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.

(Yahoo)   For some reason some people think it's a really bad idea to run an oil pipeline through the greatest source of fresh water in the US   (news.yahoo.com) divider line 145
    More: Obvious, Great Lakes Research Center, fresh water, autonomous underwater vehicles, horse-drawn carriage, Traverse City, National Wildlife Federation, Upper Peninsula, Debbie Stabenow  
•       •       •

8481 clicks; posted to Main » on 03 Mar 2014 at 10:20 PM (25 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-03-03 08:35:58 PM
So it's an article about how a pipeline laid down in the 50's have never leaked and somehow this is a bad thing for pipelines?

Also, that mini-sub looks a lot like a missile.
 
2014-03-03 09:59:25 PM
It's just oil.
Oil is as natural as air and water.
 
2014-03-03 10:15:04 PM
I'm pretty sure the SKY is the greatest source of fresh water.
 
2014-03-03 10:26:26 PM
For some reason I think subby has no idea what he's talking about.

/pipeliner
 
2014-03-03 10:28:02 PM
The pipeline was built in 1953, so it's a little late to protest its construction.
 
2014-03-03 10:28:59 PM
It's not a new pipeline, it's an 60+ year old one that has yet to cause trouble. Maintain it properly and move on.

Alternatives like rail can't be that much safer.
 
2014-03-03 10:29:55 PM
So if they eventually need to replace the underwater section, can they suspend it beneath the bridge? Easy to inspect, easy to repair.
 
2014-03-03 10:30:41 PM
Meh, what could go wrong. do it.
 
2014-03-03 10:31:10 PM
A bad idea Subby? I can't think of anything more entertaining than seeing the Great Lakes literally on fire so I don't know what you're whining about.
 
2014-03-03 10:31:22 PM
Does anyone know how it is a better plan to build a pipeline north to south across the entire country than it is to build a refinery in North Dakota?  I'm not being rhetorical, what is the advantage?
 
2014-03-03 10:33:46 PM

JBangworthy: Does anyone know how it is a better plan to build a pipeline north to south across the entire country than it is to build a refinery in North Dakota?  I'm not being rhetorical, what is the advantage?


Nevermind.  I thought the article was about something else.  Next time, I'll read it first.
 
2014-03-03 10:33:47 PM

JBangworthy: Does anyone know how it is a better plan to build a pipeline north to south across the entire country than it is to build a refinery in North Dakota?  I'm not being rhetorical, what is the advantage?


It's at least partly about the tar sands in Alberta too.
 
2014-03-03 10:34:14 PM

Eddie Adams from Torrance: It's just oil.
Oil is as natural as air and water.


It's natural when it's in the ground. On the surface it's poison. Explain your "natural" theory to the wildlife that got covered and killed in the Gulf of Mexico and have not recovered to this day.
 
2014-03-03 10:34:23 PM

JBangworthy: JBangworthy: Does anyone know how it is a better plan to build a pipeline north to south across the entire country than it is to build a refinery in North Dakota?  I'm not being rhetorical, what is the advantage?

Nevermind.  I thought the article was about something else.  Next time, I'll read it first.


Heh. So did I.
 
2014-03-03 10:34:32 PM
They've never leaked, according to the system's owner, Enbridge Energy Partners LP

Good, then you have nothing to worry about when we take a closer look.
 
2014-03-03 10:35:10 PM
Well, one positive side is it will also kill the Asian Carp problem. Just saying.
 
2014-03-03 10:35:57 PM
That pipeline begins and ends in Canada, and 23 million gallons pass through it every day? We ought to be creating our own "leak"  in which 10% of the product is missing every day.
 
2014-03-03 10:36:13 PM

JBangworthy: Does anyone know how it is a better plan to build a pipeline north to south across the entire country than it is to build a refinery in North Dakota?  I'm not being rhetorical, what is the advantage?


My guess is that the government doesn't pay for refineries. Bootstrappiness at its finest.
 
2014-03-03 10:37:05 PM
It would not be a bad idea to move the existing ones away from the clean water.
 
2014-03-03 10:37:37 PM
The issue is that the pipeline has been there for 60+ years, and that the most detailed look of the pipline to date, won't be able tell if there are cracks in the line. Yet, we're supposed to take the companies word that the line is sound.

You should find that disconcerting...shiat doesn't last forever.
 
2014-03-03 10:39:23 PM
I live downhill from a ridge, and have a well, and I own the ridge.    let them do whatever they want with the Great Toilets, I mean Lakes.
 
2014-03-03 10:40:16 PM

JBangworthy: Does anyone know how it is a better plan to build a pipeline north to south across the entire country than it is to build a refinery in North Dakota?  I'm not being rhetorical, what is the advantage?


Not suggesting what a better plan is, but as I understand it, crude oil can be pipelined, but refined fuels cannot. So if they built a refinery in N.D. they'd have to move it by truck, rail, boat etc. to get it to the ports which is much more expensive.

Similar to ethanol, it's cheap and plentiful in the midwest but gets more expensive the farther you have to move it from the cornfields.
 
2014-03-03 10:42:36 PM
They just need to get a new slogan, like this T-shirt that was popular some years back:

seanchase.files.wordpress.com
 
2014-03-03 10:42:41 PM

Johnsnownw: The issue is that the pipeline has been there for 60+ years, and that the most detailed look of the pipline to date, won't be able tell if there are cracks in the line. Yet, we're supposed to take the companies word that the line is sound.

You should find that disconcerting...shiat doesn't last forever.


Oil companies wouldn't lie to us, would they?

CSB: I picked up a few tar balls (well, more like tar discs) on the Gulf Coast two weeks ago.
 
2014-03-03 10:42:47 PM

generallyso: A bad idea Subby? I can't think of anything more entertaining than seeing the Great Lakes literally on fire so I don't know what you're whining about.


You must be young - Lake Erie has been on fire more than once.

/glad to see people being activists tho
//too old and tired to do it much anymore
///pick my battles carefully
 
2014-03-03 10:43:46 PM

drewsclues: JBangworthy: Does anyone know how it is a better plan to build a pipeline north to south across the entire country than it is to build a refinery in North Dakota?  I'm not being rhetorical, what is the advantage?

My guess is that the government doesn't pay for refineries. Bootstrappiness at its finest.


That and even if you build the refinery in Bumfark, ND, you still have to transport the finished product, which would also require pipelines. North Dakota is not known for its large seaports, after all.
 
2014-03-03 10:44:02 PM
Kinda surprising somebody hasn't just dragged an anchor across it yet. There's some pretty damning video out there of how precarious the support structure is - lots of places where the protective berm and support columns have eroded away. I'll go looking for it and post if nobody else has beaten me to the punch.
 
2014-03-03 10:45:17 PM

Johnsnownw: The issue is that the pipeline has been there for 60+ years, and that the most detailed look of the pipline to date, won't be able tell if there are cracks in the line. Yet, we're supposed to take the companies word that the line is sound.

You should find that disconcerting...shiat doesn't last forever.


The communities around that pipeline have exceptional luck so far.  I think they would rather keep things as clean as they are now rather than try to get 25% of what they have today back after a spill.  In general, when spills happen, they are forgotten too quickly by a large percent of the people.  So much that they don't see the systemic danger until it is too late.
 
2014-03-03 10:46:07 PM

Johnsnownw: The issue is that the pipeline has been there for 60+ years, and that the most detailed look of the pipline to date, won't be able tell if there are cracks in the line. Yet, we're supposed to take the companies word that the line is sound.

You should find that disconcerting...shiat doesn't last forever.


I hate to burst your bubble man, but that thing ain't leaking. It is not in their best interest to hide a 800psig (low estimate) pipeline leak for anybody involved. They would know if it was leaking in a second, and immediately have a contractor out to fix it. Even if they were the evil, mustache twirling overlords you think they are, they still wouldn't want the damn hassle of dealing with the fallout of a leak they just ignored.
 
2014-03-03 10:48:24 PM

lindalouwho: You must be young - Lake Erie has been on fire more than once.


The pipeline runs through Lake Michigan.
 
2014-03-03 10:49:38 PM

Johnsnownw: The issue is that the pipeline has been there for 60+ years, and that the most detailed look of the pipline to date, won't be able tell if there are cracks in the line. Yet, we're supposed to take the companies word that the line is sound.

You should find that disconcerting...shiat doesn't last forever.


Yeah, "the company's word".....that huge leak in the Gulf of Mexico was only 3-4yrs ago. Is it already forgotten? As a nation we do need to stay on top of stuff like this. Shoot, I live in PA where they (the company) said the nuclear reactors at 3 Mile Island would never fail. Well, they did, and how many others since then.

Some things are too important for ambiguity.
 
2014-03-03 10:52:36 PM

generallyso: lindalouwho: You must be young - Lake Erie has been on fire more than once.

The pipeline runs through Lake Michigan.


You intentionally trimmed that conversation. I was responding to the statement of "seeing the Great Lakes on fire." ;-)
 
2014-03-03 10:53:12 PM

super_grass: It's not a new pipeline, it's an 60+ year old one that has yet to cause trouble. Maintain it properly and move on.

Alternatives like rail can't be that much safer.


No shiat. Ever try running a train across a lake?
 
KIA
2014-03-03 10:54:14 PM
What is it with two pipeline threads greenlit in the same day?
 
2014-03-03 10:54:31 PM

super_grass: It's not a new pipeline, it's an 60+ year old one that has yet to cause trouble. Maintain it properly and move on.


Because American companies have such a good record with long-term maintenance.

/"Third quarter problem"
 
2014-03-03 10:55:33 PM

lindalouwho: Johnsnownw: The issue is that the pipeline has been there for 60+ years, and that the most detailed look of the pipline to date, won't be able tell if there are cracks in the line. Yet, we're supposed to take the companies word that the line is sound.

You should find that disconcerting...shiat doesn't last forever.

Yeah, "the company's word".....that huge leak in the Gulf of Mexico was only 3-4yrs ago. Is it already forgotten? As a nation we do need to stay on top of stuff like this. Shoot, I live in PA where they (the company) said the nuclear reactors at 3 Mile Island would never fail. Well, they did, and how many others since then.

Some things are too important for ambiguity.


You do know that GOM leak had nothing to do with pipelines at all? That BP did not attempt to hide it at all?

Speaking of things being forgotten, 11 people died in that rig explosion.
 
2014-03-03 10:57:18 PM

lindalouwho: You intentionally trimmed that conversation. I was responding to the statement of "seeing the Great Lakes on fire." ;-)


I don't know what point you're attempting to convey.


eatin' fetus: I hate to burst your bubble man, but that thing ain't leaking. It is not in their best interest to hide a 800psig (low estimate) pipeline leak for anybody involved. They would know if it was leaking in a second, and immediately have a contractor out to fix it. Even if they were the evil, mustache twirling overlords you think they are, they still wouldn't want the damn hassle of dealing with the fallout of a leak they just ignored.


Ideally structural weaknesses should be addressed before they become structural failures. But I'm sure they'll regulate themselves just like BP did. Oh wait.
 
2014-03-03 10:58:50 PM

eatin' fetus: Johnsnownw: The issue is that the pipeline has been there for 60+ years, and that the most detailed look of the pipline to date, won't be able tell if there are cracks in the line. Yet, we're supposed to take the companies word that the line is sound.

You should find that disconcerting...shiat doesn't last forever.

I hate to burst your bubble man, but that thing ain't leaking. It is not in their best interest to hide a 800psig (low estimate) pipeline leak for anybody involved. They would know if it was leaking in a second, and immediately have a contractor out to fix it. Even if they were the evil, mustache twirling overlords you think they are, they still wouldn't want the damn hassle of dealing with the fallout of a leak they just ignored.


When did I claim it was leaking? I'm saying the thing is aged and that all the inspections prior, the ones that the company used to deem the line sound...aren't capable of the detail of this underwater missile...which still isn't capable of identifying cracks. So, what criteria/survey are they using to determine whether the thing is sound?

The pipeline doesn't have to be leaking to be unsound. Consider bridges as another example of this phenomenon.
 
2014-03-03 11:00:16 PM
Feh.  Lousy idea.  It will teach kids that they are not responsible for their actions.  They will get into adult hood, keep posting stupid shiat, then will say, "wait, you mean I cant take it back now?"
 
2014-03-03 11:02:20 PM

Eddie Adams from Torrance: It's just oil.
Oil is as natural as air and water.


Read that in the voice of the old guy on farmed and dangerous, you know the hot chicks dad.
 
2014-03-03 11:03:00 PM
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the only oil that will ever come out of this is oil that was pumped? And the system probably has multiple shutoffs and pressure relief points on both sides of the strait? So worst case you're talking a few truckloads of bad stuff dumped in the strait? That's bad, yes, but it's nothing compared to BP or Exxon-Valdez.
 
2014-03-03 11:03:25 PM

flondrix: super_grass: It's not a new pipeline, it's an 60+ year old one that has yet to cause trouble. Maintain it properly and move on.

Because American companies have such a good record with long-term maintenance.

/"Third quarter problem"


They have yet to screw up for 240 consecutive quarters.
 
2014-03-03 11:06:26 PM

Johnsnownw: eatin' fetus: Johnsnownw: The issue is that the pipeline has been there for 60+ years, and that the most detailed look of the pipline to date, won't be able tell if there are cracks in the line. Yet, we're supposed to take the companies word that the line is sound.

You should find that disconcerting...shiat doesn't last forever.

I hate to burst your bubble man, but that thing ain't leaking. It is not in their best interest to hide a 800psig (low estimate) pipeline leak for anybody involved. They would know if it was leaking in a second, and immediately have a contractor out to fix it. Even if they were the evil, mustache twirling overlords you think they are, they still wouldn't want the damn hassle of dealing with the fallout of a leak they just ignored.

When did I claim it was leaking? I'm saying the thing is aged and that all the inspections prior, the ones that the company used to deem the line sound...aren't capable of the detail of this underwater missile...which still isn't capable of identifying cracks. So, what criteria/survey are they using to determine whether the thing is sound?

The pipeline doesn't have to be leaking to be unsound. Consider bridges as another example of this phenomenon.


The pipeline won't break, dude. Do you seriously think this oil company is interested in their pipeline bursting in this waterway? Why do you think they invested in the "missle" in the first place?

If it's unsound, they will replace it. They've got the cash. This is a sensationalist piece of journalism.
 
2014-03-03 11:06:33 PM

eatin' fetus: lindalouwho: Johnsnownw: The issue is that the pipeline has been there for 60+ years, and that the most detailed look of the pipline to date, won't be able tell if there are cracks in the line. Yet, we're supposed to take the companies word that the line is sound.

You should find that disconcerting...shiat doesn't last forever.

Yeah, "the company's word".....that huge leak in the Gulf of Mexico was only 3-4yrs ago. Is it already forgotten? As a nation we do need to stay on top of stuff like this. Shoot, I live in PA where they (the company) said the nuclear reactors at 3 Mile Island would never fail. Well, they did, and how many others since then.

Some things are too important for ambiguity.

You do know that GOM leak had nothing to do with pipelines at all? That BP did not attempt to hide it at all?

Speaking of things being forgotten, 11 people died in that rig explosion.


Sigh. Yes, of course. Maybe I should have been clearer? I was speking about oil and the environment in a more general way.

Ok with you, dear?
 
2014-03-03 11:07:27 PM
Meh. They cannot guarantee there won't be a leak. No one can. What I'd like us to do is stipulate the very important and unique nature of the region and throw out some plausible outcomes of several different scenarios from worst case to best and then weigh the benefits against the risks without getting political. I'll start holding my breath now. We need clean water and biological diversity and we need energy, not one or the other.
 
2014-03-03 11:08:43 PM

eatin' fetus: Johnsnownw: The issue is that the pipeline has been there for 60+ years, and that the most detailed look of the pipline to date, won't be able tell if there are cracks in the line. Yet, we're supposed to take the companies word that the line is sound.

You should find that disconcerting...shiat doesn't last forever.

I hate to burst your bubble man, but that thing ain't leaking. It is not in their best interest to hide a 800psig (low estimate) pipeline leak for anybody involved. They would know if it was leaking in a second, and immediately have a contractor out to fix it. Even if they were the evil, mustache twirling overlords you think they are, they still wouldn't want the damn hassle of dealing with the fallout of a leak they just ignored.


Not leaking now is no guarantor of no leaks in the future, so considering how devastating a leak could be there what's the problem with planning ahead for an alternative or being aggressive about maintenance on such a critical stretch? Particularly since the people who would be impacted are asking these questions and considering the evidence being uncovered of structural failing in some of the underwater supports of this over-half a century old pipe running underwater?

As the previous farmer just said "shiat doesn't last forever." Is it really such a goddamn horrible thing to start making a new, safer plan of action BEFORE some bad shiat happens? Really? Oh no! We replaced the old-ass pipe with a newer safer transportation plan for a better long-term outcome - oh the farking humanity!
 
2014-03-03 11:08:45 PM

generallyso: lindalouwho: You intentionally trimmed that conversation. I was responding to the statement of "seeing the Great Lakes on fire." ;-)

I don't know what point you're attempting to convey.


eatin' fetus: I hate to burst your bubble man, but that thing ain't leaking. It is not in their best interest to hide a 800psig (low estimate) pipeline leak for anybody involved. They would know if it was leaking in a second, and immediately have a contractor out to fix it. Even if they were the evil, mustache twirling overlords you think they are, they still wouldn't want the damn hassle of dealing with the fallout of a leak they just ignored.

Ideally structural weaknesses should be addressed before they become structural failures. But I'm sure they'll regulate themselves just like BP did. Oh wait.


See post above this post.
 
2014-03-03 11:09:10 PM

GentDirkly: Correct me if I'm wrong, but the only oil that will ever come out of this is oil that was pumped? And the system probably has multiple shutoffs and pressure relief points on both sides of the strait? So worst case you're talking a few truckloads of bad stuff dumped in the strait? That's bad, yes, but it's nothing compared to BP or Exxon-Valdez.


That's correct, there will likely be mainline block valves on both shores and throughout the underwater line. Still, the odds of this problem happening anyway are akin to a black swan event.
 
2014-03-03 11:09:29 PM

squirrelflavoredyogurt: JBangworthy: Does anyone know how it is a better plan to build a pipeline north to south across the entire country than it is to build a refinery in North Dakota?  I'm not being rhetorical, what is the advantage?


Not suggesting what a better plan is, but as I understand it, crude oil can be pipelined, but refined fuels cannot. So if they built a refinery in N.D. they'd have to move it by truck, rail, boat etc. to get it to the ports which is much more expensive.


We pipeline refined products (gasoline and diesel) across the nation every single day.  That's not a problem.  Ethanol... that's a different story due to its tendency to suck more moisture out of the atmosphere (hygroscopic), and even then we pipeline it in some circumstances.

As for the refining it in the Dakotas, there was certainly some discussion of a mega-sized refinery for tarsands crude in SE South Dakota.  The last few SD governors and legislatures have been bending over backwards in any way humanely possible to make it happen.  The major thing missing in the Dakotas?  Reliable water supply.  Refineries use a  huge amount of water.

But, as for the confusion between this and Keystone, it does remind you... there are hundreds of pipelines operating over the Ogallala aquifer, have been for 70 years, and a lot of them have had quite a lot of spills.  We muddle through.
 
2014-03-03 11:10:45 PM

lindalouwho: eatin' fetus: lindalouwho: Johnsnownw: The issue is that the pipeline has been there for 60+ years, and that the most detailed look of the pipline to date, won't be able tell if there are cracks in the line. Yet, we're supposed to take the companies word that the line is sound.

You should find that disconcerting...shiat doesn't last forever.

Yeah, "the company's word".....that huge leak in the Gulf of Mexico was only 3-4yrs ago. Is it already forgotten? As a nation we do need to stay on top of stuff like this. Shoot, I live in PA where they (the company) said the nuclear reactors at 3 Mile Island would never fail. Well, they did, and how many others since then.

Some things are too important for ambiguity.

You do know that GOM leak had nothing to do with pipelines at all? That BP did not attempt to hide it at all?

Speaking of things being forgotten, 11 people died in that rig explosion.

Sigh. Yes, of course. Maybe I should have been clearer? I was speking about oil and the environment in a more general way.

Ok with you, dear?


Yea, whatever. I'm the one who knows what he's talking about. Since you don't, keep speaking in your "more general" ways, dear.
 
Displayed 50 of 145 comments

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

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report