Rockin' in the free world since 2005.

[Total: 14    Average: 3/5]
38 Comments - View/Add
Hits: 4543
Rating: 3
Category:
Date: 04/01/13 04:31 PM

38 Responses to Exxon Pipeline Bursts In Mayflower, AR

  1. Profile photo of FoolsPrussia
    FoolsPrussia Male 30-39
    3446 posts
    April 1, 2013 at 4:32 pm
    Link: Exxon Pipeline Bursts In Mayflower, AR - Still want that Keystone Pipeline?
  2. Profile photo of nettech98
    nettech98 Male 50-59
    1043 posts
    April 1, 2013 at 4:39 pm
    Look familiar??
  3. Profile photo of fancythat
    fancythat Male 30-39
    1950 posts
    April 1, 2013 at 4:55 pm
    Pipeline right through the neighborhood, huh? Sounds legit to me! Hope you were told that before you bought.
  4. Profile photo of Cajun247
    Cajun247 Male 18-29
    10722 posts
    April 1, 2013 at 5:17 pm
    Still want that Keystone Pipeline?

    The benefits it will bring are well worth the risks. In short, yes. No doubt the company that built this pipe will face a lawsuit as they should.
  5. Profile photo of Evil_Eye
    Evil_Eye Male 18-29
    1443 posts
    April 1, 2013 at 5:38 pm
    Oil? They are rich! Rich I tell you!
  6. Profile photo of BDT1981
    BDT1981 Male 18-29
    132 posts
    April 1, 2013 at 5:44 pm
    I want to thank you for driving your car that half block and basically giving oil companies more money. We NEED to get off oil.
  7. Profile photo of FoolsPrussia
    FoolsPrussia Male 30-39
    3446 posts
    April 1, 2013 at 5:55 pm
    "The benefits it will bring are well worth the risks."

    What benefits?

    The 35 permanent jobs?

    The modest decrease in gas prices, if at all?
  8. Profile photo of TheGuySmiley
    TheGuySmiley Male 18-29
    1243 posts
    April 1, 2013 at 6:07 pm
    The ugliness of greed and the desire for a quick buck manifested. Too bad the company will do everything to swipe this under the rug so they can get back to business as usual, with claims that all has been resolved. This will very likely pollute the water table there for a long time.
  9. Profile photo of Cajun247
    Cajun247 Male 18-29
    10722 posts
    April 1, 2013 at 6:16 pm
    What benefits?

    Your latter article only says we won`t see any benefits UNTIL 2014. Secondly the oil isn`t going to stay buried indefinitely Canada will find someone to export it to or through for that matter. On top of which most construction jobs are temporary anyways so no surprise there.
  10. Profile photo of Cajun247
    Cajun247 Male 18-29
    10722 posts
    April 1, 2013 at 6:20 pm
    On top of which we can start buying even more oil from Canada than Venezuela.
  11. Profile photo of FoolsPrussia
    FoolsPrussia Male 30-39
    3446 posts
    April 1, 2013 at 6:21 pm
    "Your latter article only says we won`t see any benefits UNTIL 2014."

    It also contains contradictory statements about those said benefits.

    "Secondly the oil isn`t going to stay buried indefinitely Canada will find someone to export it to or through for that matter."

    Do you know how environmentally devastating Canada`s tar sands production is? We should not be participating in it.
  12. Profile photo of Cajun247
    Cajun247 Male 18-29
    10722 posts
    April 1, 2013 at 6:31 pm
    [quote">Do you know how environmentally devastating Canada`s tar sands production is?[/quote">

    Albeit relatively more carbon-intensive but on aggregate not that dangerous
  13. Profile photo of FoolsPrussia
    FoolsPrussia Male 30-39
    3446 posts
    April 1, 2013 at 6:48 pm
    @Cajun: Carbon emissions are just one factor.

    "Companies are currently licensed to withdraw over 590,000,000 cubic metres of water per year, which is roughly equivalent to what a city of 3 million people would require"

    "There are currently over 720 billion litres of toxic tailings on the landscape in the Athabasca oil sands area.23 These ponds cover an area of more than 130 square kilometres. By 2040 these tailings are expected to occupy 310 square kilometres, an area nearly the size of Vancouver."

    Link

    Many more impacts as well.
  14. Profile photo of CrakrJak
    CrakrJak Male 40-49
    17515 posts
    April 1, 2013 at 7:08 pm
    FoolsPrussia: The Exxon pipeline in Arkansas is rather old, over 50 years old. I`m sure the EPA is there monitoring the whole leak. Exxon will be made to clean this up and it will be extensive, even as small as that release was.

    I`ve personally seen the remediation and clean-up done at a similar leak, near where I used to live. Was put to work watching the pump station that leaked, per EPA rules. They had to dig away and remove all the effected soil, 10 feet deep by the way, and not only repair the pump but add additional monitoring equipment as well.

    Mobil, the company involved in that spill, had to pay the farmer for his whole crop loss, bring in new soil and had to pay people like me to watch 24/7 to make sure it didn`t happen again. There was also a large fine.

    TheGuySmiley: It`s likely this spill did not contaminate the water table, it probably contaminated the sewer system and contaminated soil will have to be removed.
  15. Profile photo of CrakrJak
    CrakrJak Male 40-49
    17515 posts
    April 1, 2013 at 7:12 pm
    FoolsPrussia: The oil sands where naturally contaminated with oil to begin with. All they are doing is extracting the oil out of them. The tailings are less toxic than the oil sand itself.
  16. Profile photo of Cajun247
    Cajun247 Male 18-29
    10722 posts
    April 1, 2013 at 7:32 pm
    which is roughly equivalent to what a city of 3 million people would require

    As of 2011 Calgary has a little over 1 million. That estimate only takes half of Athabasca`s discharge.

    these tailings are expected to occupy 310 square kilometres, an area nearly the size of Vancouver.

    Does seem large but the official city of Calgary is more than twice as large.
  17. Profile photo of FoolsPrussia
    FoolsPrussia Male 30-39
    3446 posts
    April 1, 2013 at 7:34 pm
    "The oil sands where naturally contaminated with oil to begin with. All they are doing is extracting the oil out of them. The tailings are less toxic than the oil sand itself."

    Oil sands leave toxic traces

    "They found elevated levels of PAHs and heavy metals in river water and snow downstream from mining operations."
  18. Profile photo of Cajun247
    Cajun247 Male 18-29
    10722 posts
    April 1, 2013 at 7:38 pm
    That estimate only takes half of Athabasca`s discharge.

    Whoops looks like a made math error and underestimated.

    Average discharge of river Athabasca: 623 cu m/s = 1.966E10 cu m/yr
    So that estimate only takes a little over a quarter.
  19. Profile photo of Cajun247
    Cajun247 Male 18-29
    10722 posts
    April 1, 2013 at 7:57 pm
    They found elevated levels of PAHs and heavy metals in river water and snow downstream from mining operations.

    Tap water has heavy metals in it, doesn`t mean a glass is going to make me sick within the next 24 hours. Even if it is "elevated".
  20. Profile photo of richanddead
    richanddead Male 18-29
    3318 posts
    April 1, 2013 at 8:10 pm
    People May feel that oil is destructive and point to this as evidence. But like it or not, oil is here to stay. Nothing else comes close to oil when it comes to energy density, ease of handling, flexibility, convenience, cost, or scale.

    I hear people screaming that "Green-energy" is so much better but if you look at it, it really isn`t. Wind turbines, solar panels, and lithium batteries all require massive amounts of rare earth minerals like neodymium, that are mined almost exclusively from China. They are often mined by Chinese gangs that spraying the ground with tons of Sulfuric Acid that runs of into rivers and oceans or eaten by people who get food from polluted rice paddies.


  21. Profile photo of richanddead
    richanddead Male 18-29
    3318 posts
    April 1, 2013 at 8:11 pm
    In the town of Baotou in Mongolia they even have a lake that has a smoldering black crust, that kills everything even bacteria, from all the run off chemicals from rare earth mineral production to fuel these green technologies. And this is done on a daily bases as a means of production, not just as an accident.


  22. Profile photo of richanddead
    richanddead Male 18-29
    3318 posts
    April 1, 2013 at 8:17 pm
    And if you think that driving a hybrid or electric car is more environmentally friendly, guess again. The production of such cars often adds more carbon emissions than a gas guzzlers. The emission given off by the production are not finally off-set until the car is driven about 80,000 miles.

    .

    And even then only if it receives all its power from a green source. 49% of U.S. electricity is generated using coal and if it from one of these plants the car still produces more pollution all around. link
  23. Profile photo of OldOllie
    OldOllie Male 60-69
    15844 posts
    April 1, 2013 at 8:22 pm
    If he were shooting that video from the back of a horse, he might be onto something. BTW, did anyone notice that the street was paved with asphalt? Does anyone here know where asphalt comes from?
  24. Profile photo of turdburglar
    turdburglar Male 30-39
    4709 posts
    April 1, 2013 at 8:23 pm

    We`re rich! Ha haaaa, BLACK GOLD! Time to move, I hear that "California is the place to be".
  25. Profile photo of turdburglar
    turdburglar Male 30-39
    4709 posts
    April 1, 2013 at 8:26 pm

    Do you know how environmentally devastating Canada`s tar sands production is? We should not be participating in it.

    Who gives a F? It`s canada, let 5cats and the other canks decide what THEY want.
  26. Profile photo of turdburglar
    turdburglar Male 30-39
    4709 posts
    April 1, 2013 at 8:33 pm

    Maybe I should do a quick google search, and become an expert......DONE!

    Now I am just as opinionated as these other "know it all`s" here which know what is best for everybody, on every topic, no matter the situation. I too am a google genius.
  27. Profile photo of 5Cats
    5Cats Male 50-59
    31759 posts
    April 1, 2013 at 9:34 pm
    Pipelines are safe, period. They`re also cheap, period. They protect the environment, period.

    You`d prefer millions of trucks or train cars hauling oil around? Think again.
  28. Profile photo of patchgrabber
    patchgrabber Male 30-39
    5812 posts
    April 1, 2013 at 10:31 pm
    The tailings are less toxic than the oil sand itself.

    As a scientist who has worked directly with the oil sands, from tailings pond soil and water, you are full of $hit. Extreme deposits of heavy metals, Naphthenic acids, those places are a nightmare. I`ve published work on algae from those areas that could be used to help remediate the metals, but that`s not likely to advance too quickly even though they have a contractual obligation to restore the environments they destroy, but the tailings ponds are NOT less toxic than boreal forest.

    Pipelines are safe, period. They`re also cheap, period. They protect the environment, period.

    Do you even realize the absurdity of this statement in a post about an oil spill from a pipeline?
  29. Profile photo of patchgrabber
    patchgrabber Male 30-39
    5812 posts
    April 1, 2013 at 10:32 pm
    Who gives a F? It`s canada, let 5cats and the other canks decide what THEY want.
    Um....thanks?
  30. Profile photo of CrakrJak
    CrakrJak Male 40-49
    17515 posts
    April 2, 2013 at 4:33 am
    patchgrabber: So you`re saying the heavy metals and naphthenic acids didn`t exist in the sand beforehand? See, that`s where you "are full of $hit" sir. Forest existed there before and will again despite the toxicity that existed there before and now.

    Also, naphthenates can be highly useful in many industrial applications and are `organic acids` which will breakdown and remediate themselves in time.
  31. Profile photo of 5Cats
    5Cats Male 50-59
    31759 posts
    April 2, 2013 at 8:47 am
    @patchy: Do you know how much oil and natural gas gets pushed through pipelines EVERY HOUR? It`s HUGE!

    Now, replace ALL those pipes with truck or trains? MASSIVE expense, MASSIVE pollution, MASSIVE increase in potential accidents. Those propane tankers go up like BOMBS baby!

    The ONLY reasonable way to transport HUGE amounts of Alberta Oil to Louisiana refineries is PIPELINE. There`s one there already! ffs! They`re essentially "twinning" it (more or less) so what is all the fuss about?

    Oh yeah! Radical leftists being politically correct. Goddamn Hippies!
  32. Profile photo of McGovern1981
    McGovern1981 Male 30-39
    14273 posts
    April 2, 2013 at 9:32 am
    Well we still need oil and moving via truck would be more expensive and probably result in more spills so ya build the pipline.
  33. Profile photo of ak4775
    ak4775 Male 30-39
    354 posts
    April 2, 2013 at 10:02 am
    Yup, still want it. Exxon will clean this crap up and take care of those effected.
  34. Profile photo of papajon0s1
    papajon0s1 Male 40-49
    578 posts
    April 2, 2013 at 10:21 am
    Yes, absolutely need the keystone pipeline.
  35. Profile photo of monkerz
    monkerz Male 30-39
    194 posts
    April 2, 2013 at 1:46 pm
    "Come and listen to my story `bout a man named Jed"
  36. Profile photo of WizardofCOR
    WizardofCOR Male 40-49
    155 posts
    April 2, 2013 at 4:49 pm
    Absolutely not. All arguments for it fail.
  37. Profile photo of MrAtari
    MrAtari Male 40-49
    1562 posts
    April 4, 2013 at 12:54 am
    So after destroying the environment at sea with the Exxon Valdez they`re trying their luck on land now?
  38. Profile photo of Xprez
    Xprez Male 30-39
    676 posts
    April 4, 2013 at 8:42 pm
    This wouldn`t even be a drop in the bucket compared to what that pipeline can save. These people will be fine after Exxon takes care of it. People die in car wrecks every day, yet most of us still drive a car. Faulty electrical items or appliances cause house fires every day, yet we still use electricity. According to this logic, we should have no planes, cars, houses, electricity, sports, or anything that has a potential for an accident or disaster.

Leave a Reply