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 46
    More: Obvious, Great Lakes Research Center, fresh water, autonomous underwater vehicles, horse-drawn carriage, Traverse City, National Wildlife Federation, Upper Peninsula, Debbie Stabenow  
•       •       •

8478 clicks; posted to Main » on 03 Mar 2014 at 10:20 PM (24 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

2014-03-03 08:35:58 PM
4 votes:
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 11:30:04 PM
3 votes:

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 11:19:58 PM
3 votes:

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 10:26:26 PM
3 votes:
For some reason I think subby has no idea what he's talking about.

/pipeliner
2014-03-03 10:15:04 PM
3 votes:
I'm pretty sure the SKY is the greatest source of fresh water.
2014-03-04 12:05:08 AM
2 votes:

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.
2014-03-03 11:35:25 PM
2 votes:

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 11:34:37 PM
2 votes:
I love these "right to fark shiat up in the name of oil" threads.
2014-03-03 11:31:14 PM
2 votes:
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 11:27:37 PM
2 votes:

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 10:46:07 PM
2 votes:

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 10:44:02 PM
2 votes:
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 10:37:37 PM
2 votes:
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 10:34:32 PM
2 votes:
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 10:28:02 PM
2 votes:
The pipeline was built in 1953, so it's a little late to protest its construction.
2014-03-04 09:31:35 AM
1 votes:

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 01:01:12 AM
1 votes:

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 12:25:17 AM
1 votes:
Poison the free stuff, make a killing selling the plebs bottled water

Why do you hate capitalism, subby?
2014-03-04 12:15:46 AM
1 votes:

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 12:08:37 AM
1 votes:

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.
2014-03-03 11:55:03 PM
1 votes:

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?
2014-03-03 11:47:23 PM
1 votes:

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 11:41:45 PM
1 votes:

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 11:41:38 PM
1 votes:
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 11:39:53 PM
1 votes:
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 11:34:26 PM
1 votes:

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 11:33:55 PM
1 votes:

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 11:23:23 PM
1 votes:

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 11:22:08 PM
1 votes:
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 11:19:45 PM
1 votes:

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 11:17:53 PM
1 votes:
 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 11:12:53 PM
1 votes:

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 11:09:29 PM
1 votes:

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 11:08:43 PM
1 votes:

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 11:07:27 PM
1 votes:
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 11:06:26 PM
1 votes:

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 10:55:33 PM
1 votes:

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 10:45:17 PM
1 votes:

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 10:42:41 PM
1 votes:

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 10:42:36 PM
1 votes:
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 10:37:05 PM
1 votes:
It would not be a bad idea to move the existing ones away from the clean water.
2014-03-03 10:31:22 PM
1 votes:
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 10:31:10 PM
1 votes:
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 10:29:55 PM
1 votes:
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 10:28:59 PM
1 votes:
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 09:59:25 PM
1 votes:
It's just oil.
Oil is as natural as air and water.
 
Displayed 46 of 46 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report