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.

(Huffington Post)   OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOklahoma, where the pipelines spontaneously burst into flaaaaaaaames   (huffingtonpost.com) divider line 33
    More: Scary, Spark Large, OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOklahoma, Oklahoma, emergency evacuation, explosions  
•       •       •

3973 clicks; posted to Main » on 09 Oct 2013 at 9:39 AM (46 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



33 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2013-10-09 09:21:39 AM
Nice one, subs. Was in that play in HS and now I can't get the freaking song out of my head again.
 
2013-10-09 09:24:34 AM
A Petrogovernment Spokesperson declared it an "isolated incident" and a "Safe source of clean energy"
 
2013-10-09 09:28:47 AM
This proves regulation doesn't work.  If there were no regulation, the industry would have regulated itself and this incident never would have occurred.


/Detectors on please.
 
2013-10-09 09:40:37 AM
Nice headline. +1
 
2013-10-09 09:43:32 AM

OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOklahoma, where the pipelines spontaneously burst into flaaaaaaaames


What are a few extra syllables among friends? :-|

"OOOOOOKlahoma, where the pipeline's bursting into flaaaaames!"
 
2013-10-09 09:45:20 AM
Obviously, what we need is a keystone XL pipeline.  Lets toss it in the debt limit bill...
 
2013-10-09 09:45:28 AM
Amateurs,

They needed a lumber yard and a fertilizer plant nearby, then they would've earned a news flash tag,.
 
2013-10-09 09:47:34 AM
4.bp.blogspot.com
 
2013-10-09 09:47:37 AM
Where the pipes are bursting into flames
-or
Where the pipelines burst into hot flames
-or
Where the plains are busting into flames
-or anything with nine syllables that rhymes.  If you don't get the meter right it kinda sucks.
 
2013-10-09 09:47:38 AM

JammerJim: Nice headline. +1


Yup.
 
2013-10-09 09:49:00 AM

Mister Buttons: Amateurs,

They needed a lumber yard and a fertilizer plant nearby, then they would've earned a news flash tag,.


Don't forget the fireworks warehouse, Elementary School and old-age home.
 
2013-10-09 09:51:18 AM

Smoking GNU: Mister Buttons: Amateurs,

They needed a lumber yard and a fertilizer plant nearby, then they would've earned a news flash tag,.

Don't forget the fireworks warehouse, Elementary School and old-age home.


It wasn't Florida or Texas, so I set the bar a little lower.
 
2013-10-09 09:51:38 AM
Nice one subby.....
 
2013-10-09 09:52:38 AM
Well the pipelines had gone about as fur as they could go.
 
2013-10-09 09:54:20 AM

vudukungfu: A Petrogovernment Spokesperson declared it an "isolated incident" and a "Safe source of clean energy"


Um... pipeline failure, released products all incinerated, no property damage apart from the line itself because buildings nearby were kept at appropriate distance, no injuries, and the line was shut off pretty much immediately and the fire easily limited by just letting the remainder past the valve flare off.  I say "limited" because it was at no point not contained, because this kind of leak is naturally self-containing in the first place.

Basically, this is a pretty good indication that current procedures and standards make natgas pipelines entirely safe when followed properly.

//Overland lines through areas with road access are about the safest way to transport petro precursors, pretty much exactly because this is how easy they are to contain, the fire department didn't even have to do anything but wait for the flare to die down.
//The worst is water transport, since water spills are damn near impossible to contain.
 
d23 [TotalFark]
2013-10-09 09:55:08 AM
"Energy independence" is worth a few poor people.  Throw 'em on the flames!
 
d23 [TotalFark]
2013-10-09 09:56:32 AM

Jim_Callahan: //The worst is water transport, since water spills are damn near impossible to contain.


fc07.deviantart.net
 
2013-10-09 10:14:20 AM

Jim_Callahan: vudukungfu: A Petrogovernment Spokesperson declared it an "isolated incident" and a "Safe source of clean energy"

Um... pipeline failure, released products all incinerated, no property damage apart from the line itself because buildings nearby were kept at appropriate distance, no injuries, and the line was shut off pretty much immediately and the fire easily limited by just letting the remainder past the valve flare off.  I say "limited" because it was at no point not contained, because this kind of leak is naturally self-containing in the first place.

Basically, this is a pretty good indication that current procedures and standards make natgas pipelines entirely safe when followed properly.

//Overland lines through areas with road access are about the safest way to transport petro precursors, pretty much exactly because this is how easy they are to contain, the fire department didn't even have to do anything but wait for the flare to die down.
//The worst is water transport, since water spills are damn near impossible to contain.


...said Jim_Callahan, spokesman for the American Natural Gas Institute.
 
2013-10-09 10:21:03 AM
Do do doo do!
 
2013-10-09 10:34:17 AM

d23: Jim_Callahan: //The worst is water transport, since water spills are damn near impossible to contain.

[fc07.deviantart.net image 300x300]


Um... are you not familiar with the various high-profile water spills in the last few decades?  Exxon-Valdez, the BP platform in the gulf, etc?

Most of them  still haven't been fully cleaned up.  By contrast, the only really bad pipeline spill was in Alaska where there wasn't a tech within 100 miles of the failure, and that was cleaned up relatively quickly.

Old_Chief_Scott: ...said Jim_Callahan, spokesman for the American Natural Gas Institute.


Yeah, because pointing out that this incident's resulted in zero deaths, injuries, or property/ environmental damage is totally hardcore industry spin.

I'm sorry that supporting my (relatively educated, by the way, given that I've designed several safety systems over the years) opinion with a full paragraph of clearly-stated facts gets under your skin so much.  Do you have an actual counter-argument, or is an incorrect ad-hominem the best you can do?

// I even put the opinion/analysis in a separate damned paragraph following the factual basis of the judgement, what do you people want?
 
2013-10-09 10:37:28 AM

Jim_Callahan


d23: Jim_Callahan: //The worst is water transport, since water spills are damn near impossible to contain.

[fc07.deviantart.net image 300x300]

Um... are you not familiar with the various high-profile water spills in the last few decades? Exxon-Valdez, the BP platform in the gulf, etc?


I think d23 thought you were talking about spills OF water, not petroleum spills ON water.
 
2013-10-09 10:40:51 AM
I'm from Oklahoma and it cracks me up that FARK is my source for local news.
 
2013-10-09 10:43:00 AM

d23: Jim_Callahan: //The worst is water transport, since water spills are damn near impossible to contain.

[fc07.deviantart.net image 300x300]


Hehe, man I almost got covered by water once.  It was a close call, it might have absorbed into my skin and poisoned me, or gotten into my mouth resulting in a toxic shock.  Of course, after nearly avoiding it, I was walking to my friends place when BAM, bunch of the nasty stuff starts FALLING OUT OF THE SKY.  I swear I thought my skin would slough off then and there.

/Just snarking
//Knows water can be bad, i.e. fracking waste
/plus, I don't recommend breathing the stuff in higher concentrations
 
2013-10-09 10:43:40 AM
I'm glad this was as limited as it was.
 
2013-10-09 10:52:35 AM
There once was a sub from Iran
Whose rhythm and verse did not scan
When asked why this was
He replied it's because
"I always try to stuff as many words in the last sentence as I possibly can"

/ I still lol'ed at the headline
 
2013-10-09 11:07:50 AM
Jim_Callahan:
// I even put the opinion/analysis in a separate damned paragraph following the factual basis of the judgement, what do you people want?

They want confirmation that when something goes wrong with things they don't like, it's clear proof that they're inherently flawed and should be removed as an option. As opposed to when something goes wrong with things they do like, in which case it's clear proof that we're not going far enough and if we double the funding things would go swimmingly.
 
2013-10-09 11:10:34 AM
Jim_Callahan: I even put the opinion/analysis in a separate damned paragraph following the factual basis of the judgement, what do you people want?

$2 gas or GTFO
 
2013-10-09 11:15:38 AM

Jim_Callahan: vudukungfu: A Petrogovernment Spokesperson declared it an "isolated incident" and a "Safe source of clean energy"

Um... pipeline failure, released products all incinerated, no property damage apart from the line itself because buildings nearby were kept at appropriate distance, no injuries, and the line was shut off pretty much immediately and the fire easily limited by just letting the remainder past the valve flare off.  I say "limited" because it was at no point not contained, because this kind of leak is naturally self-containing in the first place.

Basically, this is a pretty good indication that current procedures and standards make natgas pipelines entirely safe when followed properly.

//Overland lines through areas with road access are about the safest way to transport petro precursors, pretty much exactly because this is how easy they are to contain, the fire department didn't even have to do anything but wait for the flare to die down.
//The worst is water transport, since water spills are damn near impossible to contain.


Shill.
 
2013-10-09 11:38:05 AM

vudukungfu: Jim_Callahan: vudukungfu: A Petrogovernment Spokesperson declared it an "isolated incident" and a "Safe source of clean energy"
Um... pipeline failure, released products all incinerated, no property damage apart from the line itself because buildings nearby were kept at appropriate distance, no injuries, and the line was shut off pretty much immediately and the fire easily limited by just letting the remainder past the valve flare off.  I say "limited" because it was at no point not contained, because this kind of leak is naturally self-containing in the first place.
Basically, this is a pretty good indication that current procedures and standards make natgas pipelines entirely safe when followed properly.
//Overland lines through areas with road access are about the safest way to transport petro precursors, pretty much exactly because this is how easy they are to contain, the fire department didn't even have to do anything but wait for the flare to die down.
//The worst is water transport, since water spills are damn near impossible to contain.
Shill.


Meh--he's often right. It's just that he's so self-righteous about everything that you want to punch him anyway.
 
2013-10-09 11:47:11 AM
Looks like gas prices are going back up.
 
2013-10-09 12:14:47 PM

Jim_Callahan: Old_Chief_Scott: ...said Jim_Callahan, spokesman for the American Natural Gas Institute.

Yeah, because pointing out that this incident's resulted in zero deaths, injuries, or property/ environmental damage is totally hardcore industry spin.

I'm sorry that supporting my (relatively educated, by the way, given that I've designed several safety systems over the years) opinion with a full paragraph of clearly-stated facts gets under your skin so much.  Do you have an actual counter-argument, or is an incorrect ad-hominem the best you can do?

// I even put the opinion/analysis in a separate damned paragraph following the factual basis of the judgement, what do you people want?


Jesus, it's a joke.

Lighten up, Francis.
 
2013-10-09 12:24:21 PM

Jim_Callahan: d23: Jim_Callahan: //The worst is water transport, since water spills are damn near impossible to contain.

[fc07.deviantart.net image 300x300]

Um... are you not familiar with the various high-profile water spills in the last few decades?  Exxon-Valdez, the BP platform in the gulf, etc?

Most of them  still haven't been fully cleaned up.  By contrast, the only really bad pipeline spill was in Alaska where there wasn't a tech within 100 miles of the failure, and that was cleaned up relatively quickly.

Old_Chief_Scott: ...said Jim_Callahan, spokesman for the American Natural Gas Institute.

Yeah, because pointing out that this incident's resulted in zero deaths, injuries, or property/ environmental damage is totally hardcore industry spin.

I'm sorry that supporting my (relatively educated, by the way, given that I've designed several safety systems over the years) opinion with a full paragraph of clearly-stated facts gets under your skin so much.  Do you have an actual counter-argument, or is an incorrect ad-hominem the best you can do?

// I even put the opinion/analysis in a separate damned paragraph following the factual basis of the judgement, what do you people want?


How about if I point out that the Keystone XL pipeline would cross over miles of the Ogalalla Aquifer?

upload.wikimedia.org

Or do aquifers not count as "water"?
 
2013-10-09 12:39:41 PM

eeyore102: Jim_Callahan: d23: Jim_Callahan: //The worst is water transport, since water spills are damn near impossible to contain.

[fc07.deviantart.net image 300x300]

Um... are you not familiar with the various high-profile water spills in the last few decades?  Exxon-Valdez, the BP platform in the gulf, etc?

Most of them  still haven't been fully cleaned up.  By contrast, the only really bad pipeline spill was in Alaska where there wasn't a tech within 100 miles of the failure, and that was cleaned up relatively quickly.

Old_Chief_Scott: ...said Jim_Callahan, spokesman for the American Natural Gas Institute.

Yeah, because pointing out that this incident's resulted in zero deaths, injuries, or property/ environmental damage is totally hardcore industry spin.

I'm sorry that supporting my (relatively educated, by the way, given that I've designed several safety systems over the years) opinion with a full paragraph of clearly-stated facts gets under your skin so much.  Do you have an actual counter-argument, or is an incorrect ad-hominem the best you can do?

// I even put the opinion/analysis in a separate damned paragraph following the factual basis of the judgement, what do you people want?

How about if I point out that the Keystone XL pipeline would cross over miles of the Ogalalla Aquifer?

[upload.wikimedia.org image 784x1139]

Or do aquifers not count as "water"?


Eh, that one is drying up rapidly so it won't be a problem soon.

Well...contaminating it with oil won't be a problem...the lack of water for irrigating huge swaths of farmland might not be fun.
 
Displayed 33 of 33 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report