Exxon pipeline leaks thousands of barrels of Canadian oil in Arkansas

[kairos]

Proud to see we're making the world a better place.

(Reuters) - Exxon Mobil was working to clean up
thousands of barrels of oil in Mayflower, Arkansas, after a pipeline
carrying heavy Canadian crude ruptured, a major spill likely to stoke
debate over transporting Canada's oil to the United States.

Exxon shut the Pegasus pipeline, which can carry more than 90,000
barrels per day (bpd) of crude oil from Pakota, Illinois, to Nederland,
Texas, after the leak was discovered on Friday afternoon, the company
said in a statement.


Exxon, hit with a $1.7 million fine by regulators this week over a 2011
spill in the Yellowstone River, said a few thousand barrels of oil had
been observed.


A company spokesman confirmed the line was carrying Canadian Wabasca
Heavy crude. That grade is a heavy bitumen crude diluted with lighter
liquids to allow it to flow through pipelines, according to the Canadian
Energy Pipeline Association (CEPA), which referred to Wabasca as "oil
sands" in a report.

The spill occurred as the U.S. State Department is considering the fate
of the 800,000 bpd Keystone XL pipeline, which would carry crude from
Canada's oil sands to the Gulf Coast. Environmentalists, concerned about
the impact of developing the oil sands, have sought to block its
approval.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/03/31/us-exxon-pipeline-spill-idUSBRE92U00220130331

[TimG]

So what? Spills happen. They get cleaned up. Live moves on.

I think everyone who opposes pipelines should be prohibited from driving a car.

They should be required to walk/bike everywhere no matter what the weather.

[kairos]

These massive destructive spills happen, because of cost-cutting practices and lack of regulation.

[Guest]

These massive destructive spills happen, because of cost-cutting practices and lack of regulation.

Sometimes it's the lack of regulation, sometimes it's ingnoring them. Sometimes it's just unlucky.

The answer is to make the regulations work. With regard to both prevention and clean up.

Not to do without the pipelines.

[kairos]

If there are companies who have been caught using poor practices and having massive spills such as Enbridge then they simply should not be given the contracts. In terms of the tar sands its one of the most environmentally destructive activities in the world at the moment and of course they should not be given a pipeline.

[Topaz]

I not sure if they CAN build a pipeline that won't leak sometime and that is the main problem with pipelines. Now, they have a machine that runs along the pipe and will find weak spots in the pipe but the report I found says the software is either rigged or doesn't work and the companies are in on it. http://www.gregpalast.com/the-pig-in-the-xl-pipelineinsider-reveals-concealed-%E2%80%9Cerror%E2%80%9Din-pipeline-safety-equipment-that-could-blow-away-the-gop%E2%80%99s-xl-pipe-dream/#more-5675

[Guest]

If there are companies who have been caught using poor practices and having massive spills such as Enbridge then they simply should not be given the contracts. In terms of the tar sands its one of the most environmentally destructive activities in the world at the moment and of course they should not be given a pipeline.

Good first sentence...

[Guest]

I not sure if they CAN build a pipeline that won't leak sometime and that is the main problem with pipelines. Now, they have a machine that runs along the pipe and will find weak spots in the pipe but the report I found says the software is either rigged or doesn't work and the companies are in on it. http://www.gregpalast.com/the-pig-in-the-xl-pipelineinsider-reveals-concealed-%E2%80%9Cerror%E2%80%9Din-pipeline-safety-equipment-that-could-blow-away-the-gop%E2%80%99s-xl-pipe-dream/#more-5675

I'm sure they can't. There are hundreds of thousands of miles of pipelines in North America. Every now and then there will be a leak.

Just this week, one of the "the pipeline's not in yet let's do it by rail" trains derailed in the US. Minor spill in that case. Tankers will leak or run aground. Wells will blowout.

I can't understand the mentality of people who want to continue using fossil fuels without accepting that there are risks. Just ensure that anyone who makes money from fossil fuels is held accountable in the event of pollution from their enterprise.

Edited March 31, 2013 by bcsapper

[kairos]

[shortlived]

So what? Spills happen. They get cleaned up. Live moves on.

I think everyone who opposes pipelines should be prohibited from driving a car.

They should be required to walk/bike everywhere no matter what the weather.

That was such a strawman comment.

Spills don't get cleaned up they kill off large amounts of local species, and stay in the water supply for decades.

Cleanups don't clean up they reduce contamination they don't remove it.

Edited March 31, 2013 by shortlived

[RNG]

That was such a strawman comment.

Spills don't get cleaned up they kill off large amounts of local species, and stay in the water supply for decades.

Cleanups don't clean up they reduce contamination they don't remove it.

You are breathing out CO2. You defecate and urinate. You consume and create tons of garbage. You consume land that cute little critters could be frolicking on for a place to live and a place to work. You are an environmental disaster and therefore you must kill yourself.

[Argus]

That was such a strawman comment.

Spills don't get cleaned up they kill off large amounts of local species, and stay in the water supply for decades.

Cleanups don't clean up they reduce contamination they don't remove it.

Whether you like it or not our society lives on oil. That means the oil has to be moved around. The cheapest and SAFEST way to do that is by pipeline. You know, I bought stock in CN rail not too long back, after reading about how the increasing opposition to pipelines is causing oil producers to ship growing amounts of oil by rail. Tens of thousands of oil tanker cars are on back order at manufactures because railroads across north America are shipping more and more oil by rail. Rail spills don't get the publicity pipeline spills do but they happen far more frequently, and as more oil is shipped that way, the number of spills is going to grow.

Far more environmentally sound to build pipelines.

[shortlived]

We don't need oil. People use oil.

Its not worth it.

imo they should build the pipleines underground with nuclear boring machines.

under the water line in solid rock.

I put my health #1, and my luxury #2

oil is luxury, the environment is vital to my health.

the excuse is, society has been engineered by lazy stupid people so we are dependent on oil.

We don't need to be, that is a choice.

There are plenty of ways to ship oil.

lets get real, you just want as much money from it as you can get at any cost.

I'M NOT against development, but the past ways of doing this suck, they aren't even remotely safe. It is disaster waiting to happen.

You have to bore the tunnels via nuclear borer to remove the terrorist threat the pubic access and the contamination threat. No one is going to complain about deep rock getting contaminated with oil.

you can get way more advanced than

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iU6pi_-LmiU

Edited March 31, 2013 by shortlived

[Wilber]

Unfortunately the state of pipeline leak detection is pretty crude. No pun intended. It basically just compares oil in with oil out and a large difference means there is a leak but by then there is a lot of it on the ground and you have to go find it. Pipelines are the most efficient and safest way to transport oil but the industry will have to up its game when it comes to prevention and detection if they want to sell these things.

Rail makes little sense other than it is more flexible and the size of a spill will be limited to the amount of oil in the cars involved. Train derailments are more common than pipeline leaks and those cars don't just move themselves. A lot of diesel is consumed moving them putting a lot of CO2 and pollutants into the air.

[Wilber]

We don't need oil. People use oil.

Its not worth it.

imo they should build the pipleines underground with nuclear boring machines.

under the water line in solid rock.

I put my health #1, and my luxury #2

oil is luxury, the environment is vital to my health.

the excuse is, society has been engineered by lazy stupid people so we are dependent on oil.

We don't need to be, that is a choice.

There are plenty of ways to ship oil.

lets get real, you just want as much money from it as you can get at any cost.

I'M NOT against development, but the past ways of doing this suck, they aren't even remotely safe. It is disaster waiting to happen.

You have to bore the tunnels via nuclear borer to remove the terrorist threat the pubic access and the contamination threat. No one is going to complain about deep rock getting contaminated with oil.

Oil is a necessity, the computer you are posting this on is composed largely out of products made out of oil.

[shortlived]

Oil is a necessity, the computer you are posting this on is composed largely out of products made out of oil.

I don't need it

Make it out of hemp, hemp is stronger than steel and made from a plant.

oil isn't required to make a computer.

there are alternatives for material production.

http://rense.com/general50/cd.htm

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xKFTPpUjbTY

I bet you could grow a lot of hemp in BC and Alberta.

Its all choice. There are alternatives.

Think the forests of Northern Manitoba.. Canada could lead the world in hemp production for manufacture.

Edited March 31, 2013 by shortlived

[TimG]

I don't need it

Yes you do. If you eat then you need oil because there is no way to feed large cities without fossil fuel driven farming. If you buy anything plastic then you need oil.

Make it out of hemp, hemp is stronger than steel and made from a plant.

Largely a myth. If hemp was really a substitute then we would see large scale production already. We don't because it takes a lot more energy to turn plant material into plastic and the range and quality of plastic is a lot less.

oil isn't required to make a computer.

Every piece of a computer requires oil to produce. No oil means no computers. Edited March 31, 2013 by TimG

[shortlived]

Yes you do. If you eat then you need oil because there is no way to feed large cities without fossil fuel driven farming.

That is a lie.

It would be true to say cities aren't prepared to feed themselves. It is not true to say oil is needed to do it.

If you buy anything plastic then you need oil.Largely a myth. If hemp was really a substitute then we would see large scale production already.

It is but hemp was shut down decades ago by the cotton industry in the US. It has slowly been coming back but the government is tightly regulating it so that the grey market criminal underworld can make money off pot.

We don't because it takes a lot more energy to turn plant material into plastic and the range and quality of plastic is a lot less.

Every piece of a computer requires oil to produce. No oil means no computers.

Totally untrue.

both hemp and guns started being controlled when prohibition ended as a means of raising tax revenue and supporting the structured that previously existed to control alchohol.

There is really no reason to restrict hemp production.

http://www1.agric.gov.ab.ca/$department/deptdocs.nsf/all/econ9631

Europeans first planted hemp in 1606 at Port Royal hemp has been part of Canada longer than Canada has

http://www.hemptrade.ca/

Cities are very capable of feeding themselves if they organized to do so, such as growing musrhooms indoors, underground, plants on all types of green grow areas, roofs, gutters, cities are more than capable of feeding themselves. Culturally they are misaligned to do so though.

Edited March 31, 2013 by shortlived

[Shady]

Here's a small list of products produced from oil. Anyone that says we don't need oil is ignorant.

http://www.ranken-energy.com/Products%20from%20Petroleum.htm

[TimG]

It would be true to say cities aren't prepared to feed themselves. It is not true to say oil is needed to do it.

It is simple not possible to produce or transport the food required without oil. There are NO alternatives at this time.

It is but hemp was shut down decades ago by the cotton industry in the US. It has slowly been coming back but the government is tightly regulating it so that the grey market criminal underworld can make money off pot.

I have no interest in the rantings of a conspiracy theorist. It hemp was really a viable alternative they are plenty of countries with no 'cotton lobby' to protect. Edited March 31, 2013 by TimG

[shortlived]

It is simple not possible to produce or transport the food required without oil. There are NO alternatives at this time.

You are wrong.

Most things made with oil can be made with other products, often naturally derived products.

Even piss can replace gasoline.

This is just another form of climate change denial. You'll leave the denile stage eventually.

http://www.wired.com/autopia/2009/07/pee-powered-cars/ and this is not isolated.. there have been these things for over 30 years now.

A Canadian pioneered the technology for vehicles in the 1980's, it got lots of fanfare until the auto industry refused to implement it in their vehicles. Fast forward 30 years, highly expensive hydrogen fuel cells are being implemented.. yet this self fuel solution was passed up and continues to be.

Our PEE is a gasoline replacement

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lTHO9vNVLdI

The BYPRODUCT IS NATURAL FERTALIZER! Which can be used in urban growing, aquaponics and other nitrate applications.

I could go on and on with every single thing oil makes and provide a natural replacement... mushrooms even make rocket fuel.

People are waking up, it takes time but there is movement to enlightenment, of alternatives to oil. We need to conserve what oil we have.

Edited March 31, 2013 by shortlived

[TimG]

Most things made with oil can be made with other products, often naturally derived products.

Nope. You don't seem to understand that it is not enough to show that something can be done theoretically - you must show that it can be done at a huge scale for low cost. All of your alternatives don't scale or are too expensive to produce (i.e. orders of magnitude more expensive that the oil based solution).

Even piss can replace gasoline.

Not if you look at the complete energy cycle and include the cost of producing, collecting, storing, processing and distributing the piss.

Fast forward 30 years, highly expensive hydrogen fuel cells are being implemented.. yet this self fuel solution was passed up and continues to be.

More conspiracy theories. If the technology was viable it would be used. If it is not used is its because it does not scale or is too expensive.

[shortlived]

Nope. You don't seem to understand that it is not enough to show that something can be done theoretically - you must show that it can be done at a huge scale for low cost.

Oil Is the thing that comes with huge costs.

All of your alternatives don't scale or are too expensive to produce (i.e. orders of magnitude more expensive that the oil based solution).

Simply not true. How much more scaled can you get than PISS?

Not if you look at the complete energy cycle and include the cost of producing, collecting, storing, processing and distributing the piss.More conspiracy theories. If the technology was viable it would be used. If it is not used is its because it does not scale or is too expensive.

Dude piss is already collected you are being stupid.

Currently it is being dumped into our drinking water instead of our gas tanks.

Some municipalities are actually starting to process waste for fertilizer applications, and methane harvesting.

However through electrolysis and catylytic conversion they can also produce hydrogen gas which can be used as a fuel source.

There are rather simple kits that go right on your vehicle that convert urea and water into hydrogen.

People are just in mass denile. They are waking up though. They won't believe that you can replace oil with biological products such as hemp, mushrooms and piss.

Edited March 31, 2013 by shortlived

[TimG]

Oil Is the thing that comes with huge costs.

Yet other things cost a lot more.

Simply not true. How much more scaled can you get than PISS?

How much energy does it take to collect, process and distribute said piss? I suspect it will be much greater than the energy gained by consuming it. Energy density is extremely important to economics of power. Hydrogen is not viable because it costs too much to store hydrogen with enough density to compete with oil.

You clearly no nothing about industrial scale energy production. If you did you would not be clinging to your naive ideas about alternate energy. But I don't have to convince you: the market will not use alternate until they are viable and no amount of fantasies on your part will change that. Yet if an alternate appears with favorable economics then it will be deployed extremely quickly and no existing player will be able to stop it.

Edited March 31, 2013 by TimG

[ReeferMadness]

I'm sure they can't. There are hundreds of thousands of miles of pipelines in North America. Every now and then there will be a leak.

Just this week, one of the "the pipeline's not in yet let's do it by rail" trains derailed in the US. Minor spill in that case. Tankers will leak or run aground. Wells will blowout.

I can't understand the mentality of people who want to continue using fossil fuels without accepting that there are risks. Just ensure that anyone who makes money from fossil fuels is held accountable in the event of pollution from their enterprise.

Agreed - if we accept the use of fossil fuels, there will be risks. And environmental costs. And health costs. And if we stopped subsidizing the cost of fossil fuels and instead properly accounted for the risks and costs into the price of the fuel, the problem would fix itself. If we suddenly had gasoline at $10 or $15 a gallon, you'd be surprised how fast people would use less. And entrepreneurs would find alternatives.

The reality is that the fossil fuel industry only continues because we subsidize its existence by trading shorter lives, health issues and the environment that we will pass along to our kids for cheaper gas. That seems like a bad trade to many of us.

As shortlived said, we need to preserve the remaining hydrocarbons for things where there are no alternatives and move on to sustainable and green energy.