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  
•       •       •

8474 clicks; posted to Main » on 03 Mar 2014 at 10:20 PM (20 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



145 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
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.
 
2014-03-03 11:12:53 PM

mongbiohazard: 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!


Sounds like they are being aggressive about maintenance to me. What's your point?
 
2014-03-03 11:15:35 PM

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

The pipeline runs through Lake Michigan.


Most of the water in Erie comes from Lake Michigan
 
2014-03-03 11:17:46 PM
Is this why the CEO of Valero is leaving?
 
2014-03-03 11:17:53 PM
 WHAT?!?!? Tar Sands oil is as safe as fresh mountain spring water and you're all a bunch of retarted global warming deniers for daring to suggest otherwise. The Glorious Job Creators would never mislead or lie for the motive of profit and to suggest otherwise means you must be a simpleton who just does not understand the deep intellectual intricacies of the oil and gas industries and likely should not even be allowed to comment on the subject.

/I'll be contacting the admins forth whit!
 
2014-03-03 11:18:27 PM

Lawnchair: 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.


Well shiat, hate it when I have bad information. Thanks for clearing that up.
 
2014-03-03 11:18:40 PM
FTFA: "A massive oil spill there would have dire and irreversible consequences."

img.fark.net
 
2014-03-03 11:19:45 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.


Rail is far more dangerous- both in terms of environmental hazard and in terms of blowy uppy hazard.
 
2014-03-03 11:19:58 PM

change1211: 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.


Well, one of the main points of the protests, which was mentioned but not well emphasized in TFA, is that Enbridge is upping the flow rate, i.e. PRESSURE of a 60 year old pipeline.

(Well, and the fact that people are reactionary and will get up in arms when their attention is piqued about something scary, and there's the fact that there's organized campaigning against the pipeline)

Oh looks like the video I remembered was made by a bunch of farkin' NWF turrists. move along.
VIDEO LINK
www.midwestenergynews.com


Also worth remembering: "Although alarms sounded in Enbridge's Edmonton headquarters at the time of the rupture, it was eighteen hours before a Michigan utilities employee reported oil spilling and the pipeline company learned of the spill. Meanwhile, pipeline operators had thought the alarms were maybe caused by a bubble in the pipeline and, while for some time it was shut down, they also increased pressure for periods of hours to try to clear the possible blockage, spilling more oil."

It's okay, though, Enbridge can buy government-guaranteed insurance so their stockholders will be safe if they fark up again.
 
2014-03-03 11:22:08 PM
I'm a wiberal.  I want to be wapped in bubble wapp and not have any wisk.  I want a guawantee of a job, guawantee of heff cawe, heck I don't even want to think.  In Oobama and gubmint I twust, I shall not want.
 
2014-03-03 11:23:23 PM

eatin' fetus: Sounds like they are being aggressive about maintenance to me. What's your point?


The point is that we need to start generating all our energy with trans-warp drives and make everything that's currently made from any petroleum distillate out of marijuana instead. If you don't do this you are murdering the planet and will be hunted down and killed as soon as Obama decides he's tired of you people poisoning the world, or the next time Putin disses him.
 
2014-03-03 11:26:11 PM
Who cares, it's done, end of story, will probably be fine
 
2014-03-03 11:26:41 PM

eatin' fetus: 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.


Are you trolling, or just dense? Or trying to rule that everyone must stay "on point"?

Rhetorical; off to another thread.
 
2014-03-03 11:27:37 PM

eatin' fetus: mongbiohazard: 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!

Sounds like they are being aggressive about maintenance to me. What's your point?


Sounds to me like you didnt RTFA. They're only doing more now because they're being pressured to - so the very attention you're decrying is exactly what is apparently needed.

Note the crumbling supports that OTHER people had to point out to them and which were part of what spurred the public pressure which forced them to even bother to take an actual look at it in the first place.

And once again, my clear point that you avoided, what's so awful about requiring long term planning to avoid disaster before it occurs in the long run and increased inspection and maintenance to head it off in the short term? I mean, what if we force these poor job creators to have responsible long term plans! We might end up never having an ecological disaster that way and that would be just awful or something... You just keep saying "but it hasn't leaked!" Yeah, yet. Considering the risk the public has good reason to require the company take action to make sure they won't have one in the future either. Long-term planning is not some kind of socialist oppression - it should be the cost of doing business when you have the power to significantly impact the communities around you through action or inaction.

Unlike the investors/owners/executives the people of the areas that will be affected will be forced to deal with the consequences personally and aren't the ones getting rich off the product which potentially could cause the problem. Tragedy of the commons and all.
 
2014-03-03 11:28:50 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.


Goddammit this!
 
2014-03-03 11:29:00 PM

Mean Daddy: I'm a wiberal.  I want to be wapped in bubble wapp and not have any wisk.  I want a guawantee of a job, guawantee of heff cawe, heck I don't even want to think.  In Oobama and gubmint I twust, I shall not want.


200 million years ago a dinosaur died and decomposed and became oil which was then drilled out of the ground and refined and shipped off to a power generation station and burned to generate the electricity which powers your computer into which you wrote that post.

That dinosaur died for that post. That stupid, farking post.
 
2014-03-03 11:30:04 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.


That sound you hear in the distance is Kalamazoo laughing at you.
 
2014-03-03 11:31:14 PM
The sickest thing is that most of you people picking up the shill line about "railroad is more dangerous" (implying pipelines are safe) aren't even getting paid. And to those who are: ask for more, there's plenty in that industry.

Oh what is my alternative?

Electric vehicles. (Reclaim a forklift motor and build your own.) Biodiesel. Nuclear. Space based solar. Hell, overthrow Bolivia if ya gotta (to get all that lithium). Just stop destroying my atmosphere. Fracking and tar sands are farking stupid but it's where the easy money is so that's why it's done. Just don't shill for it if you aren't the one getting paid, because we'll all be paying for it soon enough.
 
2014-03-03 11:33:55 PM

Mean Daddy: I'm a wiberal.  I want to be wapped in bubble wapp and not have any wisk.  I want a guawantee of a job, guawantee of heff cawe, heck I don't even want to think.  In Oobama and gubmint I twust, I shall not want.


What does any of this have to do with building a pipeline so a few people in Calgary get richer at the expense of people in the Midwest paying more for gas?
 
2014-03-03 11:34:26 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.


you must not drink fresh water
thepatriotperspective.files.wordpress.com
 
2014-03-03 11:34:37 PM
I love these "right to fark shiat up in the name of oil" threads.
 
2014-03-03 11:35:25 PM

eatin' fetus: The pipeline won't break, dude. Do you seriously think this oil company is interested in their pipeline bursting in this waterway?


Do you honestly think that coal company in West Virginia was interested in polluting the water of hundreds of thousands of people?

Companies are made up of people.  People make mistakes.  People cut corners.  "Pipeline's never been a problem, why bother with it."

Proof?  There are countless companies in the US that have gone bankrupt due to their environmental screw ups.  Companies sometimes do the wrong thing, or the lazy thing, or the cheap thing, even when it risks destroying the company.  There's no doubt about this.  It has happened too many times.

Who pays to clean up the mess?  Not the company.  They file for bankruptcy.  The taxpayer pays.  And since the taxpayer is footing the bill for cleanups, we have the right to make sure the companies are doing the right thing, like keeping their pipelines in shape.
 
2014-03-03 11:38:28 PM

AverageAmericanGuy: Mean Daddy: I'm a wiberal.  I want to be wapped in bubble wapp and not have any wisk.  I want a guawantee of a job, guawantee of heff cawe, heck I don't even want to think.  In Oobama and gubmint I twust, I shall not want.

200 million years ago a dinosaur died and decomposed and became oil which was then drilled out of the ground and refined and shipped off to a power generation station and burned to generate the electricity which powers your computer into which you wrote that post.

That dinosaur died for that post. That stupid, farking post.


Most of the oil came from algae... lots of it.
 
2014-03-03 11:39:53 PM
It is a really dumb farking idea. And the only reason it's happening is because a bunch of cigar chomping hardasses want to make money.

Never mind that we shiat where we eat and live, free enterprise trumps all that.

We also have the "right" to live this extremely wasteful inefficient lifestyle where we just throw oil around to make up for our overconsumption.

Farking caveman mentality, with the bonus of technology to fark shiat up easier and faster.
 
2014-03-03 11:41:38 PM
200 million years ago a dinosaur died and decomposed and became oil


not really dinosaurs, but instead, tiny sea creatures.

dinosaurs were fat, and fat does not decompose and disappear like flesh.  fat is oil
 
2014-03-03 11:41:45 PM

Mean Daddy: I'm a wiberal.  I want to be wapped in bubble wapp and not have any wisk.  I want a guawantee of a job, guawantee of heff cawe, heck I don't even want to think.  In Oobama and gubmint I twust, I shall not want.


Tatterdemalian: eatin' fetus: Sounds like they are being aggressive about maintenance to me. What's your point?

The point is that we need to start generating all our energy with trans-warp drives and make everything that's currently made from any petroleum distillate out of marijuana instead. If you don't do this you are murdering the planet and will be hunted down and killed as soon as Obama decides he's tired of you people poisoning the world, or the next time Putin disses him.


UsikFark: Who cares, it's done, end of story, will probably be fine


www.global-changemakers.net
 
2014-03-03 11:45:03 PM

UsikFark: AverageAmericanGuy: Mean Daddy: I'm a wiberal.  I want to be wapped in bubble wapp and not have any wisk.  I want a guawantee of a job, guawantee of heff cawe, heck I don't even want to think.  In Oobama and gubmint I twust, I shall not want.

200 million years ago a dinosaur died and decomposed and became oil which was then drilled out of the ground and refined and shipped off to a power generation station and burned to generate the electricity which powers your computer into which you wrote that post.

That dinosaur died for that post. That stupid, farking post.

Most of the oil came from algae... lots of it.


I was using a large vertebrate because I thought it would be more relatable than a slime.

But yes, everyone. Oil mostly comes from algae. Study it out.
 
2014-03-03 11:45:58 PM

eatin' fetus: Speaking of things being forgotten, 11 people died in that rig explosion.


And around 500 people have died in just the last two years constructing the facilities for the 2022 World Cup. Only eight more years of construction left there.
 
2014-03-03 11:46:57 PM

Panatheist: Mean Daddy: I'm a wiberal.  I want to be wapped in bubble wapp and not have any wisk.  I want a guawantee of a job, guawantee of heff cawe, heck I don't even want to think.  In Oobama and gubmint I twust, I shall not want.

Tatterdemalian: eatin' fetus: Sounds like they are being aggressive about maintenance to me. What's your point?

The point is that we need to start generating all our energy with trans-warp drives and make everything that's currently made from any petroleum distillate out of marijuana instead. If you don't do this you are murdering the planet and will be hunted down and killed as soon as Obama decides he's tired of you people poisoning the world, or the next time Putin disses him.

UsikFark: Who cares, it's done, end of story, will probably be fine

[www.global-changemakers.net image 300x386]


static.guim.co.uk
 
2014-03-03 11:47:23 PM

whidbey: I love these "right to fark shiat up in the name of oil" threads.


I know, I just can't wrap my head around some people's line of thinking.


Everyone else: "This company could REALLY fark things up for a lot of people if we don't require the bare minimum of responsibility - that they both work to avoid catastrophe in the short term and plan for avoiding it in the long term as well. Let's not wait for a problem, let's start that process now."

Shill: "You can't do that it's somehow an affront to all that's good for some reason! Also they want to avoid those problems more than anyone because they're a business!"

Everyone else: "But they haven't been inspecting as needed until people forced them to, and history is littered with companies who have caused disasters with irresponsible behavior that you say is against their best interests. Why should we just trust them rather than trust AND verify? If they would want to do these things anyway then what's so terrible about making it a requirement and verifying that they're meeting the requirements?"

Shill: "You can't do that - it's somehow an affront to all that's good for some reason! Also they want to avoid those problems more than anyone because they're a business!"

Everyone else: "Sigh..." /drinks
 
2014-03-03 11:48:39 PM

AverageAmericanGuy: I was using a large vertebrate because I thought it would be more relatable than a slime.


static4.wikia.nocookie.net

The slime is angry.
 
2014-03-03 11:49:50 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.


Lost oil=lost money.  You'd better believe the energy companies make sure every gallon that goes in comes out in the right place, because if it doesn't, the almighty (institutional) shareholders will have a fit.
 
2014-03-03 11:55:03 PM

eatin' fetus: 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.


You mean, something as unlikely to happen as hijackers flying planes into American skyscrapers, or for the real estate market to collapse so hard it crashes the worldwide financial system?
 
2014-03-04 12:05:08 AM

Arkanaut: eatin' fetus: 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.

You mean, something as unlikely to happen as hijackers flying planes into American skyscrapers, or for the real estate market to collapse so hard it crashes the worldwide financial system?



Indeed, the guy who came up with the Black Swan Theory would certainly have some choice words for our friend there... He seems to be able to use the phrase but not understand it. Something like what we're talking about is a "black swan event" and many of those (like this) we allow many people (like eatin' fetus) to convince us that they're not a problem, and could never be a problem, even though there are clear risks and a huge impact if those risks are realized. Guys like him and their cognitive biases are the big problem behind many black swan events.
 
2014-03-04 12:08:37 AM

reaperducer: You'd better believe the energy companies make sure every gallon that goes in comes out in the right place


You better believe no system is perfect, even a long cylinder of metal. There were 300 oil spills in N. Dakota in less than two years, and zero of them were reported to the public. Zero. One of them was a massive oil spill that happened last September and the company kept quiet about it for 11 days. If their operation is on the up & up, great. Then they have nothing to worry about when it's scrutinized.
 
2014-03-04 12:12:09 AM

rdyb: The sickest thing is that most of you people picking up the shill line about "railroad is more dangerous" (implying pipelines are safe) aren't even getting paid. And to those who are: ask for more, there's plenty in that industry.



Here's an idea: I try to tell the truth. Pipelines are far safer for transporting oil than trains in every way, and no matter how much you or I may hate the use of carbon fuels like oil, they ain't going away any time soon. Any other combination of energy sources would need at least a decade before we could replace our reliance on fossil fuels- and that's only if we went gangbusters and dumped a massive load of money in totally transitioning our economy, WWII style. Unless we can make those carbon based fuels uneconomical with something like a carbon tax, we're stuck with them for the foreseeable future. We're not going to magically stop using them, so why not build sane and responsible infrastructure to handle them safely?
 
2014-03-04 12:15:46 AM

change1211: 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.


Enbridge (Enbridge Energy Partners, LP) owns the pipeline network but did not build it, it was built by Lakehead which was taken over by Enbridge in 1991. This means that since 1991 the maintenance for this pipeline has been has been looked after by Enbridge, which is bad. Very bad. If my source of fresh water was downstream of this I would be quite worried.
 
2014-03-04 12:21:42 AM

Dusk-You-n-Me: There were 300 oil spills in N. Dakota in less than two years, and zero of them were reported to the public. Zero.


Because most of them were in the range of a few liters. Any oil spill, no matter how minor (even a few drops!) has to be reported to the relevant regulatory agency. Most are cleaned up incredibly easily and pose absolutely no environmental threat or threat to human life. Not all, certainly, there are big ones from time to time, but the alternative to the occasional small spill in the middle of some farmland somewhere is this:

www.ctvnews.ca

Yes, regulate the crap out of the oil industry. Hold them to high standards, make sure thing can be cleaned up, and inspect often. But 'no pipelines ever because they might occasionally drip!" is moronic. In the modern world, we need energy. Energy has to come from somewhere, and the funny thing with society is that we make tradeoffs. As a collective, we have decided that modest risk from the occasional leak on unimportant farmland in Nebraska is worth being able to take a flight on a jet for $150, while using a panoply of electronic devices to tweet what we're eating at the airport.
 
2014-03-04 12:25:17 AM
Poison the free stuff, make a killing selling the plebs bottled water

Why do you hate capitalism, subby?
 
2014-03-04 12:27:24 AM

cptjeff: But 'no pipelines ever because they might occasionally drip!" is moronic.


You're arguing against a position I never took. I was replying to someone's "every gallon" claim, which is ludicrous.
 
2014-03-04 12:36:56 AM

cptjeff: But 'no pipelines ever because they might occasionally drip!" is moronic. In the modern world, we need energy


A straw man argument's the best you've got?

Who here is saying "no pipelines"?  We're saying, responsible inspections of infrastructure, especially that built over half a century ago.

Especially when that infrastructure directly impacts the public health.

Especially when a major failure could bankrupt the responsible parties, and leave the taxpayer picking up the tab.  It has happened too many times before.
 
2014-03-04 12:48:58 AM

cptjeff: Energy has to come from somewhere


lulz
 
2014-03-04 01:01:12 AM

cptjeff: rdyb: The sickest thing is that most of you people picking up the shill line about "railroad is more dangerous" (implying pipelines are safe) aren't even getting paid. And to those who are: ask for more, there's plenty in that industry.

Here's an idea: I try to tell the truth. Pipelines are far safer for transporting oil than trains in every way, and no matter how much you or I may hate the use of carbon fuels like oil, they ain't going away any time soon. Any other combination of energy sources would need at least a decade before we could replace our reliance on fossil fuels- and that's only if we went gangbusters and dumped a massive load of money in totally transitioning our economy, WWII style. Unless we can make those carbon based fuels uneconomical with something like a carbon tax, we're stuck with them for the foreseeable future. We're not going to magically stop using them, so why not build sane and responsible infrastructure to handle them safely?


In theory pipelines should be much safer then trains but there's a problem: the pipeline companies here in Canada are neither sane or responsible in their pursuit of profit, and they have enough money and political power to get away with it.
 
2014-03-04 01:04:29 AM
I'm noticing a few missing points
- Burning evil oil contributes to climate change
- The evil money-grubbing Reps (or Tea Baggers) are to blame
- The Edmond Fitzgerald is still below Gitche Gumee

Carry on.
 
2014-03-04 01:09:20 AM
Okay, okay, you've convinced me, but how do we carry out mass extermination of the human race without nukes or bio-weapons that would do more damage to the environment than us remaining alive?

Even our piles of corpses rotting at the bottom of giant lemming-cliffs would change the habitat around them.
 
2014-03-04 01:11:50 AM

Lenny_da_Hog: Okay, okay, you've convinced me, but how do we carry out mass extermination of the human race without nukes or bio-weapons that would do more damage to the environment than us remaining alive?

Even our piles of corpses rotting at the bottom of giant lemming-cliffs would change the habitat around them.


Kinda like this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Vmnq5dBF7Y
 
2014-03-04 01:12:37 AM

Lenny_da_Hog: Okay, okay, you've convinced me, but how do we carry out mass extermination of the human race without nukes or bio-weapons that would do more damage to the environment than us remaining alive?

Even our piles of corpses rotting at the bottom of giant lemming-cliffs would change the habitat around them.


Wow. Way to derail a conversation that was actually a productive discourse. go DIAF plz. 

Dusk- plz continue the fight.
 
2014-03-04 01:16:34 AM

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

The pipeline runs through Lake Michigan.


On the upside, a leak might kill off the zebra mussels, lampreys, and asian carp.
 
2014-03-04 01:41:07 AM
If it were a double wall pipe with the ability to detect fluid between the walls then that would be a reasonable risk. Since it's from the 1950s it's probably a single wall and who knows how the rust is where it can't be looked at.
 
2014-03-04 01:50:07 AM

ChrisDe: 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.


tar -xzf mytarball.tgz

That'll fix you right up.
 
2014-03-04 01:53:25 AM

rdyb: 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.


Most people don't have the chain to be able to anchor at that depth. Also no one wants to anchor there and or it isn't permitted on top of that.
 
2014-03-04 01:58:07 AM

rdyb: change1211: 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.

Well, one of the main points of the protests, which was mentioned but not well emphasized in TFA, is that Enbridge is upping the flow rate, i.e. PRESSURE of a 60 year old pipeline.

(Well, and the fact that people are reactionary and will get up in arms when their attention is piqued about something scary, and there's the fact that there's organized campaigning against the pipeline)

Oh looks like the video I remembered was made by a bunch of farkin' NWF turrists. move along.
VIDEO LINK
[www.midwestenergynews.com image 460x296]


Also worth remembering: "Although alarms sounded in Enbridge's Edmonton headquarters at the time of the rupture, it was eighteen hours before a Michigan utilities employee reported oil spilling and the pipeline company learned of the spill. Meanwhile, pipeline operators had thought the alarms were maybe caused by a bubble in the pipeline and, while for some time it was shut down, they also increased pressure for periods of hours to try to clear the possible blockage, spilling more oil."

It's okay, though, Enbridge can buy government-guaranteed insurance so their stockholders will be safe if they fark up again.


Hey, they apologized.

www.fatwallet.com
 
2014-03-04 02:18:52 AM

Scared Stupid:
In theory pipelines should be much safer then trains but there's a problem: the pipeline companies here in Canada are neither sane or responsible in their pursuit of profit, and they have enough money and political power to get away with it.


You know that picture I posted earlier? Dozens of people died. Yes, evil corporations booga booga. It's not just theory- pipelines are safer. Do you think that same evil, irresponsible corporation you're complaining about is going to be responsible with trains but not with pipelines?

RandomRandom: Who here is saying "no pipelines"? We're saying, responsible inspections of infrastructure, especially that built over half a century ago.


It's an exaggeration of your position, but it's not a straw man. Look at the keystone debate, FFS. The same crowd I'm seeing freak out here freaks out over the idea of the expansion of an existing pipeline because it will magically destroy the earth if it springs a small leak, or something.

You're freaking out about something that sounds scary because you're not familiar with the context. This is normal. It's never leaked since they built it. Sounds to me that whatever maintenance schedule they've been on, it's worked pretty well. Additional inspections are always a good thing, but this is an outrage over something that's in good working order because OMG it sounds scary when you say it's under a freshwater lake!.

Dusk-You-n-Me: cptjeff: But 'no pipelines ever because they might occasionally drip!" is moronic.

You're arguing against a position I never took. I was replying to someone's "every gallon" claim, which is ludicrous.


Every gallon was clearly hyperbolic, not meant to be taken literally. You cited 300 spills, and talked about one large one, carrying an implication that every single one of those was an event worth getting worked up about. They're not. When you look at the magnitude of oil we transport, only a tiny, tiny fraction is spilled, which is the point the person you were responding to was trying to make. Comparative drips, even the large one you cite- which was in the middle of a field nobody used and affected nobody, IIRC. And they cleaned it up. You presented an 'OMG everybody freak out!' stat without any context while ignoring the larger, more important point. Maybe because you didn't have a good response.
 
2014-03-04 02:42:17 AM

Fuggin Bizzy: ChrisDe: 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.

tar -xzf mytarball.tgz

That'll fix you right up.


The hyphen is not necessary.
 
2014-03-04 02:43:31 AM

cptjeff: it sounds scary when you say it's under a freshwater lake!.


You mean "aquifer." As in "supply of drinking water."

God that oil company dick must taste good.
 
2014-03-04 03:01:04 AM

AverageAmericanGuy: I'm pretty sure the SKY is the greatest source of fresh water.


Yeah, but where does the sky get it from, smart guy??
 
2014-03-04 03:07:18 AM

thehobbes: Lenny_da_Hog: Okay, okay, you've convinced me, but how do we carry out mass extermination of the human race without nukes or bio-weapons that would do more damage to the environment than us remaining alive?

Even our piles of corpses rotting at the bottom of giant lemming-cliffs would change the habitat around them.

Wow. Way to derail a conversation that was actually a productive discourse. go DIAF plz.



And increase greenhouse gases? Never!
 
2014-03-04 03:15:02 AM

leadmetal: If it were a double wall pipe with the ability to detect fluid between the walls then that would be a reasonable risk. Since it's from the 1950s it's probably a single wall and who knows how the rust is where it can't be looked at.


Corrosion can be observed through pigging. And even in the 1950s they knew how to use valve systems to minimize spills.
 
2014-03-04 04:06:29 AM

fusillade762: AverageAmericanGuy: I'm pretty sure the SKY is the greatest source of fresh water.

Yeah, but where does the sky get it from, smart guy??


Comets?
 
2014-03-04 04:28:01 AM
Hmm, 60 years in operation, and not so much as a single leak even alleged. Sounds like "Some people" means,

LIBTARDS.
 
2014-03-04 07:04:54 AM

Lenny_da_Hog: leadmetal: If it were a double wall pipe with the ability to detect fluid between the walls then that would be a reasonable risk. Since it's from the 1950s it's probably a single wall and who knows how the rust is where it can't be looked at.

Corrosion can be observed through pigging. And even in the 1950s they knew how to use valve systems to minimize spills.


Yes, but WE don't know how that works, and since we obviously know EVERYTHING, that means anything we don't know has to be an oil industry lie.

/amidoinitrite?
 
2014-03-04 07:31:10 AM
I'll just say that in metaphorically raping mother nature, our mother earth there is no way to better do it than with a huge, long, greasy pipe shoved right up the middle of her.

Goo job, big oil.
You lose points on creativity, but with the supporters you have, you can't be too obtuse.

Keep bribing those representatives, and farking our populace out of clean water.
Which is all we will need to live on when we run out of oil.
If there is any water left.
 
2014-03-04 09:20:40 AM

whidbey: cptjeff: it sounds scary when you say it's under a freshwater lake!.

You mean "aquifer." As in "supply of drinking water."

God that oil company dick must taste good.


Or "aquifer", as in, "thing we have hundreds of pipelines running through already".

Pardon me if I choose not to get worked up about the outrage de jour without doing my research first. When you yammer on about this crap, you look just as dumb as the Republicans who yammer on about Benghazi.
 
2014-03-04 09:30:28 AM

vudukungfu: I'll just say that in metaphorically raping mother nature, our mother earth there is no way to better do it than with a huge, long, greasy pipe shoved right up the middle of her.


Funny how the oil industry execs never seem to be attacked by bears, coyotes, and deer. And their coastal properties never get inundated by the rising sea levels. They just keep getting richer and richer, and buying new and more awesome toys to play with.

/it's almost like mother nature enjoys a good dicking once in a while, and reserves her gifts for her favorite lovers
//oh wait, that's the "rape culture" speaking
 
2014-03-04 09:31:35 AM

cptjeff: You cited 300 spills, and talked about one large one, carrying an implication that every single one of those was an event worth getting worked up about.


That's how you read it man. I was just relaying what happened. Some people may want to get worked up about 0 out of 300 spills being reported to the public, some may not. Some people may want to get worked up about a company keeping quiet for 11 days about their massive oil spill, some may not.

cptjeff: You presented an 'OMG everybody freak out!' stat without any context while ignoring the larger, more important point. Maybe because you didn't have a good response.


I presented some facts. The only one freaking out here is you with your hyper-defensiveness of the industry.
 
2014-03-04 09:49:37 AM

Dusk-You-n-Me: Some people may want to get worked up about 0 out of 300 spills being reported to the public, some may not. Some people may want to get worked up about a company keeping quiet for 11 days about their massive oil spill, some may not.


Oh, bullshiat. You wrote that, without any of the context, knowing that the context makes it far, far, less alarming, with the intent of getting people worked up. I work in politics, I know how this game is played. You're playing the same swarmy game of half lies and denial that the slimiest politicians do.

Dusk-You-n-Me: I presented some facts.


Get over yourself. You posted something that was technically true but was intended to be incredibly misleading. Either you know it, and are being dishonest, or you're too stupid to recognize your own bias.
 
2014-03-04 09:51:38 AM

ChrisDe: So if they eventually need to replace the underwater section, can they suspend it beneath the bridge? Easy to inspect, easy to repair.


if you've ever been on that bridge on a windy day you'd know why.  Also oil would get far colder in the winter out of the water making it much harder to pump.
 
2014-03-04 09:52:16 AM
Enbridge owns it? OK, we're all going to have flaming noodles.
 
2014-03-04 10:02:14 AM

cptjeff: You wrote that, without any of the context, knowing that the context makes it far, far, less alarming, with the intent of getting people worked up.


The only one worked up here is you. Big oil ain't going anywhere. Everything is fine. Let it go.
 
2014-03-04 10:18:10 AM

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 sure if anyone brought it up, but I've read that it does make economic sense over the life span of a refinery to put it in a warmer climate, ie, Texas vs. North Dakota, since you get energy savings heating stuff up to refine it.  Enough, in fact, to make it worth building a long pipeline.

I'm not convinced that just because we already have pipelines across the Ogallala Reservoir, we should build MORE pipelines across it...but it's going to happen.  Might as well make some money from it.

Maybe the GMO guys can develop a strain of corn that sucks oil out of the groundwater...
 
2014-03-04 10:33:27 AM
 The FACT is that spills have happened and will continue to happen. To imply that oil companies will be 100% honest and strait forward about their safety record, when they have a documented record of obfuscation when they've had accidents, is nothing short of outright deceit.
Sure you don't have some cartoon villain turning on the nozzle into rivers, neighborhoods, and oceans (which NO ONE has actually suggested) but once the spill has happened (and we all know they've happened) the oil and other crap is still in the water and no "I'm sorry we got caught" phoney apology will remove it from the water.
I really hope who ever is paying these parasites to sell out their fellow humans (and other living things) is at least paying them enough to stock up on fresh water.
 
2014-03-04 11:44:11 AM

PunGent: I'm not convinced that just because we already have pipelines across the Ogallala Reservoir, we should build MORE pipelines across it..


Building pipelines across the Ogallala aquifer is simply not a big deal. The thing is huge, making it pretty much impossible to avoid, decently far underground, and surface spills, pretty much all of which are very small and cleaned up quickly, would have very little effect on it. We have done it for a long time with lots of pipelines because doing so is about as safe as any industrial system can be.

There's a certain amount of risk in anything. Pipelines give us a much better shot at managing that risk well than trains do. Not shipping the oil is not an option.

So here's my question to all the people in here accusing me of being a shill for big oil and whatnot: What's your positive vision for meeting capacity needs in our fossil energy infrastructure? Do you have a better way of moving oil than pipelines or trains? Do you have a better routing for pipelines that would keep them away from all water sources everywhere? Give me a workable plan and I'll shut up, but you don't have that, do you? You just want to say no. That's not enough.
 
2014-03-04 11:51:59 AM

HypnozombieX: The FACT is that spills have happened and will continue to happen


The fact is that no mode of transportation is ever going to be failsafe.  The only way that we are going to completely eliminate spills is to quit using this type of energy.

I really hope who ever is paying these parasites to sell out their fellow humans (and other living things) is at least paying them enough to stock up on fresh water.

You know that is ultimately 'you' as a user of their products, correct?
 
2014-03-04 12:54:02 PM
2 things:

- Sooo... tell me about the badass new pipeline Enbridge is designing to replace this one. Soon.

- When I hear something like "6000 spills went unreported", I have to wonder "How the hell does anyone know that?" If at my work I let the overfull diesel shoot out of the filler tube a second, there is no report filed. But no one ever knows it happened. Do they track down these guys' wives to get data on when they came home with fuel on their pants?
 
2014-03-04 01:32:22 PM

cptjeff: whidbey: cptjeff: it sounds scary when you say it's under a freshwater lake!.

You mean "aquifer." As in "supply of drinking water."

God that oil company dick must taste good.

Or "aquifer", as in, "thing we have hundreds of pipelines running through already".

Pardon me if I choose not to get worked up about the outrage de jour without doing my research first. When you yammer on about this crap, you look just as dumb as the Republicans who yammer on about Benghazi.


Actually, I'm not the one looking "dumb" fellating the oil industry.

And you've already spewed a bunch of shiat here without doing your "research," don't worry.
 
2014-03-04 01:33:10 PM

cptjeff: Building pipelines across the Ogallala aquifer is simply not a big deal.


lolwut
 
2014-03-04 02:05:45 PM

whidbey: cptjeff: Building pipelines across the Ogallala aquifer is simply not a big deal.

lolwut


blog.heartland.org

We have a shaitload of pipelines over the thing already. It's worked out fine. Cut the alarmist crap.
 
2014-03-04 02:25:39 PM

cptjeff: Cut the alarmist crap.


Pretty sure concerns over polluting one of the world's biggest supply of fresh water isn't "alarmist crap."

You just keep that propaganda flying. Don't worry, someone outside of Fark will take you seriously.
 
2014-03-04 02:59:28 PM

whidbey: Pretty sure concerns over polluting one of the world's biggest supply of fresh water isn't "alarmist crap."


Just having 'concerns' does not make your point valid. If I went around yelling that I had concerns that an earthquake will break California off into the sea, releasing a giant monster to devour us all, you would probably would dismiss it as alarmist crap.

You have to examine claims on their merits. The 'concerns' about Keystone being a major risk to pollute the water supply don't actually hold up to scrutiny, so regardless of how many people have them, they can be dismissed as irrelevant. If your theory doesn't hold water, having a lot of people believe it doesn't make it any more right.
 
2014-03-04 03:05:46 PM

cptjeff: whidbey: Pretty sure concerns over polluting one of the world's biggest supply of fresh water isn't "alarmist crap."

Just having 'concerns' does not make your point valid.


Actually, it does. For many reasons.

If I went around yelling that I had concerns that an earthquake will break California off into the sea, releasing a giant monster to devour us all, you would probably would dismiss it as alarmist crap.

No, I would dismiss it as a false analogy. Rightly.

You have to examine claims on their merits. The 'concerns' about Keystone being a major risk to pollute the water supply don't actually hold up to scrutiny,

lol, pretty sure that re-examining the reasons why we're so addicted to Big Oil that we would endanger our very Earth so a handful of oil executives can continue to live lives of luxury at everyone's expense holds up to "scrunity."

so regardless of how many people have them, they can be dismissed as irrelevant. If your theory doesn't hold water, having a lot of people believe it doesn't make it any more right.

This isn't a numbers game. Keystone is just one of many pivotal political battles where it's obvious that the outdated fossil fuel paradigm is being highly questioned as to its safety and necessity.
 
2014-03-04 03:35:54 PM

whidbey: Actually, it does. For many reasons


No, it does not. The mere claim of concerns does not provide a valid basis for those concerns. Only evidence does that.

whidbey: lol, pretty sure that re-examining the reasons why we're so addicted to Big Oil that we would endanger our very Earth so a handful of oil executives can continue to live lives of luxury at everyone's expense holds up to "scrunity."


I don't see any evidence to support your specific claim, ie, that building a pipeline would present an unreasonable danger to a water source. Probably because there isn't evidence supporting that claim.

You want to move away from our addiction to oil and fossil fuels? Great, so do I. It's a great goal- global warming is probably the key issue of our times. But the construction of one pipeline is pretty much completely irrelevant to the big picture of global warming. The oil is coming out of the ground and moving to refineries no matter what. The question is how we do it in a responsible manner.

If you want to reduce our reliance on fossil fuels, you need to be arguing for a carbon tax, a tax on extraction, and an end to oil and gas subsidies. You need to change the underlying economic drivers of the energy sector. Keystone is irrelevant to that goal.

whidbey: Keystone is just one of many pivotal political battles


No, it's not pivotal in any way, shape or form. It's an irrelevant issue being used as a proxy and hyped far, far beyond its importance to anything.

whidbey: being highly questioned


Questioning isn't the same as providing evidence against. Take a look at Issa and his investigations for a nice example. Lots of noise and questioning to try and create a political ruckus, absolutely no substance to any of it. On keystone, you don't have the substance on your side, and I care about substance. Stopping global warming is an excellent aim. You have the facts and substance on your side. Trying to stop keystone is not- it would make very little difference even if you won, and you don't have the facts on your side. The more you press keystone, the more you diminish your own credibility. Stop it. You make us liberals look stupid.
 
2014-03-04 04:11:57 PM

cptjeff: No, it's not pivotal in any way, shape or form. It's an irrelevant issue being used as a proxy and hyped far, far beyond its importance to anything.


The truth is that the outcry against Keystone is working, enough to cause this kind of predictable stream of propaganda you've been spewing here.

You make us liberals look stupid.

You are not a liberal. Sorry if that wasn't obvious from your fervent fellation of the industry.
 
2014-03-04 04:22:20 PM

whidbey: The truth is that the outcry against Keystone is working


Working?  It is working very well at showing who are the Luddites are in this society.  When you consider both the cost/impact to the benefits of the various transportation modes, there is no specific scientific reason that you can point to on why this shouldn't be built other than the generalized opposition of the commodity that this pipeline carries.  IF you do have a specific scientific reason outside your generalized opposition to the use of petroleum, please let me know what it is.

It is not about safety or environmental harm as a pipeline actually reduces these risks.  It is not about global warming as the Environmental Impact Statement has concluded that the pipeline will have no significant impact on carbon emissions.
 
2014-03-04 04:33:19 PM
Oh. I thought you were cptjeff.

static.tvtropes.org


Working? It is working very well at showing who are the Luddites are in this society.

Yes, a bunch of activists well-versed with means of modern day communication and pushing for better technologies to meet our energy needs=Luddites

Nice bit of logic there.

IF you do have a specific scientific reason outside your generalized opposition to the use of petroleum, please let me know what it is

Obviously we need petroleum for some things. But given our real options, we can move away from having it be the dominant paradigm. It's been an option for decades now.

And it bears noting that we would have moved beyond it if not for the power of the oil lobbies and other corporate control mechanisms that can be bought with that kind of multi-billion dollar power.

But you know this, and tend to downplay it, almost to a comically consistent degree.
 
2014-03-04 04:33:53 PM

whidbey: You are not a liberal. Sorry if that wasn't obvious from your fervent fellation of the industry.


Being liberal is not contingent on being anti-oil.  In fact, recognizing that you are not going to stop the oil from coming to market and being able to direct the industry into using the most environmentally safe and energy efficient mode of transportation would seem to be a very upstanding thing to do - for not only liberals - but all practical citizens.
 
2014-03-04 04:40:40 PM

HeadLever: whidbey: You are not a liberal. Sorry if that wasn't obvious from your fervent fellation of the industry.

Being liberal is not contingent on being anti-oil.


Pretty sure it does. You don't fight climate change by defending pollution.


 In fact, recognizing that you are not going to stop the oil from coming to market and being able to direct the industry into using the most environmentally safe and energy efficient mode of transportation would seem to be a very upstanding thing to do - for not only liberals - but all practical citizens.

It's a bigger question than just lessening the odds of a major environmental catastrophe.

But again, you knew this. And raising enough awareness to get this country off the petroleum junkie needle is both upstanding and practical. Again, money is the only reason we're not doing it. Money that falls into the hands of a few, I might add.
 
2014-03-04 04:43:20 PM

whidbey: Yes, a bunch of activists well-versed with means of modern day communication and pushing for better technologies to meet our energy needs=Luddites


Pushing for better technologies is not mutually exclusive with installing oil infrastructure.  You are using a false dichotomy here construct a strawman argument.

And it bears noting that we would have moved beyond it if not for the power of the oil lobbies and other corporate control mechanisms that can be bought with that kind of multi-billion dollar power.

If you want to push back on the lobbying and the influence of this energy sector on alternative energy that is fine.  I'll even likely be there with you.  However, this issue has pretty much nothing to do with the Keystone Pipeline.  Again, you are using a generalized dislike of this commodity and business associated with it to color your perception of this infrastructure project.

I'll ask again, is there any concrete scientific argument out there (after considering the alternatives and the cost/benefits) on why this infrastructure project should not be allowed?
 
2014-03-04 04:46:11 PM

whidbey: You don't fight climate change by defending pollution.


You also don't fight climate change by ignoring the realities of what this commodity provides to our current standard of living.
 
2014-03-04 05:03:44 PM

whidbey: It's a bigger question than just lessening the odds of a major environmental catastrophe.


And within the context of bringing oil to market and specifically, the Keystone Pipeline, it is mostly about about reducing the risks (both health/safety and to the environment) regarding transportation of this commodity.

If you point is that it is more of an activist take on not wanting that oil to reach the market in the first place, that is a non-issue.  That cat is out of the bag as getting this pipeline cancelled is not going to shut these operations down.
 
2014-03-04 05:11:47 PM

HeadLever: You also don't fight climate change by ignoring the realities of what this commodity provides to our current standard of living.


Ignoring reality in favor of "hockey stick" computer models is exactly how the fight against climate change started, and how it has been carried out ever since. Why change tactics now?
 
2014-03-04 06:44:46 PM

HeadLever: whidbey: Yes, a bunch of activists well-versed with means of modern day communication and pushing for better technologies to meet our energy needs=Luddites


Pushing for better technologies is not mutually exclusive with installing oil infrastructure.  You are using a false dichotomy here construct a strawman argument.


Haha no dude
you said they were Luddites. You were the one constructing the absurd argument. Own up to it.

You also don't fight climate change by ignoring the realities of what this commodity provides to our current standard of living.

Oh the old "civilization is going to collapse if we try to get off fossil fuel" bullshiat. Awesome.

And if you really want to talk "realities," oil usage is a major contributor to man-made climate change. I think fact trumps your speculation any time.
 
2014-03-04 08:25:01 PM

whidbey: you said they were Luddites. You were the one constructing the absurd argument.


No, you are a Luddite in the context of opposing progress for nothing more than ideology.  My argument had nothing to do with opposing 'better technologies' and that is why it is a strawman.  In fact, I am in support of better technologies, including those regarding oil transportation.

Oh the old "civilization is going to collapse if we try to get off fossil fuel" bullshiat.

Quit with the hyperbolic strawmen.  It is not going to collapse, but you can bet that our SoL will decrease if we are forced off of oil before alternative forms of energy/transportation are ready.
 
2014-03-04 08:48:55 PM

whidbey: HeadLever: whidbey: Yes, a bunch of activists well-versed with means of modern day communication and pushing for better technologies to meet our energy needs=Luddites


Pushing for better technologies is not mutually exclusive with installing oil infrastructure. You are using a false dichotomy here construct a strawman argument.

Haha no dude
you said they were Luddites. You were the one constructing the absurd argument. Own up to it.

You also don't fight climate change by ignoring the realities of what this commodity provides to our current standard of living.

Oh the old "civilization is going to collapse if we try to get off fossil fuel" bullshiat. Awesome.

And if you really want to talk "realities," oil usage is a major contributor to man-made climate change. I think fact trumps your speculation any time.


To be fair, Ned Ludd broke the tools his overlords were using to extract wealth from him. In that light the term Luddite actually fits pretty well, though perhaps the conventional connotation of general rejection of technology does not.

cptjeff: Here's an idea: I try to tell the truth. Pipelines are far safer for transporting oil than trains in every way, and no matter how much you or I may hate the use of carbon fuels like oil, they ain't going away any time soon. Any other combination of energy sources would need at least a decade before we could replace our reliance on fossil fuels- and that's only if we went gangbusters and dumped a massive load of money in totally transitioning our economy, WWII style. Unless we can make those carbon based fuels uneconomical with something like a carbon tax, we're stuck with them for the foreseeable future. We're not going to magically stop using them, so why not build sane and responsible infrastructure to handle them safely?


Well shiat, ya got me there. I can lodge my complaints from a premise that rejects the likely reality of the situation but you're probably right. It sucks that by investing in the infrastructure we're setting ourselves up for a continued dependence on the thing that they expediate, so it makes me feel better to tell people it's stupid. Still, I hold hope for humanity - graduate from sci fi and learn about the work of Elon Musk, Chris Lewicki, Rick Tumlinson, Richard Branson, John Mankins, Keith Lofstrom. But they're just technologists, and generally business-oriented technologists. They don't tend to work on directly addressing the social problems that will sink us all regardless of how we transform matter and energy and occupy new frontiers. Things like classism, patriarchy, racism, glbtq*phobia, and all the institutions and conveniences that keep them in place. Things like property ownership disparities and the bailouts (and rules-rewriting) for big banks and finance gamblers who then go on to loan to landlords and other resource extraction venturers who then go on to essentially enslave vast swaths of populations, to various degrees. State enforcement of monopolies, sale (or other exclusive use deals) of common-heritage resources from fisheries to forests to city parks to IP to water resources to wireless frequencies. Avoid viewing things as party-line binaries and you might get somewhere. Probably not. Business as usual is a tough force to confront.
 
2014-03-05 12:20:36 AM

whidbey: we would endanger our very Earth


In precisely what way are we endangering Earth? Or did you simply mean "ourselves"? Our existence thus far is a blip on Earth's calendar; I highly doubt there is a single damned thing we could do to impact it in any significant way that it couldn't recover from in an even tinier slice of tiny, and even if we were to take 10,000 species with us when we went it wouldn't do a whole helluva lot either.
 
2014-03-05 01:51:35 AM

HeadLever: whidbey: you said they were Luddites. You were the one constructing the absurd argument.


No, you are a Luddite in the context of opposing progress for nothing more than ideology.  My argument had nothing to do with opposing 'better technologies' and that is why it is a strawman.  In fact, I am in support of better technologies, including those regarding oil transportation.


It's bullshiat.

Drop the point. I've already asked you twice.

Oh the old "civilization is going to collapse if we try to get off fossil fuel" bullshiat.

Quit with the hyperbolic strawmen. It is not going to collapse, but you can bet that our SoL will decrease if we are forced off of oil before alternative forms of energy/transportation are ready.


No, you made another ridiculous appeal to emotion argument. I could farking give a damn about your life of luxury being interrupted by stronger oil and coal regulations.

Look I know your ideology is totally busted and all, but for the love of god.

Come up with real arguments.
 
2014-03-05 01:53:10 AM

ArcadianRefugee: Our existence thus far is a blip on Earth's calendar;


OK great. Glad to know that you don't give a fark about the human race and don't care to discuss changing any of our bad energy consumption habits.

Plenty of Republicans could use your vote this November. Just a thought .
 
Displayed 145 of 145 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report