• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

Leaker, no you're the leaker!

What caused the spill?

  • Chinese steel

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Sabotage

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Poor construction/engineering

    Votes: 5 41.7%
  • NFL Players taking a knee

    Votes: 2 16.7%
  • Hillary

    Votes: 2 16.7%
  • Pee hookers

    Votes: 3 25.0%

  • Total voters
    12

Tom Sawyer

Super Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Jun 25, 2002
Messages
17,030
Location
Toronto
Basic Beliefs
That I'm God
That's what you get bitches.

Maybe next time they're at a summit together, Trump will think twice about grabbing the last bagel at the breakfast buffet when Trudeau was totally reaching for it.

This warning shot polluted South Dakota. Next time, it'll be somewhere you care about. :mad:
 

dismal

Contributor
Joined
Dec 12, 2003
Messages
10,329
Location
texas
Basic Beliefs
none
That's what you get bitches.

Maybe next time they're at a summit together, Trump will think twice about grabbing the last bagel at the breakfast buffet when Trudeau was totally reaching for it.

This warning shot polluted South Dakota. Next time, it'll be somewhere you care about. :mad:

Yeah, your insatiable desire to drive your car has resulted in an incident no one will give much of a shit about.

Take that!
 

Arctish

Centimillionaire
Joined
Jul 30, 2003
Messages
6,181
Location
Alaska
Basic Beliefs
Agnostic Humanist
I wonder if it's going to be sabotage.

When you hear hoofbeats, think of horses not zebras.

Pipelines leak all the time. It's the nature of the beast. This one will be no different, no matter what pie-in-the-sky promises TransCanada makes.
 

Axulus

Veteran Member
Joined
Jun 17, 2003
Messages
4,106
Location
Eugene, OR
Basic Beliefs
Right leaning skeptic
As long as Canada has to pay for it, I say keep leaking.
 

Jimmy Higgins

Contributor
Joined
Feb 1, 2001
Messages
36,263
Basic Beliefs
Calvinistic Atheist
That's what you get bitches.

Maybe next time they're at a summit together, Trump will think twice about grabbing the last bagel at the breakfast buffet when Trudeau was totally reaching for it.

This warning shot polluted South Dakota. Next time, it'll be somewhere you care about. :mad:
Man Canadians are ice cold bitches!
 

ZiprHead

Loony Running The Asylum
Staff member
Joined
Oct 23, 2002
Messages
30,415
Location
Frozen in Michigan
Gender
Old Fart
Basic Beliefs
Democratic Socialist Atheist
That's what you get bitches.

Maybe next time they're at a summit together, Trump will think twice about grabbing the last bagel at the breakfast buffet when Trudeau was totally reaching for it.

This warning shot polluted South Dakota. Next time, it'll be somewhere you care about. :mad:

Yeah, your insatiable desire to drive your car has resulted in an incident no one will give much of a shit about.

Take that!

If you're driving a car somewhere other than the US, you might be right.

Remember though, this oil is going to be off-shored. It's only US use is for US pipeline operators to make money and to pollute US soil.
 

dismal

Contributor
Joined
Dec 12, 2003
Messages
10,329
Location
texas
Basic Beliefs
none
That's what you get bitches.

Maybe next time they're at a summit together, Trump will think twice about grabbing the last bagel at the breakfast buffet when Trudeau was totally reaching for it.

This warning shot polluted South Dakota. Next time, it'll be somewhere you care about. :mad:

Yeah, your insatiable desire to drive your car has resulted in an incident no one will give much of a shit about.

Take that!

If you're driving a car somewhere other than the US, you might be right.

Remember though, this oil is going to be off-shored. It's only US use is for US pipeline operators to make money and to pollute US soil.

No, the use of oil is generally to make transportation fuel to meet human wants and needs.

There is very little money to be made in polluting US soil. Revenues are zero and cleanup costs are high.
 

ZiprHead

Loony Running The Asylum
Staff member
Joined
Oct 23, 2002
Messages
30,415
Location
Frozen in Michigan
Gender
Old Fart
Basic Beliefs
Democratic Socialist Atheist
Yeah, your insatiable desire to drive your car has resulted in an incident no one will give much of a shit about.

Take that!

If you're driving a car somewhere other than the US, you might be right.

Remember though, this oil is going to be off-shored. It's only US use is for US pipeline operators to make money and to pollute US soil.

No, the use of oil is generally to make transportation fuel to meet human wants and needs.

There is very little money to be made in polluting US soil. Revenues are zero and cleanup costs are high.

I didn't say there's money to be made polluting US soil. Polluting soil is just part of the cost of making money.
 

dismal

Contributor
Joined
Dec 12, 2003
Messages
10,329
Location
texas
Basic Beliefs
none
If you're driving a car somewhere other than the US, you might be right.

Remember though, this oil is going to be off-shored. It's only US use is for US pipeline operators to make money and to pollute US soil.

No, the use of oil is generally to make transportation fuel to meet human wants and needs.

There is very little money to be made in polluting US soil. Revenues are zero and cleanup costs are high.

I didn't say there's money to be made polluting US soil. Polluting soil is just part of the cost of making money.

No, it's part of the cost of providing transportation fuels that meet human wants and needs.
 

Jimmy Higgins

Contributor
Joined
Feb 1, 2001
Messages
36,263
Basic Beliefs
Calvinistic Atheist
If you're driving a car somewhere other than the US, you might be right.

Remember though, this oil is going to be off-shored. It's only US use is for US pipeline operators to make money and to pollute US soil.

No, the use of oil is generally to make transportation fuel to meet human wants and needs.

There is very little money to be made in polluting US soil. Revenues are zero and cleanup costs are high.

I didn't say there's money to be made polluting US soil. Polluting soil is just part of the cost of making money.
There is money to be saved in polluting soil.
 

Loren Pechtel

Super Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Sep 16, 2000
Messages
36,189
Location
Nevada
Gender
Yes
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
I wonder if it's going to be sabotage.

When you hear hoofbeats, think of horses not zebras.

Pipelines leak all the time. It's the nature of the beast. This one will be no different, no matter what pie-in-the-sky promises TransCanada makes.

I'm thinking some eco-nut, not someone trying to make them look bad.
 

Arctish

Centimillionaire
Joined
Jul 30, 2003
Messages
6,181
Location
Alaska
Basic Beliefs
Agnostic Humanist
I wonder if it's going to be sabotage.

When you hear hoofbeats, think of horses not zebras.

Pipelines leak all the time. It's the nature of the beast. This one will be no different, no matter what pie-in-the-sky promises TransCanada makes.

I'm thinking some eco-nut, not someone trying to make them look bad.

Yeah, but you're still thinking sabotage when pipelines leak all by themselves pretty much all the time, even with regular maintenance and no sabotage at all.

Big leaks are unusual, but not so unusual that anyone should be surprised when they happen.
 

ZiprHead

Loony Running The Asylum
Staff member
Joined
Oct 23, 2002
Messages
30,415
Location
Frozen in Michigan
Gender
Old Fart
Basic Beliefs
Democratic Socialist Atheist
There are already pipelines that cross the Rockies.
 

dismal

Contributor
Joined
Dec 12, 2003
Messages
10,329
Location
texas
Basic Beliefs
none
When you hear hoofbeats, think of horses not zebras.

Pipelines leak all the time. It's the nature of the beast. This one will be no different, no matter what pie-in-the-sky promises TransCanada makes.

I'm thinking some eco-nut, not someone trying to make them look bad.

Yeah, but you're still thinking sabotage when pipelines leak all by themselves pretty much all the time, even with regular maintenance and no sabotage at all.

Big leaks are unusual, but not so unusual that anyone should be surprised when they happen.

No, pipelines do not generally "leak all by themselves". Especially not a new pipeline buried in the middle of a field. Where pipelines come in to surface facilities there are valves and seals that fail.

But barring decades of corrosion, a buried pipeline tends to fail because someone dug into it.
 

LordKiran

Veteran Member
Joined
Nov 4, 2016
Messages
3,225
Location
PA
Basic Beliefs
In a single statement? Pff
I'm thinking some eco-nut, not someone trying to make them look bad.

Yeah, but you're still thinking sabotage when pipelines leak all by themselves pretty much all the time, even with regular maintenance and no sabotage at all.

Big leaks are unusual, but not so unusual that anyone should be surprised when they happen.

No, pipelines do not generally "leak all by themselves". Especially not a new pipeline buried in the middle of a field. Where pipelines come in to surface facilities there are valves and seals that fail.

But barring decades of corrosion, a buried pipeline tends to fail because someone dug into it.

Is this your expert opinion as a pipeline contractor? :rolleyes:
 

Jimmy Higgins

Contributor
Joined
Feb 1, 2001
Messages
36,263
Basic Beliefs
Calvinistic Atheist
Yeah, but you're still thinking sabotage when pipelines leak all by themselves pretty much all the time, even with regular maintenance and no sabotage at all.

Big leaks are unusual, but not so unusual that anyone should be surprised when they happen.

No, pipelines do not generally "leak all by themselves". Especially not a new pipeline buried in the middle of a field. Where pipelines come in to surface facilities there are valves and seals that fail.

But barring decades of corrosion, a buried pipeline tends to fail because someone dug into it.

Is this your expert opinion as a pipeline contractor? :rolleyes:
dismal isn't too far offset from the field, so I wouldn't take his statement with that large a grain of salt. In general, these things fail when you first use them (inadequate installation) or corrosion. It should be too new for corrosion, shy of a very corrosive area, but it'd have to be very very corrosive.

I'm not too familiar with how long it takes a spill to be noticed. Depending on the leak, it could take much longer to produce enough material to become visible at the surface... and of course there is the tree falling in woods when no one is near it thing as well. Based on the photo, included in the OP, it doesn't appear to be sabotage, as the ground looks undisturbed, other than the saturated oil.
 

Don2 (Don1 Revised)

Contributor
Joined
Apr 1, 2004
Messages
11,636
Location
USA
Basic Beliefs
Nonpracticing agnostic
This is clearly the fault of the Obama Clinton administration just like 9/11 and Ben Gozzy. Now that we run the EPA like a business by businessmen we will see that there is no real danger from Obama/Clinton's mistakes here. All this oil is good for the environment. Ducklings will take baths in it. Eagles will find prey more easily. (probably the ducklings). We don't need Indian burial grounds either so if they get covered in oil, it's no problem. Statues of Confederate soldiers, on the other hand, that's valuable history!
 

dismal

Contributor
Joined
Dec 12, 2003
Messages
10,329
Location
texas
Basic Beliefs
none
No, pipelines do not generally "leak all by themselves". Especially not a new pipeline buried in the middle of a field. Where pipelines come in to surface facilities there are valves and seals that fail.

But barring decades of corrosion, a buried pipeline tends to fail because someone dug into it.

Is this your expert opinion as a pipeline contractor? :rolleyes:
dismal isn't too far offset from the field, so I wouldn't take his statement with that large a grain of salt. In general, these things fail when you first use them (inadequate installation) or corrosion. It should be too new for corrosion, shy of a very corrosive area, but it'd have to be very very corrosive.

I'm not too familiar with how long it takes a spill to be noticed. Depending on the leak, it could take much longer to produce enough material to become visible at the surface... and of course there is the tree falling in woods when no one is near it thing as well. Based on the photo, included in the OP, it doesn't appear to be sabotage, as the ground looks undisturbed, other than the saturated oil.

They hydrotest these things at well above their maximum operating pressure before commissioning so this makes the "leak was always there" theory unlikely.

It would be odd for a weld to pass the hydrotest and then fail shortly after startup.
 

Arctish

Centimillionaire
Joined
Jul 30, 2003
Messages
6,181
Location
Alaska
Basic Beliefs
Agnostic Humanist
Is this your expert opinion as a pipeline contractor? :rolleyes:
dismal isn't too far offset from the field, so I wouldn't take his statement with that large a grain of salt. In general, these things fail when you first use them (inadequate installation) or corrosion. It should be too new for corrosion, shy of a very corrosive area, but it'd have to be very very corrosive.

I'm not too familiar with how long it takes a spill to be noticed. Depending on the leak, it could take much longer to produce enough material to become visible at the surface... and of course there is the tree falling in woods when no one is near it thing as well. Based on the photo, included in the OP, it doesn't appear to be sabotage, as the ground looks undisturbed, other than the saturated oil.

They hydrotest these things at well above their maximum operating pressure before commissioning so this makes the "leak was always there" theory unlikely.

It would be odd for a weld to pass the hydrotest and then fail shortly after startup.

It would not be odd for someone to fudge the hydrotest so the big expensive investment can start paying off.
 

Jimmy Higgins

Contributor
Joined
Feb 1, 2001
Messages
36,263
Basic Beliefs
Calvinistic Atheist
dismal isn't too far offset from the field, so I wouldn't take his statement with that large a grain of salt. In general, these things fail when you first use them (inadequate installation) or corrosion. It should be too new for corrosion, shy of a very corrosive area, but it'd have to be very very corrosive.

I'm not too familiar with how long it takes a spill to be noticed. Depending on the leak, it could take much longer to produce enough material to become visible at the surface... and of course there is the tree falling in woods when no one is near it thing as well. Based on the photo, included in the OP, it doesn't appear to be sabotage, as the ground looks undisturbed, other than the saturated oil.

They hydrotest these things at well above their maximum operating pressure before commissioning so this makes the "leak was always there" theory unlikely.

It would be odd for a weld to pass the hydrotest and then fail shortly after startup.

It would not be odd for someone to fudge the hydrotest so the big expensive investment can start paying off.
Shit sometimes doesn't work. But I like the passive aggressive argument from dismal that it was sabotage, despite any evidence.
 

Derec

Contributor
Joined
Aug 19, 2002
Messages
21,835
Location
Atlanta, GA
Basic Beliefs
atheist
Nothing is perfect. All the other methods of transporting oil long distances have risk of accidents, and pipelines are overall the best bet. But that does not mean the risk is zero, and neither should that be a requirement.

And if it turns out the company was cutting corners, they should be subject to fines and lawsuits.
On the other hand, if it is sabotage, I think whatever outfit the saboteurs are with should be sued and possibly be prosecuted under RICO statutes. \
Sabotage is not so unlikely. Ecomentalists have been monkeying around with valves a lot lately. Like this idiot.
Oregon climate activist found guilty of turning off pipeline valve in Chouteau County
 

thebeave

Veteran Member
Joined
Dec 22, 2001
Messages
3,434
Location
Silicon Valley, CA
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
So, it looks like we have a few acres of land that has apparently been permanently altered and/or destroyed by a petroleum product. That's terrible. We can't be recklessly destroying our lands. But where else have I seen this before? Gotta think.... oh, yeah!

images.jpg image2.jpg image3.jpg
 

dismal

Contributor
Joined
Dec 12, 2003
Messages
10,329
Location
texas
Basic Beliefs
none
They hydrotest these things at well above their maximum operating pressure before commissioning so this makes the "leak was always there" theory unlikely.

It would be odd for a weld to pass the hydrotest and then fail shortly after startup.

It would not be odd for someone to fudge the hydrotest so the big expensive investment can start paying off.
Shit sometimes doesn't work. But I like the passive aggressive argument from dismal that it was sabotage, despite any evidence.

It was so passive it was I almost as if I said absolutely nothing that resembled it.
 

dismal

Contributor
Joined
Dec 12, 2003
Messages
10,329
Location
texas
Basic Beliefs
none
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.
 

Elixir

Made in America
Joined
Sep 23, 2012
Messages
20,404
Location
Mountains
Basic Beliefs
English is complicated
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.

Yeah, all it takes is one tweet; "It didn't happen!". Problem solved.
Just like the Access Hollywood tapes, and Cheato now telling us that it's Fake News.
 

Jimmy Higgins

Contributor
Joined
Feb 1, 2001
Messages
36,263
Basic Beliefs
Calvinistic Atheist
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.

Yeah, all it takes is one tweet; "It didn't happen!". Problem solved.
Just like the Access Hollywood tapes, and Cheato now telling us that it's Fake News.
It is a matter of statistics. Do something, enough times, something will go wrong. Look at the Space Shuttle program, one of the highest levels of safety and care, and still, x number of missions, y number of disasters.

dismal is pleased that this can be remedied, which is nice. The trouble however, is if this happens where contamination into sensitive surface or subsurface ground waters occurs. Granted, anything can be remedied and there are lawyers to keep the price of recovery and lawsuits down.
 

dismal

Contributor
Joined
Dec 12, 2003
Messages
10,329
Location
texas
Basic Beliefs
none
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.

Yeah, all it takes is one tweet; "It didn't happen!". Problem solved.
Just like the Access Hollywood tapes, and Cheato now telling us that it's Fake News.

You appear to have some trouble with the meanings of English words.

"This had little consequence" not equal "this did not happen"

No one has argued this did not happen.
 

dismal

Contributor
Joined
Dec 12, 2003
Messages
10,329
Location
texas
Basic Beliefs
none
Permanent? You can remediate a spill like this for next to nothing.

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

Yeah, all it takes is one tweet; "It didn't happen!". Problem solved.
Just like the Access Hollywood tapes, and Cheato now telling us that it's Fake News.
It is a matter of statistics. Do something, enough times, something will go wrong. Look at the Space Shuttle program, one of the highest levels of safety and care, and still, x number of missions, y number of disasters.

dismal is pleased that this can be remedied, which is nice. The trouble however, is if this happens where contamination into sensitive surface or subsurface ground waters occurs. Granted, anything can be remedied and there are lawyers to keep the price of recovery and lawsuits down.

I suppose it's possible something significant might happen.

I'm just not sure what that has to do with this, which appears to be a largely unsignificant event.

Similarly, it's possible that my car might catch fire, launch off a ramp and broadside a bus full of school children on my way home from work tonight. But that doesn't have much relevance to what happened on my relatively uneventful trip in to work.
 

thebeave

Veteran Member
Joined
Dec 22, 2001
Messages
3,434
Location
Silicon Valley, CA
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
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.

Well, its permanently altered if they do nothing. Is it always guaranteed some remediation will take place even if its in the middle of Bumfuck, South Dakota?
 

dismal

Contributor
Joined
Dec 12, 2003
Messages
10,329
Location
texas
Basic Beliefs
none
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.

Well, its permanently altered if they do nothing. Is it always guaranteed some remediation will take place even if its in the middle of Bumfuck, South Dakota?

I think it would be under state level regulation, but yes, the pipeline company will almost certainly have to clean it up.

ETA: I found the Texas law here, if you're interested

http://texreg.sos.state.tx.us/publi...oc=&p_ploc=&pg=1&p_tac=&ti=16&pt=1&ch=3&rl=91
 

T.G.G. Moogly

Traditional Atheist
Joined
Mar 19, 2001
Messages
8,889
Location
PA USA
Basic Beliefs
egalitarian
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

Contributor
Joined
Dec 12, 2003
Messages
10,329
Location
texas
Basic Beliefs
none
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

Traditional Atheist
Joined
Mar 19, 2001
Messages
8,889
Location
PA USA
Basic Beliefs
egalitarian
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

Contributor
Joined
Dec 12, 2003
Messages
10,329
Location
texas
Basic Beliefs
none
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

Made in America
Joined
Sep 23, 2012
Messages
20,404
Location
Mountains
Basic Beliefs
English is complicated
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

Contributor
Joined
Dec 12, 2003
Messages
10,329
Location
texas
Basic Beliefs
none
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

Made in America
Joined
Sep 23, 2012
Messages
20,404
Location
Mountains
Basic Beliefs
English is complicated
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

Contributor
Joined
Dec 12, 2003
Messages
10,329
Location
texas
Basic Beliefs
none
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

Made in America
Joined
Sep 23, 2012
Messages
20,404
Location
Mountains
Basic Beliefs
English is complicated
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

Contributor
Joined
Dec 12, 2003
Messages
10,329
Location
texas
Basic Beliefs
none
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?
 
Top Bottom