Leaker, no you're the leaker!

[T.G.G. Moogly]

So, it looks like we have a few acres of land that has apparently been permanently altered and/or destroyed by a petroleum product.

Permanent? You can remediate a spill like this for next to nothing.

It's somewhat amazing anyone would think this incident has much significance.

That's really not the point. More oil has been spilled from this pipeline based on DNV's risk assessment already than should have occurred in thousands of years. That risk assessment is obviously very important when it comes to granting permits. You're just engaging in hand waving.

 

[dismal]

So, it looks like we have a few acres of land that has apparently been permanently altered and/or destroyed by a petroleum product.

Permanent? You can remediate a spill like this for next to nothing.

It's somewhat amazing anyone would think this incident has much significance.

That's really not the point. More oil has been spilled from this pipeline based on DNV's risk assessment already than should have occurred in thousands of years. That risk assessment is obviously very important when it comes to granting permits. You're just engaging in hand waving.

So what? All your hand waving can't change the reality that this is a minor spill in the middle of nowhere affecting approximately nothing.

Getting worked up about this is a sign you are delusional.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Permanent? You can remediate a spill like this for next to nothing.

It's somewhat amazing anyone would think this incident has much significance.

That's really not the point. More oil has been spilled from this pipeline based on DNV's risk assessment already than should have occurred in thousands of years. That risk assessment is obviously very important when it comes to granting permits. You're just engaging in hand waving.

So what? All your hand waving can't change the reality that this is a minor spill in the middle of nowhere affecting approximately nothing.

Getting worked up about this is a sign you are delusional.

Not hardly. And who's getting worked up besides yourself? I'm simply relating facts. Based on this pipeline's performance thus far it will be an ecological disaster.

 

[dismal]

That's really not the point. More oil has been spilled from this pipeline based on DNV's risk assessment already than should have occurred in thousands of years. That risk assessment is obviously very important when it comes to granting permits. You're just engaging in hand waving.

So what? All your hand waving can't change the reality that this is a minor spill in the middle of nowhere affecting approximately nothing.

Getting worked up about this is a sign you are delusional.

Not hardly. And who's getting worked up besides yourself? I'm simply relating facts. Based on this pipeline's performance thus far it will be an ecological disaster.

See, when you refer to a trivial incident in the middle of nowhere that harmed no one as an "ecological disaster" it makes people question your tether to reality.

 

[Elixir]

See, when you refer to a trivial incident in the middle of nowhere that harmed no one as an "ecological disaster" it makes people question your tether to reality.

I would feel comforted knowing that dismal has done a thorough evaluation of the current spill's causes and effects, as well as those of any future spills.
But given his manifest inability to read for comprehension* I don't feel any better at all.

* "Based on this pipeline's performance thus far it will be an ecological disaster." does not imply that the current spill is an ecological disaster.

 

[dismal]

See, when you refer to a trivial incident in the middle of nowhere that harmed no one as an "ecological disaster" it makes people question your tether to reality.

I would feel comforted knowing that dismal has done a thorough evaluation of the current spill's causes and effects, as well as those of any future spills.
But given his manifest inability to read for comprehension* I don't feel any better at all.

* "Based on this pipeline's performance thus far it will be an ecological disaster." does not imply that the current spill is an ecological disaster.

Yeah, maybe it would help if you can point me to the big list of pipelines that have been ecological disasters this past century. So we can look for common traits.

 

[Elixir]

See, when you refer to a trivial incident in the middle of nowhere that harmed no one as an "ecological disaster" it makes people question your tether to reality.

I would feel comforted knowing that dismal has done a thorough evaluation of the current spill's causes and effects, as well as those of any future spills.
But given his manifest inability to read for comprehension* I don't feel any better at all.

* "Based on this pipeline's performance thus far it will be an ecological disaster." does not imply that the current spill is an ecological disaster.

Yeah, maybe it would help if you can point me to the big list of pipelines that have been ecological disasters this past century. So we can look for common traits.

It might be easier for you to do the math to support or falsify the claim that Joedad made, rather than the one you wish he made:

"Based on this pipeline's performance thus far it will be an ecological disaster."

 

[dismal]

I would feel comforted knowing that dismal has done a thorough evaluation of the current spill's causes and effects, as well as those of any future spills.
But given his manifest inability to read for comprehension* I don't feel any better at all.

* "Based on this pipeline's performance thus far it will be an ecological disaster." does not imply that the current spill is an ecological disaster.

Yeah, maybe it would help if you can point me to the big list of pipelines that have been ecological disasters this past century. So we can look for common traits.

It might be easier for you to do the math to support or falsify the claim that Joedad made, rather than the one you wish he made:

"Based on this pipeline's performance thus far it will be an ecological disaster."

And what about the pipeline's performance thus far would make a reasonable person believe it will be an ecological disaster?

 

[Elixir]

And what about the pipeline's performance thus far would make a reasonable person believe it will be an ecological disaster?

How long has it been in operation? How much oil has it spilled? What is it's supposed design lifetime?

If you can figure those three things out you can answer your own question. Not rocket science, dismal - I'll wait here. Be sure to show your work.

Hint: so far it leaks an average of about 3500 gallons a month, not including "minor spills". Nothing to get upset about unless it was YOUR oil, right?

 

[dismal]

And what about the pipeline's performance thus far would make a reasonable person believe it will be an ecological disaster?

How long has it been in operation? How much oil has it spilled? What is it's supposed design lifetime?

If you can figure those three things out you can answer your own question. Not rocket science, dismal - I'll wait here. Be sure to show your work.

Well, at this point all that has been entered into evidence is this minor incident in the middle of nowhere. Were you planning to add anything else?

If not, we must consider whether the claim can be sufficiently supported by this one incident.

Did all the other pipelines that were ecological disasters have minor incidents in the middle of nowhere?

Did none of the pipelines that aren't ecological disasters ever have a minor incident in the middle of nowhere?

 

[steve_bank]

Uhhh...sounds like more of that dang fake news.

I'd place construction problems and sabotage equally probable.