healthmyths
Platinum Member
- Sep 19, 2011
- 29,326
- 10,776
- 900
Why are you supporting the higher risk of another Exxon Valdez?
In case you are too young..
The Exxon Valdez oil spill occurred in Prince William Sound, Alaska, on March 24, 1989, when the Exxon Valdez, an oil tanker bound for Long Beach, California, struck Prince William Sound's Bligh Reef and spilled 260,000 to 750,000 barrels (41,000 to 119,000 m3) of crude oil.[1][2] It is considered to be one of the most devastating human-caused environmental disasters.[3]
Exxon Valdez oil spill - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
So without the pipeline where the risk is 300 barrels in one mile of pipe.. Canada will ship the oil via another type of Exxon Valdez! 1 million barrels waiting to crash either due to bad weather or as in this case several employee errors...
why do you want 1 million barrels at risk versus 300 barrels???
In case you are too young..
The Exxon Valdez oil spill occurred in Prince William Sound, Alaska, on March 24, 1989, when the Exxon Valdez, an oil tanker bound for Long Beach, California, struck Prince William Sound's Bligh Reef and spilled 260,000 to 750,000 barrels (41,000 to 119,000 m3) of crude oil.[1][2] It is considered to be one of the most devastating human-caused environmental disasters.[3]
Exxon Valdez oil spill - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
So without the pipeline where the risk is 300 barrels in one mile of pipe.. Canada will ship the oil via another type of Exxon Valdez! 1 million barrels waiting to crash either due to bad weather or as in this case several employee errors...
why do you want 1 million barrels at risk versus 300 barrels???