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

Pipeline Burst in Alabama

Alcoholic Actuary

Veteran Member
Joined
Dec 21, 2005
Messages
1,023
Location
SoCal
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
While you were worried about who stands for the National Anthem Part II:

http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-alabama-pipeline-20160918-snap-story.html

It turns out that there is a reasonable concern for building oil pipelines over watersheds or ceremonial burial cites.

"The pipeline breached near an old coal mine pit, and much of the fuel flowed into a water retention pond.

With local streams dry -- much of central Alabama is suffering from moderate to severe drought -- the gasoline did not find its way down into the Cahaba River, home to 64 rare and endangered plant and animal species, including the Cahaba lily.

“We really did bypass the bullet,” said Myra Crawford, executive director at Cahaba Riverkeeper, which has been monitoring the area by canoe and foot.“It could have been horrible. If the oil had flowed into the river, where our lilies grow, it would have contaminated one of our state treasures. It could have flowed down through Alabama and into the Mobile Bay.”

Lucky indeed.

aa
 
Yes, gas prices have gone up this past week around here and many gas stations do not even have any gas.

But the point is, this is an old pipeline, about 50 years old. It would be good to replace it with a brand new one, but that would trigger protests and idiocy again. It's difficult to complete major infrastructure projects when there is a whole class of people hell bent on preventing them or at least making them as expensive as possible.

Another point is, pipelines like this (and also DAPL) are necessary. This Colonial Pipeline moves product from Gulf refineries all the way to New York. Moving all that product by rail or truck would tie up rail and road infrastructure, be more expensive and less safe. We need more and better pipelines, not giving in to extremists who want to block everything because of imaginary snakes. And the more difficult new pipeline construction is, the more longer old pipelines will have to be used.
 
Last edited:
Yes, gas prices have gone up this past week around here and many gas stations do not even have any gas.

But the point is, this is an old pipeline, about 50 years old. It would be good to replace it with a brand new one, but that would trigger protests and idiocy again.

Another point is, pipelines like this (and also DAPL) are necessary. This Colonial Pipeline moves product from Gulf refineries all the way to New York. Moving all that product by rail or truck would tie up rail and road infrastructure, be more expensive and less safe. We need more and better pipelines, not giving in to extremists who want to block everything because of imaginary snakes.

In which case, should we be more concerned with updating existing pipelines rather than constructing new ones?

aa
 
In which case, should we be more concerned with updating existing pipelines rather than constructing new ones?
That is not mutually exclusive.

Increasing buggy-whip production in the age of the automobile is also not mutually exclusive, but might not be the best resource deployment.

aa
 
Yes, gas prices have gone up this past week around here and many gas stations do not even have any gas.

But the point is, this is an old pipeline, about 50 years old. It would be good to replace it with a brand new one, but that would trigger protests and idiocy again.
Odd, I worked on a job that was for replacing an old gas pipeline. Didn't see a single protest.

In fact, I've worked on a few gas pipeline projects, not a single person protested. If anything, people may be protesting how bad some of these lines are becoming and not being replaced in time, especially ones near population centers.
 
Yes, gas prices have gone up this past week around here and many gas stations do not even have any gas.

But the point is, this is an old pipeline, about 50 years old. It would be good to replace it with a brand new one, but that would trigger protests and idiocy again. It's difficult to complete major infrastructure projects when there is a whole class of people hell bent on preventing them or at least making them as expensive as possible.

When was the replacement for this pipeline proposed and blocked by protests?
 
There should be an investigation into what happened and I believe negligence will be the core issue here, especially with the presence of corrosion. Whether this was due to inferior specifications being used or simply lack or maintenance and replacement or a combination of the two should be researched.

http://theweek.com/articles/483175/bps-new-oil-spill-alaska-reckless

Could this spill have been prevented?
There's some compelling evidence that BP could have foreseen problems at this facility. A 2010 investigation by ProPublica revealed that 148 sections of BP pipeline in Alaska (but not the one that burst) were so corroded that they were in imminent danger of rupture. Internal records showed that these pipelines had worn so thin — in some cases as thin as a few thousandths of an inch — that they should be operated only under reduced pressure. The investigation also found that regular maintenance of BP's pipelines and facilities throughout Alaska had been neglected for more than a decade, due to a company-wide effort to reduce operating costs.
 
Back
Top Bottom