• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Exxon cleans up Arkansas oil spill; Keystone plan assailed

apdst said:
When an oil and gas company screws up, you're calling for their heads. When a railroad company screws up, you're hiding among the crickets. Why is that?

A train derailment in Minnesota spilled 30,000 gallons of oil and no one is screaming for railroad heads on a plate. Is it because the outrage has more to do with the hatred for oil companies, in general? Is it because railroads are the more PC industry among the treehuggers now days? Is it because railroads are unionized and unions don't exist in the oil and gas industry?
Click to expand...

Seems like you are trying to change the subject and distract from the actual subject of the discussion, but I'll go with it. I completely agree with you that spills by train are as concerning as pipeline leaks, and rig spills. However, it all comes back to the energy companies commissioning these things. They are all connected, because when it comes right down to it, the energy companies are responsible for the damage the transportation of their product causes. It's all of concern and the penalties for these types of accidents are not substantial enough for companies to change the way they do business. That is a problem.

I'm not calling for anyone's head. The modern world requires oil to function, as of right now. Yet, just because we require it, doesn't give companies a free pass to pay a fine and go back to business as usual. If the system of inspection, regulation, enforcement and penalties is failing, then their needs to be a significant push to fix it. That push could be made, by threatening a revokation of permits if safety procedured aren't improved. It has nothing to do with being PC, defense of unions, or hatred of oil companies. It has to do with ensuring that this industry does what it does as safely as humanly possible. As of right now, their is no motivation to improve existing safety concerns.
 
WWGWD said:
Seems like you are trying to change the subject and distract from the actual subject of the discussion, but I'll go with it. I completely agree with you that spills by train are as concerning as pipeline leaks, and rig spills. However, it all comes back to the energy companies commissioning these things. They are all connected, because when it comes right down to it, the energy companies are responsible for the damage the transportation of their product causes. It's all of concern and the penalties for these types of accidents are not substantial enough for companies to change the way they do business. That is a problem.

I'm not calling for anyone's head. The modern world requires oil to function, as of right now. Yet, just because we require it, doesn't give companies a free pass to pay a fine and go back to business as usual. If the system of inspection, regulation, enforcement and penalties is failing, then their needs to be a significant push to fix it. That push could be made, by threatening a revokation of permits if safety procedured aren't improved. It has nothing to do with being PC, defense of unions, or hatred of oil companies. It has to do with ensuring that this industry does what it does as safely as humanly possible. As of right now, their is no motivation to improve existing safety concerns.
Click to expand...

So, a train derailment is STILL the oil company's fault? :rofl You know how you sound right now. Right?
 
apdst said:
Well, if government regulators aren't enforcing government regulations, they're as much at fault as anyone else. It's called, "corruption".

Are you one of the folks that swears up-n-down that Bush knowingly lied about WMD's in Iraq? Because, if you are...
Click to expand...

What does Bush have to do with this thread? Please confine yourself to one piece of BS at a time!

You do know that by your ****ed up logic, if a criminal commits a crime the police should be held responsible for not catching them. How crazy is this?
 
Texmex said:
What does Bush have to do with this thread? Please confine yourself to one piece of BS at a time!
Click to expand...

Just checking for consistancy.

What I find to be incredibly funny, is that no matter who's at fault, the oil companies will always be at fault.

Kinda like that old ryhme:

"I don't drive the train and I don't ring the bell, but let this son-of-a-bitch jump the track and see who catches hell".
 
apdst said:
So, a train derailment is STILL the oil company's fault? :rofl You know how you sound right now. Right?
Click to expand...

No, of course a derailment is not the fault of the oil company, that is idiotic. The inability to keep the oil contained, and effectively clean up what does get spilled is the oil companies responsibility. A responsibility they have a track record of not regularly updating or improving.

Why do you consistently focus on berating and ridiculing people who don't agree with you? I have had no problem pointing out the things I agree with you on, yet you continue to try and invalidate or misinterpret everything I say. Do you have any interestest in a conversation or do you just want to make you point and ignore everything else? Either way is fine, I'm just curious as to your intention with this discussion.
 
WWGWD said:
No, of course a derailment is not the fault of the oil company, that is idiotic. The inability to keep the oil contained, and effectively clean up what does get spilled is the oil companies responsibility. A responsibility they have a track record of not regularly updating or improving.

Why do you consistently focus on berating and ridiculing people who don't agree with you? I have had no problem pointing out the things I agree with you on, yet you continue to try and invalidate or misinterpret everything I say. Do you have any interestest in a conversation or do you just want to make you point and ignore everything else? Either way is fine, I'm just curious as to your intention with this discussion.
Click to expand...

The oil companies didn't build the train car, either. That's all on the train car manufacturer and the railroad operator; so is the clean up.

Funny how there wasn't a thread screaming about RR companies having to pay out the ass for spills during derailments. Even now, blame is being vigorously shifted away from the RR company and the rail car manufacturer.
 
apdst said:
Just checking for consistancy.
Click to expand...

That's a Texas size lie! You are attempting to deflect the conversation, typical.

What I find to be incredibly funny, is that no matter who's at fault, the oil companies will always be at fault.
Click to expand...

Where did I say this?

Again an attempt to deflect.

Are you able to tell the truth and stop lying. I'm ashamed to call you a fellow Texan.
 
Texmex said:
That's a Texas size lie! You are attempting to deflect the conversation, typical.



Where did I say this?

Again an attempt to deflect.

Are you able to tell the truth and stop lying. I'm ashamed to call you a fellow Texan.
Click to expand...

I'm not a Texican. I just live here.
 
Texmex said:
That's OK, you're welcome to stay, just don't embarrass the rest of us.
Click to expand...

I seem to meet more Texicans that think like me than like you. Not sure which one of us is the bigger embarressment. ;)

I haven't met a single Libbo in Kerrville and I know damn near everybody, by now.
 
WWGWD said:
Does that really do the trick though? I mean, that's pretty much the model we have been using for at least the last decade, and spills keep happening. Without a proper clean up and leak prevention plan, the future damage can never be fixed by an amount of money. For instance, the wetlands in the gulf. Wetlands act as a cushion during hurricanes. They absorb the brunt of the storm, and cause the severity of the storm to decrease. Obviously, this depends on the size of the storm, but the point is the long term effects of the oil that spread into those same wetlands. How do you penalize a company for the future depletion of the wetlands, and the future danger the people of coastal towns will be in because of that depletion?

I'm not saying I disagree with you, I just think the severity of these mistakes should carry a consequence other then just a monetary value. The oil industry is the most profitable industry in the world, and the US subsidises it on top of that. Companies are paying people theses damages with tax payer dollars, lol. It just doesn't seem like that has the same kind of impact as outright threatening to revoke their permits to drill if they don't get it together.
Click to expand...

Firstly, if you want to talk about destruction of the gulf coast wetlands, you need to speak to the governments of the gulf coast states who have been doing it through coastal development for decades - the destruction caused by Katrina had everything to do with the erosion of the wetlands and nothing to do with big oil.

Secondly, I wouldn't object to there also being criminal penalties for corporate leaders in such cases if it can be proven that their actions or inactions directly caused the damage. However, in our society, money is usually the only penalty awarded in tort cases - hit them with big enough damages and eventually they will change if it's in their power to do so.

Finally, pipelines are by far the safest mode of transporting crude to refineries and refined oil to market - bar none. In 2012, there were a total of 54,000 barrels of oil released into the environment through pipeline leaks which, while it sounds like a lot, is a miniscule proportion of the amount of oil flowing throught pipelines in North America every day. But the media pumps it up because of the politics of the Keystone pipeline in the news now. I'm wondering how many people, nationally in the US, heard about the 15,000 barrels of oil spilled in Minnesota a couple of months ago due to a train derailment - not too many, I'll bet - it doesn't fit the media's agenda.
 
apdst said:
The oil companies didn't build the train car, either. That's all on the train car manufacturer and the railroad operator; so is the clean up.

Funny how there wasn't a thread screaming about RR companies having to pay out the ass for spills during derailments. Even now, blame is being vigorously shifted away from the RR company and the rail car manufacturer.
Click to expand...

So the company who hires that railroad company has absolutely no influence or responsibility if that train spills oil all over Minnesota? That's crazy to me. I'm not saying the railroad company gets off scott free, with no responsibility of it's own. I'm saying, everyone involved should be held to a certain degree of responsibility if a train derails and spills a hazardous material.

The best way I can think of to explain my thought process is compareing the process to the transportation of hazardous material, by commercial truck. The shipper is responsible for complying with packaging and labeling rules. The trucking company is then responsible for complying with specific transportation regulations that ensure a safe transport. Each company is responsible for ensuring the material is transported as safetly as possible, making it everyone's responsibility.

Those sort of rules, and responsibilities, don't exist in shipping oil via train. Furthermore, the train companies don't provide the shipping containers that transport oil, the oil companies do, so acting like they have zero culpability is just dumb to me. Both parties should take responsibility, and have to maintain a certain standard of safety and preparedness. This is true across the board with it comes to oil production and transportation. The oil companies commission the building of pipeline, and provide the train containers that ship their oil, so yes, they have a level of blame and responsibility when that oil leaks. I'm not sure why it's such a crazy perspective.
 
WWGWD said:
So the company who hires that railroad company has absolutely no influence or responsibility if that train spills oil all over Minnesota? That's crazy to me. I'm not saying the railroad company gets off scott free, with no responsibility of it's own. I'm saying, everyone involved should be held to a certain degree of responsibility if a train derails and spills a hazardous material.

The best way I can think of to explain my thought process is compareing the process to the transportation of hazardous material, by commercial truck. The shipper is responsible for complying with packaging and labeling rules. The trucking company is then responsible for complying with specific transportation regulations that ensure a safe transport. Each company is responsible for ensuring the material is transported as safetly as possible, making it everyone's responsibility.
Click to expand...


If a shipper tells a truck driver to load a piece of equipment a certain way and that piece of equipment falls off the trailer, because it was loaded wrong, or secured improperly per the shippers influence on loading and securement, who takes the blame? The truck driver, or the shipper?

Those sort of rules, and responsibilities, don't exist in shipping oil via train. Furthermore, the train companies don't provide the shipping containers that transport oil, the oil companies do, so acting like they have zero culpability is just dumb to me. Both parties should take responsibility, and have to maintain a certain standard of safety and preparedness. This is true across the board with it comes to oil production and transportation. The oil companies commission the building of pipeline, and provide the train containers that ship their oil, so yes, they have a level of blame and responsibility when that oil leaks. I'm not sure why it's such a crazy perspective.
Click to expand...

You don't really believe that...do you?

http://www.csx.com/index.cfm/customers/safety-security/regulations-and-policies/tank-cars/
 
Last edited:
CanadaJohn said:
Firstly, if you want to talk about destruction of the gulf coast wetlands, you need to speak to the governments of the gulf coast states who have been doing it through coastal development for decades - the destruction caused by Katrina had everything to do with the erosion of the wetlands and nothing to do with big oil.
Click to expand...

I agree with you that there has been a significant amount of damage to the wetlands by government and industry throughout the gulf, as well as Katrina. However, to think that the oil in the gulf did nothing to the wetlands that are still there, and that it won't have any future impact seem nonsensical to me, based on what I know about the development and sensitivity of the ecology of wetlands.

CanadaJohn said:
Secondly, I wouldn't object to there also being criminal penalties for corporate leaders in such cases if it can be proven that their actions or inactions directly caused the damage. However, in our society, money is usually the only penalty awarded in tort cases - hit them with big enough damages and eventually they will change if it's in their power to do so.
Click to expand...

Also, I never said anything about criminal charges. I know some people feel that way, but I am definitely not one of them! I'm talking about a threat to revoke permits to oil companies, unless safety and clean up procedures are updated right away. Paying a fine after the fact is clearly not having the kind of impact required. The threat of having to shut down their operation, even temporarily, is a cost I think the industry would not take so lightly.

CanadaJohn said:
Finally, pipelines are by far the safest mode of transporting crude to refineries and refined oil to market - bar none. In 2012, there were a total of 54,000 barrels of oil released into the environment through pipeline leaks which, while it sounds like a lot, is a miniscule proportion of the amount of oil flowing throught pipelines in North America every day. But the media pumps it up because of the politics of the Keystone pipeline in the news now. I'm wondering how many people, nationally in the US, heard about the 15,000 barrels of oil spilled in Minnesota a couple of months ago due to a train derailment - not too many, I'll bet - it doesn't fit the media's agenda.
Click to expand...

I 100% agree with you! I've actually been having this same train derailment discussion with another poster, lol. The problem I have with pipeline is their age. There is no plan for assessing, repair or replacing area of pipeline that are getting old. That is dangerous. But my primary concern has always been clean up. The oil industry has not updated it's clean up procedure since the 80's. I understand that oil is neccissary, currently. I also understand that pipeline are the safest means of transportation of that oil. However, if we are going to expand that practice, and rely on it so heavily, why is there no emphasis on ensuring it's done so as safetly as possible? Human error happen, pipelines are going to burst, it's inevitable. So why not spend the time and resources to prepare for that as well as possible before why start buildign more pipelines?
 
apdst said:
If a shipper tells a truck driver to load a piece of equipment a certain way and that piece of equipment falls off the trailer, because it was loaded wrong, or secured improperly per the shippers influence on loading and securement, who takes the blame? The truck driver, or the shipper?
Click to expand...

Both. The shipper is to blame for not complying with the packaging rules, and the freight company is responsible for it's employee accepting that shipment.

apdst said:
You don't really believe that...do you?

Tank Cars - CSX
Click to expand...

Super good info, and I appreciate the link, but I don't think it applies in this case, being that it was a Candian train not an American one. From what I've looked through, I haven't been able to find any sort of regulatory hurdles for transporting oil via train from Canada and into the US. If I'm wrong, I'm happy to admit it, but I haven't been able to find anything pertaining to the safety regulation of intercontinental transport of oil into the US.

My question to you, would be if you think that the existing safety and clean up regulations are sufficient? I am not in any way advocating an end to oil production and shipment. I've said that over and over. My problem is are we doing it as safetly and intelligently as possible. I don't think we are, obviously, so I would like to know if you do.
 
apdst said:
I seem to meet more Texicans that think like me than like you. Not sure which one of us is the bigger embarressment. ;)

I haven't met a single Libbo in Kerrville and I know damn near everybody, by now.
Click to expand...

I don't live in Kerrville, although I have nothing against it. I live in Houston.
 
Northern Light said:
This is really disgusting. How much more ecosystem has to be permanently trashed, and how many more people's lives must be ruined, before we start seriously investing in green energy? It's now affecting people's private properties too. Fracking is just as bad.

It's dirty energy at high cost.
Click to expand...

Meh.

The pictures are sensational but if it hasn't been completely cleaned up then it soon will be and residents will undoubtedly be richly compensated for their very brief trouble. All in all, the people affected by this small spill will have forgotten it long before they finish spending their compensation. This is probably the best thing that has ever happened to this people.

I sure wish Exxon would spill oil in my backyard so I can go in front of the cameras and use it for leverage for them to pay off my mortgage. Then it would be nothing but :golf for me.
 
CanadaJohn said:
Firstly, if you want to talk about destruction of the gulf coast wetlands, you need to speak to the governments of the gulf coast states who have been doing it through coastal development for decades - the destruction caused by Katrina had everything to do with the erosion of the wetlands and nothing to do with big oil.

Secondly, I wouldn't object to there also being criminal penalties for corporate leaders in such cases if it can be proven that their actions or inactions directly caused the damage. However, in our society, money is usually the only penalty awarded in tort cases - hit them with big enough damages and eventually they will change if it's in their power to do so.

Finally, pipelines are by far the safest mode of transporting crude to refineries and refined oil to market - bar none. In 2012, there were a total of 54,000 barrels of oil released into the environment through pipeline leaks which, while it sounds like a lot, is a miniscule proportion of the amount of oil flowing throught pipelines in North America every day. But the media pumps it up because of the politics of the Keystone pipeline in the news now. I'm wondering how many people, nationally in the US, heard about the 15,000 barrels of oil spilled in Minnesota a couple of months ago due to a train derailment - not too many, I'll bet - it doesn't fit the media's agenda.
Click to expand...

You really don't understand at all. Fishing is all but halted and eating safe food from the gulf is not possible anymore because of the oil spills. That never happened before.

And the pipelines are breaking in Canada and the Arkansas..and you can't back up that with any news information.
 
WWGWD said:
I agree with you that there has been a significant amount of damage to the wetlands by government and industry throughout the gulf, as well as Katrina. However, to think that the oil in the gulf did nothing to the wetlands that are still there, and that it won't have any future impact seem nonsensical to me, based on what I know about the development and sensitivity of the ecology of wetlands.



Also, I never said anything about criminal charges. I know some people feel that way, but I am definitely not one of them! I'm talking about a threat to revoke permits to oil companies, unless safety and clean up procedures are updated right away. Paying a fine after the fact is clearly not having the kind of impact required. The threat of having to shut down their operation, even temporarily, is a cost I think the industry would not take so lightly.



I 100% agree with you! I've actually been having this same train derailment discussion with another poster, lol. The problem I have with pipeline is their age. There is no plan for assessing, repair or replacing area of pipeline that are getting old. That is dangerous. But my primary concern has always been clean up. The oil industry has not updated it's clean up procedure since the 80's. I understand that oil is neccissary, currently. I also understand that pipeline are the safest means of transportation of that oil. However, if we are going to expand that practice, and rely on it so heavily, why is there no emphasis on ensuring it's done so as safetly as possible? Human error happen, pipelines are going to burst, it's inevitable. So why not spend the time and resources to prepare for that as well as possible before why start buildign more pipelines?
Click to expand...

I think we're pretty much in agreement here except I would note that if you take away permits for doing business from companies that suffer accidents, you are not necessarily harming the business so much as you are the employees. I remember during the gulf oil spill and clean up, the Obama administration shut down drilling all over the gulf and caused a lot of unemployment in the industry as well as the movement of some of the drilling rigs from the gulf to other areas of the world thus killing the jobs of oil rig workers permanently, or for a long time. These people who rely on the business for a high paying and consistent living are harmed greatly through no fault of their own.

Canada is now looking at sending oilsands crude east across Canada to refineries in Quebec and New Brunswick, both places that want the business. The plans would involved upgrading existing pipelines that are being used to ship refined oil west and reversing them to ship crude east. Upgrading the refineries is good for employment in those two areas of the country who have higher unemployment and is good long term too. We may end up piping oil east to these refineries and west to the coast for tankers shipping it to China and India. The Obama administration's game playing with this vital industry may end up harming America far more than Canada.
 
Muddy Creek said:
You really don't understand at all. Fishing is all but halted and eating safe food from the gulf is not possible anymore because of the oil spills. That never happened before.

And the pipelines are breaking in Canada and the Arkansas..and you can't back up that with any news information.
Click to expand...

This week, the Fish and Wildlife Service will begin a series of public meetings on the draft plan for the restoration of damage to natural resources resulting from the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. It is natural that the discussion of this plan would also raise the question of whether Gulf seafood is safe to eat. The answer to that question is, yes. Gulf seafood is as safe to eat now as it was before the spill. - https://blogs.fda.gov/fdavoice/?tag=gulf-seafood

No one claims that there aren't accidental spills related to transporting millions of barrels of crude and oil across Canada and the United States each day. It remains the safest way by far. Are you suggesting that large swaths of the American economy and society come to a stop?
 
Muddy Creek said:
You really don't understand at all. Fishing is all but halted and eating safe food from the gulf is not possible anymore because of the oil spills. That never happened before.

And the pipelines are breaking in Canada and the Arkansas..and you can't back up that with any news information.
Click to expand...

https://blogs.fda.gov/fdavoice/?tag=gulf-seafood

This week, the Fish and Wildlife Service will begin a series of public meetings on the draft plan for the restoration of damage to natural resources resulting from the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. It is natural that the discussion of this plan would also raise the question of whether Gulf seafood is safe to eat. The answer to that question is, yes. Gulf seafood is as safe to eat now as it was before the spill.
Click to expand...

Any more dis-info you'd like to spew?
 
CanadaJohn said:
I think we're pretty much in agreement here except I would note that if you take away permits for doing business from companies that suffer accidents, you are not necessarily harming the business so much as you are the employees. I remember during the gulf oil spill and clean up, the Obama administration shut down drilling all over the gulf and caused a lot of unemployment in the industry as well as the movement of some of the drilling rigs from the gulf to other areas of the world thus killing the jobs of oil rig workers permanently, or for a long time. These people who rely on the business for a high paying and consistent living are harmed greatly through no fault of their own.

Canada is now looking at sending oilsands crude east across Canada to refineries in Quebec and New Brunswick, both places that want the business. The plans would involved upgrading existing pipelines that are being used to ship refined oil west and reversing them to ship crude east. Upgrading the refineries is good for employment in those two areas of the country who have higher unemployment and is good long term too. We may end up piping oil east to these refineries and west to the coast for tankers shipping it to China and India. The Obama administration's game playing with this vital industry may end up harming America far more than Canada.
Click to expand...

I completely agree that the people who would suffer the most are the employees. I know a lot a guys who do that work, and they are by no means wealthy people. Average, middle class guys, making a living. My feeling though, is so are the people affected by this continueing trend of oil spills. I was looking at a list of oil spills worldwide, ranked by the amount of oil was spilled. The US holds the top two rankings of worst oil spills in history, but I will point out, one of them was in 1910 and we have come quite a long was since then. However, Canada, is down at 13th, with the Odyssey spill in 1988. Canada doesn't pop up again until number 65. What in the world are y'all doing up there that is preventing spills? lol I feel like there is something US is not doing, that they could be doing to solve this problem. I take issue with this whole, "Obama administration's game playing" narrative though. I think that is total and complete misrepresentation. Every release or statement on the subject I have read, stays increadibly clearly that the denial or delay of permits is due to inadequit safety and/or clean up procedures. That's not a game, that is a completely legit concern these days.
 
WWGWD said:
I completely agree that the people who would suffer the most are the employees. I know a lot a guys who do that work, and they are by no means wealthy people. Average, middle class guys, making a living. My feeling though, is so are the people affected by this continueing trend of oil spills. I was looking at a list of oil spills worldwide, ranked by the amount of oil was spilled. The US holds the top two rankings of worst oil spills in history, but I will point out, one of them was in 1910 and we have come quite a long was since then. However, Canada, is down at 13th, with the Odyssey spill in 1988. Canada doesn't pop up again until number 65. What in the world are y'all doing up there that is preventing spills? lol I feel like there is something US is not doing, that they could be doing to solve this problem. I take issue with this whole, "Obama administration's game playing" narrative though. I think that is total and complete misrepresentation. Every release or statement on the subject I have read, stays increadibly clearly that the denial or delay of permits is due to inadequit safety and/or clean up procedures. That's not a game, that is a completely legit concern these days.
Click to expand...

I don't think Canada is doing anything particularly different or unique that isn't happening in the US - it's probably a function of your country being 10 times the size of Canada and you're the largest economy in the world so you have the most oil transported in and out and around your country than anyone else and your pipeline infrastructure is probably a lot older than ours and has been used longer and more densely over time. It could also simply be a function of bad luck on your part and good luck on Canada's part.

There's a lot more politics in the Keystone delay, entirely related to Obama's reelection prospects and the delay in getting the permits approved are far more a function of that than any environmental concerns.
 
Jack Fabulous said:
https://blogs.fda.gov/fdavoice/?tag=gulf-seafood



Any more dis-info you'd like to spew?
Click to expand...

Your source is over a year old.

Gulf Seafood Deformities Raise Questions Among Scientists And Fisherman (VIDEO)

. . .

Al Jazeera reports that both the government and BP maintain that Gulf seafood is safe. BP released a statement last week, saying, "Seafood from the Gulf of Mexico is among the most tested in the world, and according to the FDA and NOAA, it is as safe now as it was before the accident."

A study published last October in the journal Environmental Health Perspectives found that the FDA allowed "up to 10,000 times too much contamination" and didn't identify the risks to children and pregnant women posed by contaminated seafood. Additionally, the study charged that the FDA's "scientific standards [in 2010] were less stringent" than after the Exxon Valdez spill, reported OnEarth.

Government testing standards were questioned months after the spill. In December 2010, a toxicologist with a team challenging the FDA's seafood testing said, the "FDA simply overlooked an important aspect of safety in their protocol," reported MSNBC.

. . .
Click to expand...

Monsanto is in charge of the FDA...I don't believe Monsanto at all.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom