Spill, Baby, Spill Victim: Yellowstone National Park

It ain't great, but it certaily IS NOT a "spill in Yellowstone" as the thread title LIES....

 

So, when we spill it, we shouldn't try to clean it up?

Otherwise, what's your point?

 

Walking across the street isn't completely safe. If you're looking for something completely safe I suggest contacting some liberal utopian gullible to provide you with it. Nothing is completely safe. If the libs and envirowhackos were in charge we'd be using horse and buggy.

 

As I first mentioned. The OP is a lie. That poster is a liar. A liberal liar.

Nothing new here. Move along.

 

Do you have any proof for this accusation?

 

I'm not sure it is a lie, but;

1. It was 100 miles away from Yellowstone National Park, but the thread title says, "Victim: Yellowstone National Park" so the thread title is not true.

2. This was caused by a burst pipeline, not drilling, so the statement, "But drilling is completely safe. . . right?" has nothing to do with the subject of the article.

 

We just need to roll back the industrial revolution piece by piece, until people died from what they died of 150 years ago instead of what they are dying from now.

What was the life expectancy 150 years ago, anyway?

 

Yep. Here's the title of the thread:

Spill, Baby, Spill Victim: Yellowstone National Park

The spill was not in the park, so the title is wrong. It was in the river 100 miles south of the park and cannot flow north into the park. The title is completely wrong and inflammatory.
And because it was meant to be inflammatory, that makes it not just wrong; not just just dishonest, but a LIE.

That's a lie for sure.

 

Does anybody know if they've cleaned up the oil spill from Yellowstone National Park that was caused by drilling yet?

 

See this is why we need regular people in Washington. Its called common sense!

Good post!

 

Fyi....................

 

Yes... a pipeline.. and the oil is along ten miles of the YELLOWSTONE RIVER.

 

What kind of an idiot build an oil pipeline right next to a (*)(*)(*)(*)ing river.. thats what i want to know

 

http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/aswift/tar_sands_implicated_in_yellow.html

Tar sands implicated in Yellowstone River pipeline spill

Exxon-Mobil has admitted that the Silver Tip pipeline which ruptured and spilled 42,000 gallons into the Yellowstone River was used to move tar sands crude. Until yesterday, the company’s position had been that the pipeline carried sweet, low sulfur crude that did not originate from Alberta.

On Thursday, Exxon spokesman acknowledged that their previous statements had been incorrect. This revelation appears to have been news to everyone, including regulators at the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA). This is yet another alarm calling for updated pipeline safety standards, more transparency, and better oversight by our regulators. Given all of the warnings, it would be irresponsible to move forward with Keystone XL until these measures are in place.

Now for the details. Exxon owns and operates the Silver Tip pipeline, which carries crude oil to Exxon’s refinery in Billings, Montana. In 2006, Exxon officials described a new tank farm that would allow the company to move tar sands crude on its Silver Tip pipeline to it refinery in Billings. At the time, it seemed that officials at Exxon-Mobil, Exxon’s refinery staff, and the operators of Exxon’s Silver Tip pipeline talked to the press about the fact that the pipeline would move tar sands. After five years, a pipeline spill and greater public awareness of the safety hazards presented by tar sands, Exxon staff must have forgotten they were piping and refining the stuff.

This tragedy continues to demonstrate the sad state of our pipeline safety regulations. During a hearing before the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee yesterday, PHMSA administrator Cynthia Quarterman told Congress that her agency had been questioning Exxon about the safety of the Silver Tip pipeline since October, 2010. Apparently regulators never asked what was in the pipeline. This isn’t as surprising as it may seem, as current pipeline safety regulations do not treat corrosive raw tar sands crude any differently than conventional oil.

Moreover, despite regulators concerns of flooding, riverbed erosion, and corrosion on the pipeline, PHMSA wasn’t able to act because Exxon didn’t appear to be violating pipeline safety regulations. Our regulators seem stuck in an absurd world where they can’t act until a pipeline breaks and a disaster happens. Needless to say, safety standards that work like this are not safe.

Tom Finch, PHMSA’s technical services director for its Western Regional office, recently asserted that tar sands may cause more wear and tear on pipelines. Despite these concerns, PHMSA Administrator Quarterman told Congress last month that 1) pipeline regulations were not designed for raw tar sands crude, 2) regulators had not yet evaluated what measures would be necessary to ensure that raw tar sands pipelines could be built and operated safely, and 3) PHMSA had not been involved in the environmental review for Keystone XL.

Meanwhile, Congress continues to rush forward plans to build TransCanada’s proposed Keystone XL tar sands pipeline. Keystone XL would be twenty times larger than Exxon’s pipeline and would carry hot raw tar sands crude across nearly two thousand rivers and the Ogallala Aquifer. Next week, the House of Representatives will consider a bill by Nebraska Representative Lee Terry that would make sure that a decision is made on Keystone XL before safety regulators can consider how it can be done safely.

The Keystone XL tar sands pipeline stands to become a monument to reckless decision making that our grandchildren will not thank us for.

 

Hydro-electric? It runs on rivers and streams? How very useful to people in Nevada or West Texas... Perhaps you were talking about hydrogen-electric, which is a very different thing.

So where is the nearest hydrogen refilling station? Sure they have alternatives, but the funny thing you libs always forget is the necessary infrastructure to make such alternatives actually work. We don't have the electrical grid capacity to power every car in America if they were electric, we don't have hydrogen refilling stations every couple miles, all that stuff costs money, we don't have affordable hydrogen production. Who is going to pony up the cash? Liberal la la land is great until the bills come due.

 

Ah, the wonders of deregulation.

 

What are you offering? More Solyndra? Bravo!

 

Solyndra is an improvement compared to the money you guys dumped into the Iraq war.

 

I'm pretty sure it was actually crossing the river.

How do you propose getting oil from where it is produced to where it needs to go without crossing any rivers?

 

Well it does follow along the river at certain points... seems like a stroke of bad luck that the point where it broke was right where it crosses the river.. well the second time it crosses the river

 

$3T and counting in Iraq -- all to get rid of the guy Reagan supported and armed.

Conservatives -- go figure!

 

Solyndra failed because China provides 6 times the level of government subsidies.

We need to do the same. Government subsidies for key emerging industries work, as Chinese dominance of the market shows.

 

There is currently no alternative to oil that is economically affordable to the poorest Americans. Until you find one, we're stuck with oil.

So get on it. What is the hold up? I do not believe we are stuck with oil.

 

Damned Democrats in charge there....