelines from Canada to US refineries in Montana, the Dakotas etcetera that could be upgraded. There's a reason this one is going all the way to a major blue-water port, and that has nothing to do with the US.
 
2013-04-05 02:32:39 AM
Also... How hard can it be to build a pipeline that doesn't leak? Or rather, one that contains its leaks? Of course the sort of countermeasures I can envision (like double-wall pipes) cost money.
 
2013-04-05 02:40:46 AM

kazikian: Also... How hard can it be to build a pipeline that doesn't leak? Or rather, one that contains its leaks? Of course the sort of countermeasures I can envision (like double-wall pipes) cost money.


You should talk to the guys at Kramerica Industries. They're working on a bladder system.
 
2013-04-05 02:45:28 AM
4. No Media Access

They're even letting Exxon control the airspace above the spill so it can't be photographed from the air.

Exxon's Unfriendly Skies: Why Does Exxon Control the No-Fly Zone Over Arkansas Tar Sands Spill?

Nothing to see here, citizen, move along...
 
2013-04-05 02:56:37 AM
The only reason this is even an issue is that an industry that figures $10,000,000 is pocket change made it so.
 
2013-04-05 03:04:00 AM

fusillade762: 4. No Media Access

They're even letting Exxon control the airspace above the spill so it can't be photographed from the air.

Exxon's Unfriendly Skies: Why Does Exxon Control the No-Fly Zone Over Arkansas Tar Sands Spill?

Nothing to see here, citizen, move along...


The no-fly zone extends up to 1000 feet.  Can't have choppers buzzing workers on the ground.  Cameras can photograph anything newsworthy from 1000 feet.
 
2013-04-05 03:07:19 AM

fusillade762: 4. No Media Access

They're even letting Exxon control the airspace above the spill so it can't be photographed from the air.

Exxon's Unfriendly Skies: Why Does Exxon Control the No-Fly Zone Over Arkansas Tar Sands Spill?

Nothing to see here, citizen, move along...


I was about to ask how that's even possible, but then I realized the media has to weigh the cost of possible legal action (even if it's totally baseless) against the page hits such a story would generate.  Oh and bribes.
 
2013-04-05 03:16:13 AM
Yeah, I don't want Canada's pipeline cruising over our bread basket so they can put their oil for sale on the open market. Neither does salon, apparently.

Build it over your own damn precious land, Canada.
 
2013-04-05 03:23:49 AM
violentsalvation:

Yeah, I don't want Canada's pipeline cruising over our bread basket so they can put their oil for sale on the open market. Neither does salon, apparently.

Build it over your own damn precious land, Canada.



Ahh, but now you see the magic of it. THEY DIDN'T WANT IT ON THEIR LAND EITHER!
 
2013-04-05 03:28:34 AM
I live within 8 miles of the oil spill. I have posted several articles since it began but typically fark tends to post second hand accounts. There has been a large public backlash against Exxon for not letting people rescue tar covered animals. Private land owners gave several groups permission to rescue said animals and Exxon confronted the animal rescuers. The confrontation has reached the point that people are arming themselves to look for animals in the surrounding areas because Exxon refuses to let people on private land. Also the no fly zone was enacted the day after someone flew over and took video of the damage. I posted that to but apparently first hand accounts aren't good enough for fark.  encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com
 
2013-04-05 03:29:59 AM
NOTAM

Sure enough, the airspace is closed below 1000 feet AGL.
 
2013-04-05 03:38:06 AM

fusillade762: 4. No Media Access

They're even letting Exxon control the airspace above the spill so it can't be photographed from the air.

Exxon's Unfriendly Skies: Why Does Exxon Control the No-Fly Zone Over Arkansas Tar Sands Spill?

Nothing to see here, citizen, move along...


Gee, why does that sound so familiar? Oh, yea...

dl.dropbox.com
 
2013-04-05 03:54:15 AM
#7) It gives enviroweenies a boner
 
2013-04-05 03:56:46 AM
Get rid of Monsanto, then I'll care more about oil spills in Arkansas, Utah, or wherever.
 
2013-04-05 03:58:36 AM
Once again this has nothing to do with Keystone. Keystone is safe and effective. Keystone will bring oil to refineries so that gas prices will go down. It is un-american to report that the refined products will be shipped from the gulf coast to China and India. Everyone knows that all crude refined in the United States is for domestic use only. Exxon is as American as Shell or BP. Exxon supports the troops. Exxon provides millions of jobs right here in your neighborhood. The only people who oppose the Keystone pipeline are crazy enviro-terrorists and Al  Quidia.

God Bless America
Exxon
 
2013-04-05 04:14:57 AM

The thing that I find so funny is that if we stop using pipelines we will only shift transportation to trains. Which we are already doing. So yeah shut down a pipeline and you only shutdown a pipeline not the oil.

Link
 
2013-04-05 05:28:43 AM
So is the CEO of Exxon being hauled into to White House and forced at almost gunpoint to sign a cheque for billions?

No? Why is that?

Oh wait Exxon has spent far more money on  bribes campaign contributions than BP did.

Carry on, nothing to see here.
 
2013-04-05 06:26:20 AM
7. No one will be prosecuted and no corporation will be held financially liable.
 
Displayed 50 of 124 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report