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 24
    More: Interesting, Keystone Pipeline, Arkansas, Enbridge, Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, Pegasus, bodies of water, tax-exempt, anchors  
•       •       •

13284 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»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Archived thread
2013-04-05 01:16:15 AM
6 votes:
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 03:28:34 AM
3 votes:
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 01:20:04 AM
3 votes:
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 03:38:06 AM
2 votes:

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 01:32:47 AM
2 votes:

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


www.welovetheiraqiinformationminister.com
2013-04-05 01:21:47 AM
2 votes:
but we were told that pipelines are perfectly safe
2013-04-05 01:15:52 AM
2 votes:
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 01:15:37 AM
2 votes:
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 09:45:49 AM
1 votes:
Visual reference:

response.restoration.noaa.gov
2013-04-05 06:56:45 AM
1 votes:
What oil spill?

Move on, Citizen.
2013-04-05 06:26:20 AM
1 votes:
7. No one will be prosecuted and no corporation will be held financially liable.
2013-04-05 05:28:43 AM
1 votes:
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 03:58:36 AM
1 votes:
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 03:04:00 AM
1 votes:

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 02:45:28 AM
1 votes:
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 02:30:31 AM
1 votes:
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 02:21:35 AM
1 votes:

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 02:15:19 AM
1 votes:
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 02:03:14 AM
1 votes:

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 01:53:57 AM
1 votes:

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 01:35:17 AM
1 votes:
They can't afford to spend too much on safety and cleanup -- there has to be enough for  bribes campaign contributions.
2013-04-05 01:24:22 AM
1 votes:
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 01:24:02 AM
1 votes:

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 01:23:37 AM
1 votes:
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?
 
Displayed 24 of 24 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report