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  
•       •       •

13283 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
 
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.
 
2013-04-05 06:56:45 AM
What oil spill?

Move on, Citizen.
 
2013-04-05 07:03:42 AM

sleeps in trees: 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.


The solution is getting these companies to be responsible.  That isn't going to happen until their BS has soem light shed on it, and shedding light on their BS isn't vilification.


Palin2012: 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 image 300x168]


If you have any links I would be interested in seeing them.
 
2013-04-05 07:07:28 AM

HotWingAgenda: 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.


Maddow covered it two days ago.
 
2013-04-05 07:30:09 AM

Palin2012: 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 image 300x168]


I'd also be interested in any links.
 
2013-04-05 07:55:55 AM
Would someone please prosecute, find guilty, and hang some of these Exxon Execs already?
 
2013-04-05 08:07:32 AM
That cost at the pump? Isn't going to change because this oil, like the Keystone oil, is all destined to be refined and exported. Mostly to China. Gas prices are only going to get worse.
 
2013-04-05 08:09:00 AM

vudukungfu: Would someone please prosecute, find guilty, and hang some of these Exxon Execs already?


You could start a Kickstarter campaign to fund private prosecution in a jurisdiction that'll allow it...
 
2013-04-05 08:13:18 AM
The sooner you folks get it into your heads that the people you put in office are
owned
by these massive companies
the sooner you can start helping to fix the problem instead of helping to cause it

-doesn't fit the definition of oil-
so awesome
 
2013-04-05 08:26:16 AM
All you need is money honey, and you can do whatever you like.
 
2013-04-05 08:35:35 AM
All this "information", and still not a single media outlet will report that the Keystone XL pipeline is for exporting oil out of the country.

Must just be an oversight.
 
2013-04-05 08:37:31 AM

HotWingAgenda: Seriously, I have not heard a word about this until now


You need to watch more RT News. They've made it their top story ever since it happened.

I got some perspective from a less biased source though. Pipeline spills are much less likely to happen than rail accidents and we're not going to be free of oil anytime soon.
 
2013-04-05 08:38:44 AM

Tellingthem: 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


Relax.  The Canadian tar sands pipeline head is at 50% capacity, and is projected to remain there for some time.
 
2013-04-05 08:44:23 AM

Palin2012: 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 image 300x168]


And I see the Arkansas Gazette is completely sealed by a paywall.
 
2013-04-05 08:52:05 AM

maxheck: 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!


Except, of course, that you're completely wrong.
http://www.ctvnews.ca/business/west-east-pipeline-key-to-open-new-ma rk ets-for-canadian-oil-oliver-1.1220400

"The federal government restated its support for TransCanada Corp. Tuesday, after the Calgary-based energy company said it is inviting companies to make 'firm commitments' to ship oil across the country in a proposed pipeline from Western Canada all the way to Saint John, New Brunswick."
 
2013-04-05 09:00:22 AM
If we could get them to actually use the pipes the way they are designed, we wouldn't have these problems.
The pipe was built in the 1940's to handle 30,000 less barrels a day of a different type of "oil".  The fact that this pipe worked this long being abused like this is actually impressive.  Keystone would be a good thing, IF they can keep the company from trying to overload it without maintaining it because it is "too expensive".
 
2013-04-05 09:20:18 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.


Not sure what your point is, but the first reference (in the quote) is to an area and the second, by TFA's author, seems to refer to the common/popular name for the product of that area.

"no reason it can't be both"
 
2013-04-05 09:21:06 AM

Scuttlebutt: Keystone would be a good thing, IF they can keep the company from trying to overload it without maintaining it because it is "too expensive".


Yeah, and having a pet chimp would be awesome, IF you can keep it from ripping your face off.
 
2013-04-05 09:39:44 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.


Pretty eff-ing hard actually, but probably not the issue.

I haven't heard the cause of this, but i will bet the spill occurred at a pumping station or something similar. It is very rare for a pipe to just break.
 
2013-04-05 09:41:07 AM

maxheck: 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.



Thirty-five permanent full-time jobs, and the oil will be refined and sent to China.
 
2013-04-05 09:45:49 AM
Visual reference:

response.restoration.noaa.gov
 
2013-04-05 10:00:47 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.


I suppose there are better materials you can use to prevent corrosion to a greater degree, but with the bitumen stuff there is still some sediment in those pipes so you even will have abrasive wearing down of the pipes and junctions/bends in the lines, to go along with the chemical corrosion.  But to upgrade the alloy of metal or metal thickness on an 850 mile line is ridiculously expensive, even if you're a company that makes $40 bln/yr profit.

There are also technologies out there for better monitoring of the pipeline to try to predict areas that may be prone to leaking and detect a leak ASAP to allow for optimal response.  Most systems have pressure monitors throughout the line, so if you get a leak then you will see pressure dropping, but you still need a lot of these instruments to give you the resolution needed to pinpoint where exactly the leak is taking place.  I've also read that they have probes which get sent through the lines and collect data that can be used to determine pipe thickness etc.  So bottom line there are technological solutions out there to be developed that can help to prevent leaks like this or at lease minimize the enviromental and human health impacts if a leak does indeed occur.

From a risk standpoint, you can't mitigate the risk of a pipeline leaking/rupturing to absolute zero.  Given a long enough timeline, even a technologically advanced pipe might break.  Technological advancements allow us to make the risk smaller and smaller, but its always going to be non-zero.  And to some degree thats where I part ways with the liberal/environmental crusaders who go apeshiat whenever something like this happens.  They seem to have this absolute zero risk tolerance mindset, and with such a mind set the only answer is just to not build the pipeline at all, as thats the only way to have 0.0000000000 risk of anything bad happening.  Sorry guys, I get where you're coming from, but this is just not reality.  Look it sucks that we have this deeply entrenched infrastructure in place that revolves around fossil fuels, but you can't just change that over night.  Its going to have to be a gradual, well planned process, lest there be grave socioeconomic consequences.  Big oil isnt going anywhere for at least 50 years, so antagonizing the industry and driving them away might not be the best diplomatic strategy, man.
 
2013-04-05 10:12:04 AM

PunGent: Palin2012: 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 image 300x168]

I'd also be interested in any links.


http://www.fark.com/comments/7682725/Nothing-to-see-here-Move-along- FA A-puts-no-fly-zone-over-Arkansas-oil-spill
 
2013-04-05 10:15:12 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.


It's been all over my FB feed, but that's because I am friends with fascist commie socialist Nazi terrorists who hate America.
 
2013-04-05 10:31:16 AM

kazikian: Albino Squid:
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?


It's entirely possible that laws could, in some alternate universe, be put in place to enforce the safety of the pipeline.  The probability of such laws being passed, however, is pretty close to 0.  "Jerb killin' regulashuns" and all that.  Never mind the spill, nothing to see here, move along... Not only that, but enforcement of these laws would be laughable, given the army of lawyers and lobbyists the industry could throw at the "problem".
So these impossible-to-pass laws would have no teeth and be essentially unenforceable.
 
2013-04-05 10:38:31 AM
If we're talking infrastructure, why not beef  the natural gas infrastructure so we can stop flaring the stuff off  in North Dakota.

We could run vehicles off NG and skip the filthy process of refining bitumen entirely
 
2013-04-05 10:43:55 AM

sleeps in trees: 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.


Nuking Ft. McMurray would be a good start. Couple of these should do the trick.

www.wired.com
 
2013-04-05 10:50:10 AM

chocolate covered poop: Look it sucks that we have this deeply entrenched infrastructure in place that revolves around fossil fuels, but you can't just change that over night.


I'm getting a kick out of most of the technical misinformation replies but I can't be arsed... it doesnt really matter, chocolate covered poop's sentence above is really the root of the situation.  Shiat will happen when oil gets transported.

Oil pipelines are like air travel, the safest form of travel there is statistically.  But when things go wrong it's a "disaster".  How many billions of barrels get transported daily/monthy/yearly, and then we throw a hissy fit when we lose 84,000 gallons?  In a relatively easy to contain land area?  Technologically speaking land and even water cleanups are easy, it's just time and money.

Lots of oil transportation companies are now looking at rail for transportation needs because pipelines get such a bad rap permitting / red tape wise.  I have no specific citation for that but it's out there and already being done, has been forever just need more trains.  KXL could be served by 12 trains a day which isnt really that many when you think about it.  It's the loading / offloading facilities that doesnt make it as economically attractive as a pipeline otherwise everyone would do it this way, but that may be changing.  There's nothing a rail company needs to apply for to run more trains on their own line other than add a siding here or there to acommodate more traffic.  Would you rather your oil being driven through high population centers at 90km/r or around bends in pristine environments at similar speeds?  A derailment and losing just 3 normal oil cars is about the same volume we're talking about here.  And those happen way more often than a pipeline leak. Pipelines are the lesser of the two evils for sure.

These situations won't stop till oil stops getting transported.  Efforts should be focussing on removing dependance on hydrocarbons rather than battling specifics like pipelines or oil transportation in general.  People lose their shiat with a spill but forget that most of anything that spills would have ended up in the atmosphere anyway.
 
2013-04-05 10:57:23 AM
But the industry can regulate themselves!

What, they dont have any regulations? just engineering specs?

Well surely they would never let economic factors outweigh their best practices, like changing from thinner to thicker grades, or increasing pressure or reversing flow?

What, they really are that greedy?

But the industry can regulate themselves!

Here is the thing. Keystone will bring in about 80,000 jobs for about 3 years, and give a much needed boost to the economy. BUT, it will be up to the US Government to provide Security and Protect the Environment in perpetuity after that. We would be privatizing the profits and socializing the risks.

I will explain it so that ever a Republican can understand.

In the short run makes $BiG BuCKS$,  in the long run costs $$$ BIG BUCKS $$$.
 
2013-04-05 11:00:03 AM

albatros183: 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


That would be because the term tar sands is completely inaccurate and much beloved by enviro douches because it sounds bad. Honestly, where do these idiots think oil comes from? The Albertan oil sands is the worlds largest oil spill clean up. We are taking oil and sand  from the ground, removing the oil, and putting the clean sand back. All the hippies' fear mongering is mostly lies and mistruths.

/Albertan pressure welder and proud if it, like the stuff that makes your car go? I help bring it to you.
 
2013-04-05 11:06:43 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.


I am in complete agreement. You Americans have been farking  us over on oil prices for decades. I wish we could shut off the taps at the border, build all our own refineries and then pipe the finished product to the west coast for Asian markets. Fark you, you ingrate Americans, keep buying your oil from the sauds with their wonderful human rights track record.
 
2013-04-05 11:12:22 AM

Marcus Aurelius: All this "information", and still not a single media outlet will report that the Keystone XL pipeline is for exporting oil out of the country.

Must just be an oversight.


What I don't understand: is there some explicit contract that states that the oil moved via keystone cannot be bought in the US?  The pipeline is taking the oil to the US's refning hub, is there some limitation that says that the owners there can't make a bid to buy some of the oil flowing in their backyward?  Or is the assumption just that China will be the highest bidder by default?  I mean, yes, some of it will inevitably get exported, but does that mean that it ALL has to get sold to non-US entities?
 
2013-04-05 11:36:12 AM

FoxholeAtheist: Ahh, but now you see the magic of it. THEY DIDN'T WANT IT ON THEIR LAND EITHER!

Except, of course, that you're completely wrong.
http://www.ctvnews.ca/business/west-east-pipeline-key-to-open-new-ma rk ets-for-canadian-oil-oliver-1.1220400


Another thing which some people are missing is that despite all of the socialism up here, it isn't "Canada" building these pipelines. It's corporations, and there are multiple competing interests. One company wants to build Keystone XL. Another, Enbridge, wants a new pipeline to the northern coast of BC. Yet another, Kinder Morgan, already has a pipeline to the south coast (Burnaby/Vancouver, extending down to Washington state) which they plan to expand.
 
2013-04-05 11:58:00 AM
A few things arkansas rednecks need to know.
1) The oil cant be scooped up and put into you truck/car/mower
2) Birds/Fish in oil cant just be fried up and eaten
 
2013-04-05 12:00:46 PM

Marcus Aurelius: All this "information", and still not a single media outlet will report that the Keystone XL pipeline is for exporting oil out of the country.

Must just be an oversight.


And I'm curious - where are you getting your "information" that KXL is designed to export oil out of the U.S.?
 
2013-04-05 12:06:00 PM

Heraclitus: But the industry can regulate themselves!

What, they dont have any regulations? just engineering specs?


You're kidding, right?
 
2013-04-05 12:26:57 PM

cashdaddy: Marcus Aurelius: All this "information", and still not a single media outlet will report that the Keystone XL pipeline is for exporting oil out of the country.

Must just be an oversight.

And I'm curious - where are you getting your "information" that KXL is designed to export oil out of the U.S.?


Because it terminates in Port Arthur, LA.  Why would you run your pipeline to the ocean if it wasn't designed to export oil?

Today's Canadian tar sands are refined and consumed in the US, which makes them subject to Federal taxes.  By exporting the oil, the oil companies avoid the taxes.

It really is that simple.
 
2013-04-05 12:38:25 PM

cashdaddy: Heraclitus: But the industry can regulate themselves!

What, they dont have any regulations? just engineering specs?

You're kidding, right?


So was changing from thinner to thicker grades, or increasing pressure or reversing flow prevented by ANY of these Regulations?
 
2013-04-05 12:41:16 PM

Marcus Aurelius: Because it terminates in Port Arthur, LA.  Why would you run your pipeline to the ocean if it wasn't designed to export oil?

Today's Canadian tar sands are refined and consumed in the US, which makes them subject to Federal taxes.  By exporting the oil, the oil companies avoid the taxes.

It really is that simple.


Port Arthur is in Texas, not Louisiana (it's close, though).

And while there could be some oil exported from Alberta that travels down Keystone (or other pipelines), there are a ridiculous number of refineries in the gulf coast that those pipelines would supply in Houston/Nederland that would likely buy the oil off that line.

Shippers are moving their product down line to the highest bidder in the market; saying that they're sending this oil down to the gulf for export to avoid taxes makes no sense....
 
2013-04-05 12:47:23 PM

Heraclitus: So was changing from thinner to thicker grades, or increasing pressure or reversing flow prevented by ANY of these Regulations?


Are you (or anyone else) saying that these are problems or issues that need regulating?
 
2013-04-05 12:50:06 PM
#7 Thing You Should Know

Timing. How convenient during Keystone dustup.
 
2013-04-05 01:08:33 PM

cashdaddy: Heraclitus: So was changing from thinner to thicker grades, or increasing pressure or reversing flow prevented by ANY of these Regulations?

Are you (or anyone else) saying that these are problems or issues that need regulating?


FTFA:
2. Not Your Average Pipeline
The Pegasus pipeline running more than 850 miles between Patoka, Illinois and Nederland, Texas, is 20 inches in diameter and was built in the 1940s to carry crude from Texas to Illinois. But in 2006 the flow was reversed in order to carry Canadian tar sands to Texas. As Ben Jervey
The pipeline was built to carry 65,000 barrels a day, but Exxon was allowed to expand that to 95,000 barrels a day just a few years ago.
All of these facts bring up some basic questions. What effect does a higher capacity have on the pipeline? What effect does reversing the flow have on the pipeline? And what effect does switching from conventional crude to dilbit have on the pipeline, considering it was built to have a much thinner crude flowing through it?

Please read the article that everyone else is commenting on.
 
2013-04-05 01:22:17 PM

Ohlookabutterfly: 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.

I am in complete agreement. You Americans have been farking  us over on oil prices for decades. I wish we could shut off the taps at the border, build all our own refineries and then pipe the finished product to the west coast for Asian markets. Fark you, you ingrate Americans, keep buying your oil from the sauds with their wonderful human rights track record.


2.bp.blogspot.com
 
2013-04-05 01:22:18 PM

Heraclitus: Please read the article that everyone else is commenting on.


Thanks, I already read the article....

He's asking questions about the effects of reversing flow and switching grades....fine, ask away. But I go back to my original question - are these actual problems or issues that need regulating?
 
2013-04-05 02:26:04 PM

cashdaddy: are these actual problems or issues that need regulating?


Are you seriously asking if switching an old pipeline to carry much more corrosive materials at much higher pressures could somehow lead to blowouts?

I think we already have the answer to that.
 
2013-04-05 02:29:50 PM

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

[www.welovetheiraqiinformationminister.com image 300x225]


The thing about that meme is that he was right, most of the time. There were no WMD's.
 
2013-04-05 02:31:00 PM

Palin2012: 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 image 300x168]


What do you think this is? reddit?
 
2013-04-05 03:21:16 PM
Since Exxon is probably the most awful corporation in the world I would like to propose we take this opportunity to line all their corporate executives up in front of a wall and shoot them until they are dead and then shoot them again to be sure. And, probably an even worse punishment for them, take away all their tax breaks.
 
2013-04-05 03:41:57 PM

skantea: 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...


img.dailymail.co.uk

Please to not make comments disparaging to Japanese peoples.
 
2013-04-05 03:42:53 PM
Did anyone find the server down at Salon besides me?
 
2013-04-05 04:08:39 PM

BullBearMS: Are you seriously asking if switching an old pipeline to carry much more corrosive materials at much higher pressures could somehow lead to blowouts?

I think we already have the answer to that.


Are you saying that that's what caused this incident? Or are you just guessing, too?\

(And 'much higher pressures' ? Where are you getting that?)
 
2013-04-05 04:39:28 PM

cashdaddy: BullBearMS: Are you seriously asking if switching an old pipeline to carry much more corrosive materials at much higher pressures could somehow lead to blowouts?

I think we already have the answer to that.

Are you saying that that's what caused this incident? Or are you just guessing, too?\

(And 'much higher pressures' ? Where are you getting that?)


dl.dropbox.com

This just in... Pushing corrosive tar sands sludge through outdated lines never designed for it in the first place requires higher pressures and temperatures than pushing light crude.
 
2013-04-05 05:32:41 PM

BullBearMS: This just in... Pushing corrosive tar sands sludge through outdated lines never designed for it in the first place requires higher pressures and temperatures than pushing light crude.


So, in this incident - what pressure/temperature was the pipeline designed to operate at before, and what pressure/temperature is it operating at now with heavier Canadian crude oil?

And you mentioned "corrosive" - are you sure that the stuff being pumped through this line at the time of the incident is actually corrosive?
 
2013-04-05 05:48:58 PM
Scientific American seems pretty sure:

The chemistry of the tar sands oil could contribute to corrosion as well. In processing, the tar sands are boiled to separate the bitumen from the surrounding sand and water, and then mixed with diluent-light hydrocarbons produced along with natural gas-to make the oil less viscous and able to flow. But even so, the resulting dilbit is among the lowest in hydrogen as well as the most viscous, sulfurous and acidic form of oil produced today.

We're talking about pretty basic physics and pretty basic chemistry here. Highly Viscous tar sands sludge requires higher pressures (and therefore temperatures) than normal crude.

Now, guess how many regulatory hurtles they faced for jacking up the pressure the line ran under so they could pump tar sands sludge instead of oil?
 
2013-04-05 06:07:28 PM

BullBearMS: Now, guess how many regulatory hurtles they faced for jacking up the pressure the line ran under so they could pump tar sands sludge instead of oil?


I don't know, Mr. Pipeline Expert, why don't you tell me?

And you keep saying "jacking up the pressure" - how much more? And are you sure that the pipeline wasn't designed to handle that?

(You know there are other high-acid crude oils out there besides oil sands crude, right? And lots of them come in to refineries in the U.S. from overseas.)

assets.sbnation.com
 
2013-04-05 06:12:56 PM

BullBearMS: Scientific American seems pretty sure


And by the way....I can cherry-pick data out of an article, too:

FTFA:  A study from the Alberta government however, casts doubt on the notion that dilbit is worse for pipelines than any other oil is. It found that dilbit is not corrosive at pipeline temperatures of as much as 65 degrees Celsius, although it is highly corrosive at refinery temperatures above 100 degrees C. Nor is the fine sand that remains in some of the dilbit eroding pipelines, though it does form sludges that must be cleaned. The higher temperature operation may even kill off the bacteria that help to corrode pipelines carrying other types of oil. "There is no evidence that dilbit causes more failure than conventional oil," geologist John Zhou of the provincial government research firm Alberta Innovates said during an interview in November on a trip to the tar sands; Zhou helped prepare the Canadian province's analysis of dilbit. The U.S. National Academies is currently studying the issue.
 
2013-04-05 06:14:06 PM

cashdaddy: You know there are other high-acid crude oils out there besides oil sands crude, right?


Scientific American: "dilbit is among the lowest in hydrogen as well as the most viscous, sulfurous and acidic form of oil produced today."
 
2013-04-05 06:19:29 PM
Let's go ahead and answer that whole regulation question. How much of a regulatory hurtle did Exxon face when they decided to take a pipeline built in the 1940's and jack up the pressure to push through toxic, corrosive tar sands sludge?

Zero.

seven years ago, when Exxon, the pipeline's operator, turned it into a higher-volume line for diluted bitumen from Canada flowing under greater pressure to refineries on the Gulf Coast, federal rules did not require a new permit application or safety reviews, according to federal officials.
 
2013-04-05 06:21:58 PM

BullBearMS: Scientific American: "dilbit is among the lowest in hydrogen as well as the most viscous, sulfurous and acidic form of oil produced today."


Scientific American: "A study from the Alberta government however, casts doubt on the notion that dilbit is worse for pipelines than any other oil is. It found that dilbit is not corrosive at pipeline temperatures of as much as 65 degrees Celsius"

Scientific American: "There is no evidence that dilbit causes more failure than conventional oil"
 
2013-04-05 06:28:27 PM

BullBearMS: Let's go ahead and answer that whole regulation question. How much of a regulatory hurtle did Exxon face when they decided to take a pipeline built in the 1940's and jack up the pressure to push through toxic, corrosive tar sands sludge?

Zero.


Ok.....and I'll ask again - was there a need for a regulatory hurdle for them to do that? If so, based on what? Lots of assumptions people (and lobby groups) are making in a Salon or Scientific American article?
 
2013-04-05 06:31:39 PM
dl.dropbox.com

Odd that they were immediately ordered not to go above 80% of the previous pressure levels that they were operating at, if pumping corrosive tar sands sludge at high temperature and pressure couldn't possibly have been a problem.
 
2013-04-05 06:34:45 PM

cashdaddy: was there a need for a regulatory hurdle


Is there a need for people to not have toxic waste rolling through the backyard where their children play?
 
2013-04-05 06:47:52 PM

BullBearMS: Odd that they were immediately ordered not to go above 80% of the previous pressure levels that they were operating at, if pumping corrosive tar sands sludge at high temperature and pressure couldn't possibly have been a problem.


Are you suggesting that they are being ordered to run at 80% pressure due to fact that they were pumping heavy Canadian crude oil through the pipeline?  Or is there some other reason that you know of for the 80% pressure limit?
 
2013-04-05 06:59:19 PM
BullBearMS:Now, guess how many regulatory hurtles they faced for jacking up the pressure the line ran under so they could pump tar sands sludge instead of oil?

I'll take Jack-Sh*t for $1,000, Alex.
 
2013-04-05 07:03:05 PM

cashdaddy: BullBearMS: Odd that they were immediately ordered not to go above 80% of the previous pressure levels that they were operating at, if pumping corrosive tar sands sludge at high temperature and pressure couldn't possibly have been a problem.

Are you suggesting that they are being ordered to run at 80% pressure due to fact that they were pumping heavy Canadian crude oil through the pipeline?  Or is there some other reason that you know of for the 80% pressure limit?


What with being a pretty obvious industry shill, how is it that you don't know about that ruling?
 
2013-04-05 07:04:27 PM

Speaker2Animals: BullBearMS:Now, guess how many regulatory hurtles they faced for jacking up the pressure the line ran under so they could pump tar sands sludge instead of oil?

I'll take Jack-Sh*t for $1,000, Alex.


Tell him what he's won!

An oil soaked white tailed deer!

/Ooooh
 
2013-04-05 07:25:19 PM

BullBearMS: cashdaddy: BullBearMS: Odd that they were immediately ordered not to go above 80% of the previous pressure levels that they were operating at, if pumping corrosive tar sands sludge at high temperature and pressure couldn't possibly have been a problem.

Are you suggesting that they are being ordered to run at 80% pressure due to fact that they were pumping heavy Canadian crude oil through the pipeline?  Or is there some other reason that you know of for the 80% pressure limit?

What with being a pretty obvious industry shill, how is it that you don't know about that ruling?


Do you know what the ruling says?
 
2013-04-05 07:45:57 PM

cashdaddy: Do you know what the ruling says?


Oooh... Let me guess.

You would like us all to think that high pressure, high temperature tar sands pipelines shouldn't face more stringent regulations than pipelines carrying regular crude, despite the fact that they rupture much more frequently?
 
2013-04-05 09:06:20 PM
BullBearMS: You would like us all to think that high pressure, high temperature tar sands pipelines shouldn't face more stringent regulations than pipelines carrying regular crude, despite the fact that they rupture much more frequently?

Never said that (and no, I'm not some 'industry shill'). If it's proven with engineering or data that pipes carrying oil sands crude cause the lines to be more susceptible to rupturing, then sure - increase the regulations to prevent it from happening.

But you seem to know a lot about this case and this business. When you say "....despite the fact that they rupture more frequently"- one more time, pal: show us where that's the case (especially in this incident).
 
2013-04-05 09:54:58 PM
Oh come on!

How many of you really care about Arkansas?

It's a red state, and you all know it.
 
2013-04-05 09:55:04 PM

chocolate covered poop: 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.

I suppose there are better materials you can use to prevent corrosion to a greater degree, but with the bitumen stuff there is still some sediment in those pipes so you even will have abrasive wearing down of the pipes and junctions/bends in the lines, to go along with the chemical corrosion.  But to upgrade the alloy of metal or metal thickness on an 850 mile line is ridiculously expensive, even if you're a company that makes $40 bln/yr profit.

There are also technologies out there for better monitoring of the pipeline to try to predict areas that may be prone to leaking and detect a leak ASAP to allow for optimal response.  Most systems have pressure monitors throughout the line, so if you get a leak then you will see pressure dropping, but you still need a lot of these instruments to give you the resolution needed to pinpoint where exactly the leak is taking place.  I've also read that they have probes which get sent through the lines and collect data that can be used to determine pipe thickness etc.  So bottom line there are technological solutions out there to be developed that can help to prevent leaks like this or at lease minimize the enviromental and human health impacts if a leak does indeed occur.

From a risk standpoint, you can't mitigate the risk of a pipeline leaking/rupturing to absolute zero.  Given a long enough timeline, even a technologically advanced pipe might break.  Technological advancements allow us to make the risk smaller and smaller, but its always going to be non-zero.  And to some degree thats where I part ways with the liberal/environmental crusaders who go apeshiat whenever something like this happens.  They seem to have this absolute zero risk tolerance mindset, and with such a mind set the only answer is just to not build the pipeline at all, as thats the only way to have 0.0000000000 risk of anything bad happening.  Sorry guys, I get where you're coming from, but this is just not reality.  Look it sucks that we have this deeply entrenched infrastructure in place that revolves around fossil fuels, but you can't just change that over night.  Its going to have to be a gradual, well planned process, lest there be grave socioeconomic consequences.  Big oil isnt going anywhere for at least 50 years, so antagonizing the industry and driving them away might not be the best diplomatic strategy, man.


Well put. Insert my agreement here.
 
2013-04-05 09:55:05 PM
 
2013-04-05 10:24:34 PM

BullBearMS: First it was a Michigan river. Then a Chicago suburb. Next was a small stream near an Alberta rancher's house, followed by a northern Alberta forest.

Now an oil spill at a North Dakota pipeline pumping station is the latest in a string of incidents over the past year that is heightening public worries about the safety of North America's vast network of oil pipelines. The series of accidents in the different areas has sent oil gushing from cracked pipes or faulty equipment, oozing into waterways and forested land........

The original Keystone tar sands pipeline leaked 14 times in the first year, alone.  Now we have yet another leak.


Not to split hairs, but a leak and a rupture are two different things, especially if you're talking about a leak from a fitting or valve. A rupture indicates a serious pipe structural integrity issue; a leak from a fitting tends to be a bad seal or external corrosion.

In the article you linked, though, not one of the events listed appears to have been caused by "moving corrosive oil sands crude at higher pressures".
 
2013-04-05 10:41:45 PM

cashdaddy: n the article you linked, though, not one of the events listed appears to have been caused by "moving corrosive oil sands crude at higher pressures".


They all just happened to occur on a high pressure, high temperature, tar sands sludge pipelines?
 
2013-04-05 11:39:51 PM

BullBearMS: They all just happened to occur on a high pressure, high temperature, tar sands sludge pipelines?


Are they all identically-built pipelines running at the same temperature or pressure, pumping the same type of oil?
 
Displayed 124 of 124 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report