Snoslinger Posted October 5, 2017 Author Share Posted October 5, 2017 1 minute ago, AKIQPilot said: US refineries have been processing canadian tar sand crude for nearly 30 years. Tell us about the shit thats happened in that time. well there was this one, off the top of my head... https://www.ecowatch.com/5-years-since-massive-tar-sands-oil-spill-kalamazoo-river-still-not-cl-1882075674.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AKIQPilot Posted October 5, 2017 Share Posted October 5, 2017 1 minute ago, Snoslinger said: well there was this one, off the top of my head... https://www.ecowatch.com/5-years-since-massive-tar-sands-oil-spill-kalamazoo-river-still-not-cl-1882075674.html So the endbridge spill is exactly why new pipelines are needed to transport this product. The endbridge pipeline was close to 50 years old when that spill happened. Turns out the actual cause of the rupture had nothing to do with the oil in the line but rather the old technology the pipeline was being monitored with and the aging pipeline itself So instead of building new state of the art pipelines you would rather keep pumping oil through the countries aging pipeline system? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snoslinger Posted October 5, 2017 Author Share Posted October 5, 2017 4 minutes ago, AKIQPilot said: So the endbridge spill is exactly why new pipelines are needed to transport this product. The endbridge pipeline was close to 50 years old when that spill happened. Turns out the actual cause of the rupture had nothing to do with the oil in the line but rather the old technology the pipeline was being monitored with and the aging pipeline itself So instead of building new state of the art pipelines you would rather keep pumping oil through the countries aging pipeline system? I'm sure that pipeline was state-of-the-art at one time and perfectly safe recently too you seem to forget that companies often want to overlook things to make a buck. look at deepwater horizon. the safest bet is to not have it in the first place, especially when it isn't going to do much at all for us. most of the by-products of that oil will be shipped overseas. no, I do not want to continue pumping oil in aging pipelines. fix the aging pipelines if they're essential, and don't put new un-essential pipelines in. you jumped over a question I asked you awhile ago. is tapping into this oil, and putting a major pipeline through the middle of our nation, one the oil industry will plan to use as long as possible to make money, going to delat, or speed up, the development of alternative energies? remember twanting those at one time? yet here you are defending keystone, which makes 0 sense. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snoslinger Posted October 5, 2017 Author Share Posted October 5, 2017 https://newrepublic.com/article/115624/exxon-oil-spill-arkansas-2013-how-pipeline-burst-mayflower "The Mayflower spill should alarm communities along Keystone’s proposed route. Experts believe it happened in part because the leaden crude from the Alberta tar sands erodes pipelines faster than the oil the U.S. is used to shipping: Bitumen is so thick, it has to be transported at higher pressures and temperatures, and it must be diluted with gas before it can flow, which can lead to violent pressure swings inside the pipeline. This new danger isn’t inspiring much caution in the energy industry, judging by the Associated Press's recent revelation that 300 spills have occurred in North Dakota alone in less than two years, and all were kept secret. On average, U.S. pipelines spilled over 3.1 million gallons a year between 2008 and 2012, according to the Pipeline & Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA). As for the Keystone project, Public Citizen released a report this month documenting over 125 patches, dents, and other worrisome anomalies in its southern half." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snoslinger Posted October 5, 2017 Author Share Posted October 5, 2017 poor tom, this isn't going so well is it? considering you're still tied to the oil industry, I can see why you'll argue this 24/7... http://time.com/4292856/south-dakota-oil-spill/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
T1R9sledder Posted October 5, 2017 Share Posted October 5, 2017 Instead of pipelines the oil should be transfered using cement canals. Thousands of construction jobs will be created ......sounds like a winner!!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Platinum Contributing Member Rigid1 Posted October 5, 2017 Platinum Contributing Member Share Posted October 5, 2017 2 hours ago, Snoslinger said: research it, and the shit it creates when they process it. all that crap has to go somewhere. jobs - other than the temporary construction jobs, and few more people turning valves at a refinery, how many full time jobs do you think this pipeline is going to create? some have put the numbers under 50. Hey, it's 50 people with a good job for years to come, nothing wrong with that if you are unemployed and want to work, why bash that, not cool Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Woodtick Posted October 5, 2017 Share Posted October 5, 2017 4 hours ago, Snoslinger said: because you seem like a decent dude, rigidhead, i'll explain some things to you, one at a time. you are obviously oblivious to most of this, which isn't a surprise... the oil in those pipelines coming down from Canada is not typical oil, in ground "wells" like ours is. it is "tar sands" oil, basically oil and sand mixed together. it has to go through a very, very enviro-unfriendly process to get it even able to flow, and even after that is still considered the dirtiest oil in the world. it is harder on equipment, and much harder to clean up if it spills. this is why Canadians didn't want it flowing in their country, either east or west. instead it's going south, in our back yard. next up, the business and jobs prospects... Could you list all of the warm water shipping ports up in Canada? The other way they ship it is rail. Will you be having the tracks removed in your area? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snoslinger Posted October 5, 2017 Author Share Posted October 5, 2017 46 minutes ago, Woodtick said: Could you list all of the warm water shipping ports up in Canada? The other way they ship it is rail. Will you be having the tracks removed in your area? i dont know what you're missing here. transcanada had plans to move the oil to a port on their east coast. they did this because of our initial opposition to the pipeline and they thought it wouldn't happen. then trump happened. so, with the choice between going east and facing backlash from their own citizens, they made the easier choice and run down into our yard instead. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snoslinger Posted October 5, 2017 Author Share Posted October 5, 2017 1 hour ago, Rigid1 said: Hey, it's 50 people with a good job for years to come, nothing wrong with that if you are unemployed and want to work, why bash that, not cool all this BS and risk for 50 fucking jobs? are you kidding me? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sleepr2 Posted October 5, 2017 Share Posted October 5, 2017 1 minute ago, Snoslinger said: all this BS and risk for 50 fucking jobs? are you kidding me? Fifty people to monitor and maintain how many thousands of miles of pipelines Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snoslinger Posted October 5, 2017 Author Share Posted October 5, 2017 3 minutes ago, Sleepr2 said: Fifty people to monitor and maintain how many thousands of miles of pipelines i drive by pipelines daily, i see oodles of people climbing on them inspecting them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
f7ben Posted October 5, 2017 Share Posted October 5, 2017 the oil is getting moved one way or another ...pipelines are the safest way. Only a fucking moron would oppose new piplines with the latest tech being built Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Woodtick Posted October 5, 2017 Share Posted October 5, 2017 So all of the oil headed to the ports in the gulf and oil refineries in the US,shall be shipped through ST John,NB? Something doesn't add up??? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
f7ben Posted October 5, 2017 Share Posted October 5, 2017 Just now, Woodtick said: So all of the oil headed to the ports in the gulf and oil refineries in the US,shall be shipped through ST John,NB? Something doesn't add up??? slinger is dumb .....not sure if you knew that. He has the nerve to argue with Tom who was like the director of pipeline maintenance for BP on the north slope that is fucking dumb right there Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Woodtick Posted October 5, 2017 Share Posted October 5, 2017 3 minutes ago, Snoslinger said: i drive by pipelines daily, i see oodles of people climbing on them inspecting them. Those are school play grounds! You need your meds adjusted. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snoslinger Posted October 5, 2017 Author Share Posted October 5, 2017 4 minutes ago, Woodtick said: So all of the oil headed to the ports in the gulf and oil refineries in the US,shall be shipped through ST John,NB? Something doesn't add up??? wtf are you babbling about? you think i came up with the plan to build the transcanada pipeline east? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snoslinger Posted October 5, 2017 Author Share Posted October 5, 2017 asstick i think you better read the original article again. wtf... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ArcticCrusher Posted October 5, 2017 Share Posted October 5, 2017 3 hours ago, AKIQPilot said: So the endbridge spill is exactly why new pipelines are needed to transport this product. The endbridge pipeline was close to 50 years old when that spill happened. Turns out the actual cause of the rupture had nothing to do with the oil in the line but rather the old technology the pipeline was being monitored with and the aging pipeline itself So instead of building new state of the art pipelines you would rather keep pumping oil through the countries aging pipeline system? 3 hours ago, Snoslinger said: I'm sure that pipeline was state-of-the-art at one time and perfectly safe recently too you seem to forget that companies often want to overlook things to make a buck. look at deepwater horizon. the safest bet is to not have it in the first place, especially when it isn't going to do much at all for us. most of the by-products of that oil will be shipped overseas. no, I do not want to continue pumping oil in aging pipelines. fix the aging pipelines if they're essential, and don't put new un-essential pipelines in. you jumped over a question I asked you awhile ago. is tapping into this oil, and putting a major pipeline through the middle of our nation, one the oil industry will plan to use as long as possible to make money, going to delat, or speed up, the development of alternative energies? remember twanting those at one time? yet here you are defending keystone, which makes 0 sense. Wow. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snoslinger Posted October 5, 2017 Author Share Posted October 5, 2017 12 minutes ago, Sleepr2 said: Fifty people to monitor and maintain how many thousands of miles of pipelines creepr thinks they have maintenance shacks every mile, full of highly paid professionals in it Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sleepr2 Posted October 5, 2017 Share Posted October 5, 2017 4 minutes ago, Snoslinger said: creepr thinks they have maintenance shacks every mile, full of highly paid professionals in it That's as stupid as thinking they're only going to have fifty people for the whole pipeline. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
revkevsdi Posted October 5, 2017 Share Posted October 5, 2017 6 hours ago, Snoslinger said: I don't doubt that for a minute and man am I glad point - because we are a bunch of dumbasses, dumbasses who voted trump, Canada will now run their dirty oil down through our country to be exported, rather than thru their yard to their own port. why is the point so hard to figure out dude? Thanks for that by the way. Since water is going to be a hot commodity, I’m glad you’ll be polluting yours and not ours. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sleepr2 Posted October 5, 2017 Share Posted October 5, 2017 11 minutes ago, f7ben said: slinger is dumb .....not sure if you knew that. He has the nerve to argue with Tom who was like the director of pipeline maintenance for BP on the north slope that is fucking dumb right there Oh no! timeshare is the smartest man in the world, just ask him. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
revkevsdi Posted October 5, 2017 Share Posted October 5, 2017 3 hours ago, Snoslinger said: https://newrepublic.com/article/115624/exxon-oil-spill-arkansas-2013-how-pipeline-burst-mayflower "The Mayflower spill should alarm communities along Keystone’s proposed route. Experts believe it happened in part because the leaden crude from the Alberta tar sands erodes pipelines faster than the oil the U.S. is used to shipping: Bitumen is so thick, it has to be transported at higher pressures and temperatures, and it must be diluted with gas before it can flow, which can lead to violent pressure swings inside the pipeline. This new danger isn’t inspiring much caution in the energy industry, judging by the Associated Press's recent revelation that 300 spills have occurred in North Dakota alone in less than two years, and all were kept secret. On average, U.S. pipelines spilled over 3.1 million gallons a year between 2008 and 2012, according to the Pipeline & Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA). As for the Keystone project, Public Citizen released a report this month documenting over 125 patches, dents, and other worrisome anomalies in its southern half." Evidently it’s the chemicals needed to dilute the crude that is the real danger to the environment. Poisonous stuff. But it will mix nicely with that coal dust Dotard wants in your rivers. Drink up fuckers Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Woodtick Posted October 5, 2017 Share Posted October 5, 2017 What industry is this Slinger Feller in to be so sure of the best way to move oil? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.