Environmentalists.. why do you want another Exxon Valdez?

[healthmyths]

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???

 

[ClosedCaption]

Man, I was just meeting with Environmentalist and we were all wishing for another Exxon Valdez. Is this you, Tom?

 

[Cuyo]

healthmyths - Why do you say such stupid things?

 

[G.T.]

What a dumb question.

 

[Luissa]

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???

You do realize the pipeline wouldn't have prevented that right? The pipeline isn't for Alaskan oil, it is for Canadian oil that would have never been shipped to the states via ship anyways.
And you might want to google pipeline fires.
List of pipeline accidents - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I remember this one from when I was younger.
HistoryLink.org- the Free Online Encyclopedia of Washington State History

 

[Luissa]

Funny story though, my friend who is from Alaska and who's dad works for BP flew in first class with the captain of that ship.....He of course was drunk.

 

[healthmyths]

healthmyths - Why do you say such stupid things?

IT is totally stupid and ignorant to protest a 300 barrel per mile potential spill AND
force a potential wrecked 1 million barrel tanker!

THAT IS STUPIDITY!

DO YOU NOT understand??

If the pipeline doesn't go through and 700,000 barrels a day flow..
CANADA sells to China!
HOW in the hell will the oil get to china?

1 million barrel Exxon Valdez equvalent potential wrecks!

NOW again.. explain "stupidity" ?
YOU want a shipwrecked 1 million barrel tanker off the coast of Alaska again???

IDIOT why take the:
1) risk of foreign oil going to a foreign country spilling thousands of miles of coastland?
WHO will pay to clean up?

2) THE OIL will be going to CHINA!
THAT means right now we get 1/8th of all imported oil from canada a friendly neighbor that if 700,000 goes to China means well have to make up the difference from WHERE?

country barrels per day
CANADA 1,975
SAUDI ARABIA 1,119 Middle East
MEXICO 1,229
VENEZUELA 884
Nigeria 806
Colombia 489
Algeria 379
Iraq 340 Middle East
Angola 263
Ecuador 188
Brazil 188
Kuwait 170 Middle East
Russia 85
United Kingdom 80
Indonesia 55
Total 8,250

 

[healthmyths]

What a dumb question.

So you tell me you would prefer having 1 million barrels destroying 1,000s of miles of coast land

VERSUS the most 300 barrels in one mile of pipeline spilling???

DUH!!! WHERE WOULD THE MOST DAMAGE BE DONE???

WHICH HAS THE GREATER CHANCE of Occurring???

Does the recent cruise shipwreck give you a clue???

OH and this latest shipwreck has just 500,000 gallons of fuel they are concerned about!
Think about 42 million gallons off the coast of Alaska/Oregon/Washington!!!
All that white arctic ????

 

[healthmyths]

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???

You do realize the pipeline wouldn't have prevented that right? The pipeline isn't for Alaskan oil, it is for Canadian oil that would have never been shipped to the states via ship anyways.
And you might want to google pipeline fires.
List of pipeline accidents - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I remember this one from when I was younger.
HistoryLink.org- the Free Online Encyclopedia of Washington State History

LISTEN.. WHICH IS WORSE 1 million barrels or 300 barrels?
Which has a greater chance of a problem? A ship subject to weather, human error?
Again think about that cruise ship and the 500,000 gallons they are concerned!

Where is your common sense?
Is 1 million barrels more then 300 barrels of oil???
THAT the plain simple question?
So why would any IDIOT other then being an idiot FAVOR shipping 1 million barrels a day via a boat that can shipwreck .. just spring a leaK!

WHERE IS YOUR THINKING ability???

 

[G.T.]

healthmyths - Why do you say such stupid things?

IT is totally stupid and ignorant to protest a 300 barrel per mile potential spill AND
force a potential wrecked 1 million barrel tanker!

THAT IS STUPIDITY!

DO YOU NOT understand??

If the pipeline doesn't go through and 700,000 barrels a day flow..
CANADA sells to China!
HOW in the hell will the oil get to china?

1 million barrel Exxon Valdez equvalent potential wrecks!

NOW again.. explain "stupidity" ?
YOU want a shipwrecked 1 million barrel tanker off the coast of Alaska again???

IDIOT why take the:
1) risk of foreign oil going to a foreign country spilling thousands of miles of coastland?
WHO will pay to clean up?

2) THE OIL will be going to CHINA!
THAT means right now we get 1/8th of all imported oil from canada a friendly neighbor that if 700,000 goes to China means well have to make up the difference from WHERE?

country barrels per day
CANADA 1,975
SAUDI ARABIA 1,119 Middle East
MEXICO 1,229
VENEZUELA 884
Nigeria 806
Colombia 489
Algeria 379
Iraq 340 Middle East
Angola 263
Ecuador 188
Brazil 188
Kuwait 170 Middle East
Russia 85
United Kingdom 80
Indonesia 55
Total 8,250

"force a potential"




and you don't see where the stupidity is. heh.

 

[G.T.]

What a dumb question.

So you tell me you would prefer having 1 million barrels destroying 1,000s of miles of coast land

VERSUS the most 300 barrels in one mile of pipeline spilling???

DUH!!! WHERE WOULD THE MOST DAMAGE BE DONE???

WHICH HAS THE GREATER CHANCE of Occurring???

Does the recent cruise shipwreck give you a clue???

OH and this latest shipwreck has just 500,000 gallons of fuel they are concerned about!
Think about 42 million gallons off the coast of Alaska/Oregon/Washington!!!
All that white arctic ????

Neither, ya dumb shit, which is why the question is STOO000OPIT

 

[healthmyths]

What a dumb question.

So you tell me you would prefer having 1 million barrels destroying 1,000s of miles of coast land

VERSUS the most 300 barrels in one mile of pipeline spilling???

DUH!!! WHERE WOULD THE MOST DAMAGE BE DONE???

WHICH HAS THE GREATER CHANCE of Occurring???

Does the recent cruise shipwreck give you a clue???

OH and this latest shipwreck has just 500,000 gallons of fuel they are concerned about!
Think about 42 million gallons off the coast of Alaska/Oregon/Washington!!!
All that white arctic ????

Neither, ya dumb shit, which is why the question is STOO000OPIT

HEY... definition of STUPID is ignoring the reality that
1) either 1 million barrels a DAY shipped by a tanker
2) or 700,000 barrels by a pipeline that in any one mile less then 300 barrels!

THAT is reality!
And right now all you so-called environmentalists are full of shit because if you
don't recognize there is a greater RISK and GREATER area damaged by 1 million barrels in a bouncing ship running on to a coast i.e. latest cruise ship ?? with a drunk captain..

AND YOU Call me a dumb shit???

WHAT part of the REAL world do you live in because no sticking your head in the sand will alter REALITY the OIL will be shipped!

YOU are so stupid you can't tell the difference between 1 million and 300 ?
DUH 1 million is a lot more then 300!!!

 

[skookerasbil]

Whats funny about the pipleline thing is that it is nothing more than Obama throwing the k00k radical environmentalist nutters a bone for November. They are all giddy about this........now Obama is their hero again and they'll blindly walk into the voting booth in November and proudly pull the lever for this fraud.

Meanwhile.............Obama kicked them in the balls with Cap and Trade............which is now DEAD. and nobody gives a rats ass about global warming anymore.

On balance.........big win for conservatives s0ns!!!

 

[G.T.]

So you tell me you would prefer having 1 million barrels destroying 1,000s of miles of coast land

VERSUS the most 300 barrels in one mile of pipeline spilling???

DUH!!! WHERE WOULD THE MOST DAMAGE BE DONE???

WHICH HAS THE GREATER CHANCE of Occurring???

Does the recent cruise shipwreck give you a clue???

OH and this latest shipwreck has just 500,000 gallons of fuel they are concerned about!
Think about 42 million gallons off the coast of Alaska/Oregon/Washington!!!
All that white arctic ????

Neither, ya dumb shit, which is why the question is STOO000OPIT

HEY... definition of STUPID is ignoring the reality that
1) either 1 million barrels a DAY shipped by a tanker
2) or 700,000 barrels by a pipeline that in any one mile less then 300 barrels!

THAT is reality!
And right now all you so-called environmentalists are full of shit because if you
don't recognize there is a greater RISK and GREATER area damaged by 1 million barrels in a bouncing ship running on to a coast i.e. latest cruise ship ?? with a drunk captain..

AND YOU Call me a dumb shit???

WHAT part of the REAL world do you live in because no sticking your head in the sand will alter REALITY the OIL will be shipped!

YOU are so stupid you can't tell the difference between 1 million and 300 ?
DUH 1 million is a lot more then 300!!!

ok you're not just stupid, you're radically fucking stupid.

 

[healthmyths]

Neither, ya dumb shit, which is why the question is STOO000OPIT

HEY... definition of STUPID is ignoring the reality that
1) either 1 million barrels a DAY shipped by a tanker
2) or 700,000 barrels by a pipeline that in any one mile less then 300 barrels!

THAT is reality!
And right now all you so-called environmentalists are full of shit because if you
don't recognize there is a greater RISK and GREATER area damaged by 1 million barrels in a bouncing ship running on to a coast i.e. latest cruise ship ?? with a drunk captain..

AND YOU Call me a dumb shit???

WHAT part of the REAL world do you live in because no sticking your head in the sand will alter REALITY the OIL will be shipped!

YOU are so stupid you can't tell the difference between 1 million and 300 ?
DUH 1 million is a lot more then 300!!!

ok you're not just stupid, you're radically fucking stupid.

Coming from someone who CAN'T evidently tell the difference between damage done by 1 million barrels and damages done by 300 barrels..
YOU ARE F...ing CRAZY!!!

That is the reality that WILL BE HAPPENING no matter what altered state YOUR fried brain is in!

IDIOT ! Admit it!
1 million barrels will do MORE damage then 300 barrels!

 

[G.T.]

HEY... definition of STUPID is ignoring the reality that
1) either 1 million barrels a DAY shipped by a tanker
2) or 700,000 barrels by a pipeline that in any one mile less then 300 barrels!

THAT is reality!
And right now all you so-called environmentalists are full of shit because if you
don't recognize there is a greater RISK and GREATER area damaged by 1 million barrels in a bouncing ship running on to a coast i.e. latest cruise ship ?? with a drunk captain..

AND YOU Call me a dumb shit???

WHAT part of the REAL world do you live in because no sticking your head in the sand will alter REALITY the OIL will be shipped!

YOU are so stupid you can't tell the difference between 1 million and 300 ?
DUH 1 million is a lot more then 300!!!

ok you're not just stupid, you're radically fucking stupid.

Coming from someone who CAN'T evidently tell the difference between damage done by 1 million barrels and damages done by 300 barrels..
YOU ARE F...ing CRAZY!!!

That is the reality that WILL BE HAPPENING no matter what altered state YOUR fried brain is in!

IDIOT ! Admit it!
1 million barrels will do MORE damage then 300 barrels!

^ Still can't see the stupid in your question? Sad.

 

[healthmyths]

ok you're not just stupid, you're radically fucking stupid.

Coming from someone who CAN'T evidently tell the difference between damage done by 1 million barrels and damages done by 300 barrels..
YOU ARE F...ing CRAZY!!!

That is the reality that WILL BE HAPPENING no matter what altered state YOUR fried brain is in!

IDIOT ! Admit it!
1 million barrels will do MORE damage then 300 barrels!

^ Still can't see the stupid in your question? Sad.

AND YOU evidently Don't KNOW the difference between 1 million barrels of leaking oil and 300 barrels!
YOU don't understand the greater risk of shipping in ONE container - 1 million barrels versus 300 barrels in one mile of pipeline!
Because at anyone time ONE mile of pipe holds 300 barrels!
1/2 mile holds 150 barrels, 1/4 mile holds 75 barrels...

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

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???

I'm fairly certain the pipeline was going to be longer than one mile.

Also, why would Canadian oil be shipped through Alaska before it gets to the continental U,S,?

 

[westwall]

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???

I'm fairly certain the pipeline was going to be longer than one mile.

Also, why would Canadian oil be shipped through Alaska before it gets to the continental U,S,?

I believe he is refering to the fact that the most that can leak out of a pipeline break is 300 barrels, which is not correct, if the break goes unfound for a lengthy period of time (unlikely but people do screw up from time to time) there would be much more then 300 barrels lost.

However, pipelines are far safer then any other means of transport. And, if there is a break on land, it is far easier to clean up then a tanker breaking up on the rocks of some coastline.

 

[emilynghiem]

HEY... definition of STUPID is ignoring the reality that
1) either 1 million barrels a DAY shipped by a tanker
2) or 700,000 barrels by a pipeline that in any one mile less then 300 barrels!

THAT is reality!
And right now all you so-called environmentalists are full of shit because if you
don't recognize there is a greater RISK and GREATER area damaged by 1 million barrels in a bouncing ship running on to a coast i.e. latest cruise ship ?? with a drunk captain..

AND YOU Call me a dumb shit???

WHAT part of the REAL world do you live in because no sticking your head in the sand will alter REALITY the OIL will be shipped!

YOU are so stupid you can't tell the difference between 1 million and 300 ?
DUH 1 million is a lot more then 300!!!

ok you're not just stupid, you're radically fucking stupid.

Coming from someone who CAN'T evidently tell the difference between damage done by 1 million barrels and damages done by 300 barrels..
YOU ARE F...ing CRAZY!!!

That is the reality that WILL BE HAPPENING no matter what altered state YOUR fried brain is in!

IDIOT ! Admit it!
1 million barrels will do MORE damage then 300 barrels!

Hey Healthmyths, let's cut it with the ALL CAPS okay.
Will this help any:

If you asked someone if they'd rather be
* beaten by a mob of 1,000,000
* or beaten up by a mob of 300

I'd say NO THANKS
I'd rather not be beaten up at all!

Is that more clear?

P.S. Go check out the stories of Nigeria/Ogoniland/Biafra
and the damage done by pipelines going through their villages.
I wouldn't wish that destruction on ANYONE, not my worst enemy.

I prefer we learn from the past, and do better than either of these alternatives.
In the meantime, YES, we should pick the least risky and damaging route.

But never lose sight of the fact that all these are
unnatural threats to the environment, risky and unsustainable,
and we need to keep developing better ways PERIOD!