the Arkansas oil spill

[davest]

looks like an entire subdivision will be up for sale shortly, for cheap. This is your chance to get a lawn that never needs cutting, or fertilizer. But seriously, how long before it hits Lake Conway and the drinking water for that section of state?

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Cry Of The Eagle: History And Legends Of The Cherokee Indians And Their Buried Treasure - Grab it through Amazon!

[Chadeaux]

ExxonMobil's Pegasus pipeline, which is more than six decades old, runs from Patoka, Illinois, to Nederland, Texas, and can transport up to 90,000 barrels of oil per day. The company said Monday it was still investigating the cause of the spill, which the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency classified as "major." Cleanup is ongoing.

If it wasn't for the envirionmental crazies, this pipeline would have been replaced decades ago and you wouldn't be hearing about it rupturing because it would have been gone.

You just can't fix stupid.

Maybe now they can see why the aging pipeline was in need of being replaced. Jeesh! You envirionmentalists complain when the oil companies want to replace aging pipelines with new ones, and you complain when the old ones rupture because you wouldn't let them be replaced.

At what point will they realize how stupid they are?

 

[Red James Cash]

At what point will they realize how stupid they are?

Never,theyre to stupid to realize that theyre stupid.

 

[onfire]

Boy that guy with the small woody plant name sure get's around

Funny how these things happen when we're trying to get another one going.

I love it when the "Not in my back yard" Yuppies say No oil pipelines, No gas pipelines No windmills, No cell towers, No high tension towers, No dumps, No smoking, No Wal Mart's, No flag flying, Etc. Etc. in my subdivision. How about NO SH !t Sherlock.

 

[davest]

that's the first I heard about Exxon wanting to replace it 60 years ago. Would you happen to have a link to a site that blames the envirowackies for stopping them? Or are you just making things up again?

 

[Chadeaux]

READ!!! The pipeline IS MORE THAN 60 YEARS OLD. Exxon cannot close that pipeline until it REPLACES THE AGING PIPELINE.

How long do the wackos expect the pipe to last?

Pigging a pipe is abrasive and removes part of the metal each time it is done. I worked in refineries for Shell, Exxon and Texaco as well as independent refineries doing construction. Those folks don't like to use pipelines to the point of failure. Pipelines should not be that old before they are replaced. In fact, this pipeline probably should have failed years ago. Normal aging as well as the wear of moving the oil (yes, some are corrosive others are abrasive) make it amazing to me that it has lasted since the late 1940's.

You can try to spin it however you wish. It isn't a matter of irresponsibility on the part of Exxon. It's the irresponsibility of the very ones who didn't want another pipeline built. Wouldn't matter if they were side by side.

Seems there were some other pipeline problems for aging infrastructure in the last couple of years. A Christmas time explosion in Kalifornia and one in Alabama if memory serves.

 

[davest]

With that type of logic, I would blame the people that bought homes built by the developer over the aging pipeline.

 

[Chadeaux]

Well, the pipelines in Arkansas are clearly marked, no construction can take place above those pipelines because IT IS ILLEGAL TO BUILD A RESIDENCE ABOVE A PIPELINE.

Go to Google Earth and you can trace pipelines and high tension power lines by the paths free of building and trees.

Logic has naught to do with your argument because you are woefully uninformed as with most environmentalists.

 

[davest]

So by your reasoning (?), as long as a home wasn't built "above" the pipeline it's ok. Right? Hey, you stated that Exxon was trying to replace the pipeline prior to it's failure but was held back by enviromentalists. You can't supply any type of backup to your remark so I guess you just make stuff up to suit your needs. I'm not surprised at all. Now, you go google whatever you want to, but until you show proof that Exxon attempted to replace said pipeline but was deterred by "environmentalists", you're just blowing smoke.

 

[Chadeaux]

So by your reasoning (?), as long as a home wasn't built "above" the pipeline it's ok. Right? Hey, you stated that Exxon was trying to replace the pipeline prior to it's failure but was held back by enviromentalists. You can't supply any type of backup to your remark so I guess you just make stuff up to suit your needs. I'm not surprised at all. Now, you go google whatever you want to, but until you show proof that Exxon attempted to replace said pipeline but was deterred by "environmentalists", you're just blowing smoke.

LOL!!! Guess you really can't fix stoopid.

Listen - YOU ARE THE ONE WHO SAID SOMEONE BUILT THEIR HOMES OVER A PIPELINE!!!

With that type of logic, I would blame the people that bought homes built by the developer over the aging pipeline.

What I said is that you can't do that. IT IS FREAKIN ILLEGAL TO BUILD OVER THESE PIPELINES!

Well, the pipelines in Arkansas are clearly marked, no construction can take place above those pipelines because IT IS ILLEGAL TO BUILD A RESIDENCE ABOVE A PIPELINE.

Go to Google Earth and you can trace pipelines and high tension power lines by the paths free of building and trees.

Logic has naught to do with your argument because you are woefully uninformed as with most environmentalists.

Leave it to the baiters to try to accuse me of stating something I did not. Then they go off in some weird diatribe. You related to Stockpicker?

DO NOT do that again.

 

[0121stockpicker]

Never,theyre to stupid to realize that theyre stupid.

Rjc - sometimes you just toss the fattest softballs for one to slam out of the park. It's just too funny.

 

[0121stockpicker]

Boy that guy with the small woody plant name sure get's around

Funny how these things happen when we're trying to get another one going.

I love it when the "Not in my back yard" Yuppies say No oil pipelines, No gas pipelines No windmills, No cell towers, No high tension towers, No dumps, No smoking, No Wal Mart's, No flag flying, Etc. Etc. in my subdivision. How about NO SH !t Sherlock.

I can completely attest to that. I lived through a project called "cape wind" up here in MA. A lot of these folks love Windpower until it ruins the views from their multimillion dollar beachfront property. Kennedy and Kerry both lobbied hard against it.

Everyone wants to "feel good" but not if it means sacrificing any of there lifestyles or conveniences. I love seeing the "I bought carbon offsets" bumperstickers on people's big huge SUVs up in Cambridge MA. It's always easy to talk the talk but not walk the walk!! Best.

 

[davest]

You got me there chad-o., and since it is illegal to build homes over pipelines in Arkansas, this never happened, or the pipeline was built above ground making it a playground like structure.. I'm still researching "Exxon held back from replacing aging Pegasus pipeline due to environmentalist wackos". Do I have the words correct cause I can't seem to find anything close.

 

[Chadeaux]

Perhaps you cannot understand. It is standard practice among industry (unlike the nanny state you guys like so much) to replace aging infrastructure. So we'll try a different tack. You young 'uns like to ask why at your age so here goes:

You might look into "proposed pipelines". Why?

A replacement pipeline would not be placed in the same location. Why?

The danger of damaging the existing pipeline during construction and causing a spill would be too great. Why?

The area where the pipeline is currently buried would have to be excavated while the pipeline is still in use. Why?

The environmentalist have not allowed them to build a new pipeline. Since they cannot build a new pipeline, the old one would have to stay in use. Why?

If the flow of oil was stopped, the price of fuel would go up. Why?

There would be less oil available to make fuels and other products. Why?

The flow of oil was stopped, so there was less oil. Why?

The environmentalists would not allow a new pipeline to be built. Why?

Damn good question.

 

[releventchair]

Its been 3? Years since a pipe opened in Michigan and spilled into a creek. Still oil found. Like it or not preventive maintenance and repair or replacement should not be hindered do to spills. The limited media information never mentioned any resistance to pipe replacement. Its not only oil,lots of aged pipe underground, out of sight and always seems a surprise when one fails. There are places to leave alone the birth place of gwich'in source of caribou is one. Oil we use, till we use more other fuel, (and why is so little used?,besides needing to make millions to adapt products before any interest,proven changes lag)closer to home sources like all commodities should come first?.run new pipe or suffer .

 

[Chadeaux]

What these overeducated people who have no experience in the day to day goings on of real life do not understand is that age catches up with everything.

Even electrical wire is gradually worn away (albeit microscopically) by the columbs of electricity running down the outer layers of the conductors. That's why you have some electrical fires.

The electrical wires in your home or business are attached by screws to breakers (or fuses) in your breaker box. Sometimes those screws seem to come loose and no longer hold the wires in place. Why? It isn't because the screws back out, it is the effect of electricity moving over the exterior of the wire, wearing away microscopic amounts of the conductor.

I know the eggheads won't believe it, but I've done electrical and studied to be a licensed electrician when younger. Research "skin effect" but don't get distracted by the girlie pics. Look only for the topics about electrical conduction and leave the porn alone.

 

[davest]

Oh, we understand that age catches up with everything, but what we don't understand is what search engine did you use to come up with the "enviromentalists prevent Exxon from replacing worn out pipeline" or are those parameters too large? Should it be, "Exxon bows to environmental wackos and backs down on replacing pipeline that is wearing out"? I will say I am impressed that you've done electrical.

 

[Chadeaux]

Before anyone can build a new pipeline, you must get approval from the public service commission as well as other public bodies. You can't just decide, "I wanna build a pipeline here to there" and do it.

You have to secure the land, do the environmental impact studies, but most of all you must survive the public hearings that allow you to build on the land you have already purchased.

I'm sure those hearings are public record, but if you want to get the information you'll need to be SMART ENOUGH TO KNOW WHAT TO SEARCH FOR.

You also need to know that not all public hearings are in the newspaper's archives. Most papers remove the archives after they are 6 months or a year old. very few keep records online beyond that. You'll need boots on the ground just like treasure hunting.

Think of it as a way to prove me wrong. If you want proof, I'll go with you. I have access as a member of the Arkansas Historical Society so I can get you in, but I won't do your work for you.

My memories, however, can be accessed freely simply by asking.