Are we going to get news about every time when barely shit leaks.
[QUOTE=Intoxicated Spy;52269233]Are we going to get news about every time when barely shit leaks.[/QUOTE]
I certically hope so. People should know how much these pipelines are shitting up the environment : )
[QUOTE=Intoxicated Spy;52269233]Are we going to get news about every time when barely shit leaks.[/QUOTE]
Well there were apparently two incidents in March it happened, according to the OP, and that once last month
I wouldn't say the amount leaked in these three are specifically important to worry about, but the quantity of leaks happening is that of concern. It's just a matter of time until a leak happens that is several thousand gallons of oil.
[QUOTE=Intoxicated Spy;52269233]Are we going to get news about every time when barely shit leaks.[/QUOTE]
Yes because shit should leak a grand total of 0 ml ever. This is beyond a "it happens once in a blue moon". Any leak is too much leak.
Not to mention this pipeline is quite new and only operational in some sections. It will only get worse as time goes on and it expands if this is already happening.
[QUOTE=Ogris;52269252]Yes because shit should leak a grand total of 0 ml ever. This is beyond a "it happens once in a blue moon". Any leak is too much leak.[/QUOTE]
so far the leaks have been at control areas and contained but the pipeline was laid out in the most retarded fashion possible by going west and then east and then west and then east constantly criss crossing major bodies of water and major waterways the entire length, had the actual enviromental review been carried out they might have decided to just build it going fucking east instead of changing directions every 10 miles
[QUOTE=Intoxicated Spy;52269233]Are we going to get news about every time when barely shit leaks.[/QUOTE]
100 gallons is a lot. It shouldn't be leaking at all.
Thankfully all the leaks have been contained but this really tells you something about how well built this pipeline is if its already leaking oil.
Wow, cbs is late as hell on this. I remember seeing a story on this 2 weeks ago.
A small local gas station in my city last month had a leak in one of their underground tanks, it was thousands of gallons of leakage, and contaminated a huge ammount of soil under the concrete pumping station. The soil reclaimers came in, cored it out, pumped all the contaminates and dug out the soil. It's a relatively routine thing to happen. A 100 gallon spill is nothing, and easily managed. A worker knocking over a few drums of oil with a fork truck wouldn't make the news. I know they need to be held with a very high standard, especially with their specific situation with the eyes of the country on them but small leaks and spills will always happen.
good thing this pipe isn't placed somewhere stupid where even small leaks become a big problem, like- i dunno- over a river or something
[QUOTE=Mining Bill;52269328]good thing this pipe isn't placed somewhere stupid where even small leaks become a big problem, like- i dunno- over a river or something[/QUOTE]
You mean 95' under the river? It's also a 1200 mile pipeline, and it didn't happen near the river regardless.
good to see the narrative has shifted from "it's not gonna leak at all stupid hippies :^)))" over to "it's only leaking a little bit stop whining :^)))"
[QUOTE=Intoxicated Spy;52269233]Are we going to get news about every time when barely shit leaks.[/QUOTE]
Chevron? What are you doing in this thread?
[QUOTE=Aide;52269272]100 gallons is a lot. It shouldn't be leaking at all.[/QUOTE]
100 gallons is the exact opposite of "a lot"
[QUOTE=Camdude90;52269535]good to see the narrative has shifted from "it's not gonna leak at all stupid hippies :^)))" over to "it's only leaking a little bit stop whining :^)))"[/QUOTE]
Soon it's gonna be "leaking is normal,get over it.It's totally safe ".
For the rest of the world, that's a bit under 380L.
That doesn't sound that much, but I'm not an expert in pipeline construction. Statistically one would probably always expect some sort of loss over a pipe that long, I guess.
[QUOTE=Idzo;52269574]Soon it's gonna be "leaking is normal,get over it.It's totally safe ".[/QUOTE]
Sounds like we should go nuclear instead.
But I digress, that's asking too much from the American people.
[QUOTE=geel9;52269569]100 gallons is the exact opposite of "a lot"[/QUOTE]
Considering it came from 2 leaks from faulty construction, and they happened during construction ( which removed the fact pipeline companies are fairly inept at responding to leaks), it's less about the amount it leaked and more about how it strengthens the argument that it shouldn't be going anywhere near water.
[QUOTE=Camdude90;52269535]good to see the narrative has shifted from "it's not gonna leak at all stupid hippies :^)))" over to "it's only leaking a little bit stop whining :^)))"[/QUOTE]
Anyone who expected that a 1200 mile long pipeline would be 100% leak free was lying to themselves.
Now, let's be realistic here. 100 gallons is a trivial amount for a spill. For reference, the BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico spilled 210,000,000 gallons. 100 gallons is exactly 0.0000476190% of that. 210 million gallons is, as we all remember, environment-fuckingly bad.
Also, the first leak that constituted the majority (84 gallons) happened on a site with a plastic liner and containment walls, making easy cleanup and little to no environmental contamination from the oil. Which means only 20 gallons actually contaminated anything. And neither spill was close to any sort of water.
Don't get me wrong - I'm not trying to defend the pipeline by any means - I'm not a fan of it either. But we should criticize the DAPL when it is far more appropriate to do so.
I would like to see the frequency of small scale leaks at other pipeline stations to compare this to. A 2 barrel leak and a half barrel leak sounds insignificant considering the daily rate it pumps (hundreds of thousands of barrels per day)
[QUOTE=Camdude90;52269535]good to see the narrative has shifted from "it's not gonna leak at all stupid hippies :^)))" over to "it's only leaking a little bit stop whining :^)))"[/QUOTE]
As much as I was against the Dakota Access pipeline system, it's also kind of naive to think that any sort of leakage during construction wouldn't happen. It's like filling a glass of water to the top as much as possible, and a single drop spills out; you guys are complaining over the drop, when it would be weird if there [I]was[/I] no leakage. If absolutely no news were made about it, I'd be assuming they're trying to cover something up.
When you have a project as big in infrastructure and maintenance as an oil pipeline system, 100 gallons is completely insignificant. People aren't perfect, and as good as we get, we still suffer from communications issues, mismanagement of resources, and sometimes just plain user error. I identify as a liberal, by the way, and I'm [I]huge[/I] on environmentalism, so I'm not just a keyboard conservative trying to get under your skin.
Shit happens, gotta move the oil somehow, our civilization [b]requires[/b] it.
As far as I remember about the oil industry, 100 gallons is barely anything and easily within working parameters. Not to mention it was all caught in the controlled areas.
Remember how this wasn't going to be constructed at all lol
[QUOTE=ZombieDawgs;52270102]Remember how this wasn't going to be constructed at all lol[/QUOTE]
But then America got Trump and it was Lobbied heavily.
Hey guys check it out.
I'm going to make a new thread for every fuel/oil tanker that crashes.
4/25: [url]http://www.wpxi.com/news/top-stories/truck-crash-fuel-spill-close-part-of-route-28-for-most-of-day/515880234[/url]
4/30: [url]http://www.cbsnews.com/news/car-tanker-crash-interstate-75-dayton-ohio/[/url]
5/16: [url]http://globalnews.ca/news/3456553/potentially-explosive-situation-in-the-north-okanagan-after-fuel-truck-crashes/[/url]
5/16: [url]http://wncn.com/2017/05/16/i-95-closed-south-of-lumberton/[/url]
5/22: [url]http://www.wral.com/driver-killed-in-fiery-fuel-tanker-crash-in-clayton/16716449/[/url]
5/23: [url]http://www.mercedsunstar.com/news/article152138817.html[/url]
Here's the thing too. People actually died in some of these.
Don't you guys see how fucking annoying it could be if people are posting threads about their politically motivated views and why "trump fucked up!!!" is now an annoyance.
I am actually really excited that our country and our world is moving further and further into renewable energy and EV's. The problem is we still have a demand for cheap oil until we don't need it anymore. You can't ignore the fact that if you take 100 oil tankers off the road because you built a pipeline, it's better for [B]everyone.[/B]
Some of the pumpjacks I keep an eye on at work (the data at least) have leaked 100+ [b]barrels[/b] in the span of a month. 1 barrel = 42 gal.
A pipeline only losing 100 gallons at test stations is remarkably low. Oil is dirty and needs to go soon, but 100 gallons is nothing, especially when both leaks were fully contained. The leaks are probably occurring at valves where test equipment hooks up, so it's not like this is a slow drip leeching into soil or a river.
Remember the oil producers make money by selling oil, so they don't like losing a drop any more than you do, just for separate reasons.
Remarkably low for a test station. Considering this is one of the monitor stations, it's not abnormal to have a few leaks. It's part of keeping shit in order.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
