Keystoned? Exxon under fire as 10k barrels of oil spills on streets, floods Arkansas

[Darwin333]

where did i say i was against it? i am against using ED for it and that i wouldn't want them pipeline anywhere near me.

I'm not a big fan of ED, especially as implemented, either but out of curiosity why are you against its use in this instance? Or are you just generally against its use in about any circumstance?

 

[Darwin333]

It wasn't tar sand oil. It was standard well oil from Wabasca IIRC.

I didn't think it would be.

 

[ivwshane]

You realized that this pipe was built in the 1940's right? I know that most technology hasn't progressed much since the 40's but we have figured out how to make slightly better stuff since then, seriously.

Frankly, I am sort of amazed that a pipeline built in the friggen 40's has been functional until now. With modern materials, building methods, and technology they should easily be able to surpass that with new pipelines. Dollars to doughnuts you already live near an existing pipeline and if I had a choice between an old pipeline and living near a brand new modern one I would defiantly take the latter but even the former is ok. You probably have a higher chance (by a lot I would guess) of being struck by lightning than by having a pipeline significantly damage your property due to a leak.



Insurance/state/feds react? There is a metric fuckload of pipelines currently running throughout the US. If you consider the sheer mileage, volume and age of said pipelines I would say their safety record is pretty damn good. And its rather ironic that people are already using an older than shit pipeline leaking as a reason not to build a brand new one. How else do you suppose we will be able to take some of these older than shit pipelines out of service?

So the new pipeline will replace some older pipelines? Do you have a source for that cłaim?

 

[HomerJS]

You realized that this pipe was built in the 1940's right? I know that most technology hasn't progressed much since the 40's but we have figured out how to make slightly better stuff since then, seriously.

Frankly, I am sort of amazed that a pipeline built in the friggen 40's has been functional until now. With modern materials, building methods, and technology they should easily be able to surpass that with new pipelines. Dollars to doughnuts you already live near an existing pipeline and if I had a choice between an old pipeline and living near a brand new modern one I would defiantly take the latter but even the former is ok. You probably have a higher chance (by a lot I would guess) of being struck by lightning than by having a pipeline significantly damage your property due to a leak.



Insurance/state/feds react? There is a metric fuckload of pipelines currently running throughout the US. If you consider the sheer mileage, volume and age of said pipelines I would say their safety record is pretty damn good. And its rather ironic that people are already using an older than shit pipeline leaking as a reason not to build a brand new one. How else do you suppose we will be able to take some of these older than shit pipelines out of service?

I don't have an argument with your premise we shouldn't judge todays pipe materiels by pipe built in the 40s.

It's not like we haven't built new piplines since then but the question is why was the oil company using a pipe built in the 40s to carry such heavy and more dangerous(environmentally) oil if it's such "shit pipeline"?

 

[waggy]

I'm not a big fan of ED, especially as implemented, either but out of curiosity why are you against its use in this instance? Or are you just generally against its use in about any circumstance?

well A) its going to a business use. B) ED was for things for the government. roads. parks, schools etc. not to increase profits for a business. yes i have seen the arguments that this helps the government so ED works. bullshit. that is nto what it was intended for.

if they wanted the property they should have offered people enough to sell. if not rerout and offer the neighbor more and have it right near.


you also need to remember ED and seizure is happening BEFORE it is ok'd by the government.

so if Obama denies it (doubtfull) what then? people had land seized over this.

 

[HomerJS]

It wasn't tar sand oil. It was standard well oil from Wabasca IIRC.

The oil companies themselves identified the material as "bitumen crude". Many articles say it's tar sands which may be incorrect but bitumen crude is not standard well oil.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

The yards can be decontaminated. Most likely it wouldn't require removing more than the top 3 feet of soil, decontaminate the soil using steam, restore the soil, and lay new grass.

 

[nehalem256]

well A) its going to a business use. B) ED was for things for the government. roads. parks, schools etc. not to increase profits for a business. yes i have seen the arguments that this helps the government so ED works. bullshit. that is nto what it was intended for.

if they wanted the property they should have offered people enough to sell. if not rerout and offer the neighbor more and have it right near.


you also need to remember ED and seizure is happening BEFORE it is ok'd by the government.

so if Obama denies it (doubtfull) what then? people had land seized over this.

An oil pipeline has to follow a reasonable course just like a road. A pipeline is basically an infrastructure item like roads, sewers, powerlines, etc.

 

[monovillage]

Would love to see that broken out by how much was each spill. As noted, most are near or on water at offshore sites, barges, refineries, transfer stations... Let's see.. small plane crashed into the lake... Train derailment with rupture of tanker carrying chemical that isn't raw or refined petroleum...many are the result of human error... not the fault of infrastructure... "unknown floating tanks offshore" Presents a navigation hazard... So... not an aweful lot of spills there.

One report was "Mystery sheen on water". Not sure what to make of that.

My original point still stands. I'm not saying your link isn't of value, but I'd love to see the details surrounding each SPILL incident and the amount of spillage for each one. Yes, that is in each article potentially, but harder to cull.

That was just a single year and just reported spills. It doesn't include natural oil seeps and discharges.

 

[monovillage]

agreed.



its beyond that. odds are they use a city well. wich is local and most likely contaminated. Also the property itself is contaminated. so no garden and may kill many plants/grass

Much too soon to be spewing this type of crap, you don't even know how much oil was spilled and the area covered or the depth of the contamination.

 

[monovillage]

Don't you think residents have the right to know if they live within a certain distance of an existing pipeline.

Pipelines are a matter of public record, in fact they'll go to lengths if you're excavating in an area to map out where they are. Same with cables, gas pipelines , water pipes etc.
Ohhh maybe it was a "stealth" pipeline.

 

[Darwin333]

So the new pipeline will replace some older pipelines? Do you have a source for that cłaim?

I didn't say that. However, you sort of need new pipelines in order to take old pipelines off line if you want to keep the same amount of fluids flowing.

Most of the pipelines in this country are old as hell and I am not sure how hard the process is for the owners to replace them but it sure as hell doesn't look easy getting permission to build a new one. Perhaps, and this is pure speculation, we have made it too difficult so the oil companies try to extend the lifespan of existing pipelines.

It was a hellofa lot easier to do stuff like build roads, bridges, and pipelines back in the 40's. I couldn't imagine trying to replace 1/10 of our current pipelines in todays world, it would be an insane project that I would bet cost 20 times (inflation adjusted) what the original pipeline did.

I do know that some old pipelines are planned to be replaced by Keystone though.

 

[Darwin333]

I don't have an argument with your premise we shouldn't judge todays pipe materiels by pipe built in the 40s.

It's not like we haven't built new piplines since then but the question is why was the oil company using a pipe built in the 40s to carry such heavy and more dangerous(environmentally) oil if it's such "shit pipeline"?

Lack of options.

 

[Darwin333]

The oil companies themselves identified the material as "bitumen crude". Many articles say it's tar sands which may be incorrect but bitumen crude is not standard well oil.

Actually, it appears that you are right, from another article:

"This week the situation took a turn for the worse when the ExxonMobil Pegasus pipeline that previously delivered up to 96 Mb/d of Canadian crude from Patoka, IL to Nederland, TX was closed because of a leak in Arkansas."


Which means that the Keystone Pipeline would have almost definitely replaced this pipeline and had it been in service this leak may very well not have happened.

 

[Darwin333]

So the new pipeline will replace some older pipelines? Do you have a source for that cłaim?

I was wrong. This pipeline is actually carrying oil from Canadian tar sands to the Gulf Coast and is, from what I am reading so far, one of their only options for getting their oil to the market besides rail. The Keystone pipeline would have replaced the Pegusus pipeline, at least as far as moving the tar sand oil.

 

[waggy]

Much too soon to be spewing this type of crap, you don't even know how much oil was spilled and the area covered or the depth of the contamination.

too soon? when is a good time to question about the land and water table?

 

[Pray To Jesus]

Who cares about this spill except the 20+ people who were affected. Seems a big nothing. More pipelines please.

 

[monovillage]

too soon? when is a good time to question about the land and water table?

You weren't just questioning, you were stating it as a done deal. No one is in favor of nasty oil spills and environmental degradation, some damage is permanent, but some is able to be cleaned and neutralized. Wait until the scientists and technicians work on it before declaring it irreparably damaged.

 

[silverpig]

The oil companies themselves identified the material as "bitumen crude". Many articles say it's tar sands which may be incorrect but bitumen crude is not standard well oil.

Turns out this is correct. I heard it the other way from somewhere, but yes, the oil was Wabasca heavy crude which is derived from the oil sands.

 

[waggy]

You weren't just questioning, you were stating it as a done deal. No one is in favor of nasty oil spills and environmental degradation, some damage is permanent, but some is able to be cleaned and neutralized. Wait until the scientists and technicians work on it before declaring it irreparably damaged.

lol where did i say the land was irreparably damaged? I said this would reduce the value of the homes. he asked why i said ground and water contamination.

I never said the land was irreparably damaged at all. i never hinted it either. all i said is these are reasons the houses are going to be worth FAR less.

I for one would NOT buy these property's.

 

[WackyDan]

That was just a single year and just reported spills. It doesn't include natural oil seeps and discharges.

I looked through multiple years of events on the site. Again, I think my point stands and has merit.

Natural oil seeps? Why would you care if it is natural? It would be happening whether humans are on earth or not and research has shown that you'd rather have unrefined oil as a spill then refined in most cases.

 

[Incorruptible]

Exxon should have to pay damages to the homeowners and any other landowners. This is why private property rights should be enforced, If someone damages your property then you can sue them for damages.

 

[Slew Foot]

Why would the homes now be "valueless" ?

Because its in arkansas

 

[Darwin333]

I don't know enough about pipeline history to make conclusions about their safety but here is what I know.

Tar sands spill in Kalamazoo MI over 2 years ago still hasen't been cleaned up.

Don't you think residents have the right to know if they live within a certain distance of an existing pipeline.

There are something like 2.5 million miles of various pipelines currently in use in the US. That includes 55,000 miles of "trunk" crude pipelines (bigass crude pipelines), 95,000 miles of interstate refined product pipelines (spills are WAY worse than crude) and over a quarter of a million miles of nat. gas. distribution lines (BOOM). Along with those you have a shitton of smaller gathering lines and intrastate pipelines.

But wait, it gets better. From a .gov study:

"Over 50% of the nation's pipelines were constructed in the 1950's and 1960's during the creation of the interstate pipeline network built in response to the huge demand for energy in the thriving post-World War II economy. Some pipelines were built even earlier. Approximately 3% of our gas distribution mains are made of cast or wrought iron and were built in the first half of the 20th century. Over 12% of the nation’s cross-country gas transmission and hazardous liquid pipelines were built prior to the 1950's."

Yet for some reason building a few thousand miles of brand new state of the art pipeline is a OMFGWTFBBQ issue. I would much rather have the brand new Keystone pipeline running through my backyard than some pipeline built in the 50's.

Oh but wait, it gets even better. Most of that 50% is exempt from Federal Regulation because they were built before the regulation was introduced and it just wasn't feasible to make them dig them all up to either comply or prove they comply and it remains that way to this day and I can understand why. So what is the easiest solution to reduce the risk associated with these old pipelines? New pipelines that increase capacity so the old ones can simply be taken offline and dismantled, abandoned, or repaired. Simply shutting them down without having the capacity elsewhere is not only unfeasible but simply won't ever happen.

 

[ivwshane]

There are something like 2.5 million miles of various pipelines currently in use in the US. That includes 55,000 miles of "trunk" crude pipelines (bigass crude pipelines), 95,000 miles of interstate refined product pipelines (spills are WAY worse than crude) and over a quarter of a million miles of nat. gas. distribution lines (BOOM). Along with those you have a shitton of smaller gathering lines and intrastate pipelines.

But wait, it gets better. From a .gov study:

"Over 50% of the nation's pipelines were constructed in the 1950's and 1960's during the creation of the interstate pipeline network built in response to the huge demand for energy in the thriving post-World War II economy. Some pipelines were built even earlier. Approximately 3% of our gas distribution mains are made of cast or wrought iron and were built in the first half of the 20th century. Over 12% of the nation’s cross-country gas transmission and hazardous liquid pipelines were built prior to the 1950's."

Yet for some reason building a few thousand miles of brand new state of the art pipeline is a OMFGWTFBBQ issue. I would much rather have the brand new Keystone pipeline running through my backyard than some pipeline built in the 50's.

Oh but wait, it gets even better. Most of that 50% is exempt from Federal Regulation because they were built before the regulation was introduced and it just wasn't feasible to make them dig them all up to either comply or prove they comply and it remains that way to this day and I can understand why. So what is the easiest solution to reduce the risk associated with these old pipelines? New pipelines that increase capacity so the old ones can simply be taken offline and dismantled, abandoned, or repaired. Simply shutting them down without having the capacity elsewhere is not only unfeasible but simply won't ever happen.

Is that one of the purposes of the new pipeline? If so I'd like a source for that info if you don't mind.