(Closed) I am absolutely sick over Standing Rock anyone else?

posted 4 years ago in The Lounge
Post # 46
Member
1156 posts
Bumble bee
  • Wedding: May 2017

View original reply
MrsMellyBean :  they don’t report all leaks, it happens more often than you think. Even transporting by truck is safer because when a pipeline leaks the amount of gallons absorbed by the earth destroys everything around it. It’s more devastating and causes more long term issues than trucks transporting it. When you say they’re cleaned up the same day, that is also a lie they use because their regulations are so lax. It’s been proven that the areas remain contaminated afterwards. This pipeline isn’t even going to be used by American consumers, they’re selling it overseas, it’s about profit over human lives, nothing more. Poison Americans for money. And we’re not even making an effort to move towards renewable energy. Too many people are ignorant with this issue, including you, doesn’t mean you’re a bad person, you just need to read more on this issue, because it affects you and your descendants too.

 

please watch these, as I mentioned before, Jordan Chariton has amazing coverage and investigated this issue better than most/all journalists out there.

 https://youtu.be/TThkWlQsbcM

 

Post # 47
Member
1749 posts
Bumble bee

View original reply
mcmeow :  I’m telling you, I work as an environmental consultant. I deal with pipelines every single day. I understand how it works. You’re right, not every single pipeline leak is reported, it has to be over a certain volume. Do you know why? It’s because the smaller volumes can literally be cleaned up with a vacuum truck that literally sucks all free product up. The ground is then sampled and anything that doesn’t meet guidelines is removed and treated. It’s not like if a pipeline leak is considered unreportable that it’s not cleaned up- trust me! Truck (or train) is not safer. They are transporting dangerous goods that are highly combustible and pressurized. Trucks are way more likely to get into an accident than a pipeline is to leak which not only presents a higher environmental risk plus they are burning way more fossil fuels to transport their product, but now you are risking human lives due to explosion. Not to mention, trucks and trains tend to travel through more densely populated areas putting more people at risk, 

Post # 48
Member
1156 posts
Bumble bee
  • Wedding: May 2017

View original reply
MrsMellyBean :  The first video talks about the EPA and their negligence. Please take a look. The soil sample test is not adequate and they’ve covered up issues in the past, remember the Bridal Party spill? There’s no reason to trust the system they have in place. 

Post # 49
Member
1749 posts
Bumble bee

View original reply
mcmeow :  First of all, the Bridal Party spill was an offshore well, not a pipeline… Second of all, soil samples and water sampling are absolutely adequate tests, they compare toxicity levels with potential receptors and values are also compared to nearby, natural levels. Also, samples follow a legal chain of custody command, and laboratory reports cannot be altered so I’m not sure how there was anty sort of cover up. What else do you propose they do? Haha… Also, air quality is monitored as well.

 

Post # 50
Member
1156 posts
Bumble bee
  • Wedding: May 2017

View original reply
MrsMellyBean :  so I’m guessing you’re not going to take a look at that video? 

Post # 51
Member
1749 posts
Bumble bee

View original reply
mcmeow :  I’ll definitely take a look. I’m guessing you’re not going to take into account absolutely anything I say though, even though I personally deal with this stuff on a day to day basis. Listen, I have nothing to gain from this pipeline going through so please keep that in mind. I don’t even live in the same country as you, but I am familiar with the regulations. I have absolutely zero reason to lie to you or make things up. I went to university and opted to work in this industry because I want oil and gas companies to be held accountable and because I want to ensure that contamination is cleaned up and the land reclaimed to what it was like before a well was drilled. It just bothers me that people discount scientific facts based on emotion.  

Post # 52
Member
1156 posts
Bumble bee
  • Wedding: May 2017

View original reply
MrsMellyBean :  lol I’m not a trump supporter, so I adjust my views based on information I learn. Of course I’m going to take what you said into account in my opinion. In the end I trust whistleblowers more, but will continue researching this.

Post # 53
Member
210 posts
Helper bee

View original reply
mcmeow :  It baffles me that you are arguing with someone who has first hand experience working with pipelines and is politely trying to explain to you why your concerns are little more than fear mongered conspiracy theories. Yet you still want to argue and refuse to open your mind to the possibility that maybe your beliefs about this subject are not based on facts.

Post # 54
Member
1749 posts
Bumble bee

I’m not a trump supporter either. I’m Canadian and am absolutely appalled at what he’s doing (just look at the trump’s first month in office thread).  I hope I’ve provided you with some useful information, and like I said, whether this pipeline goes through has zero impact on my life. Why would I lie?

Post # 55
Member
816 posts
Busy bee
  • Wedding: September 2013

View original reply
mcmeow :  Actually studies show pipelines are indeed safer than trucks and trains.  Look at Lac Megantic and recently there was a tanker fire on a bridge near Montreal.  In fact most spills by trains and trucks are less reported than oil spills in part because people are more obsessed with pipeline leaks so they don’t make the news.  Additionally, at least in Canada pipeline leaks are a federal issue so they get immediate attention.

Im in risk engineering and the basic premise is that all forms of transports have risks associated to it and different levels of consequences.  Environmentally pipelines may carry more potential consequences than a truck leak in a city for example but you are looking at only one facet of that risk: environment.  If you look at another important parameter which people conveniently forget is human impact and here we have a very different story.  Pipeline leaks pose less hazards to human safety due to the potential occupancy,however, trucks and trains (as demonstrated in the past) pose serious credible and higher probability risks.  This is why some cities tried to ban truck and train access of flammable compounds but they realize they have no choice because otherwise they are left without fuel.

Personally I’m ok with this pipeline and I think people have an over exaggerated risk aversion towards pipeline without comprehending it’s real risks and consequences.  That being said this is also a direct result of governments and businesses who believe that acting without informing will be easier than involving the people being affected and educating them as well as *gasp* proper regulations and enforcement of those regulations! (Because you know regulations are bad for business…). A properly designed and maintained pipeline is very low risk and positive for all stakeholders BUT the key is businesses meeting. And exceeding regulations to ensure minimal risk to the shareholders and shareholders being informed and engaged with the process.

Post # 56
Member
1749 posts
Bumble bee

View original reply
Ettalie : Lac Megantic was awful… 🙁 . We’ve had a couple derailments in the mountains here in the past few years as well, luckily no one was hurt.

For those of you not familiar, 47 people died, lots of buildings destroyed, and the contamination cleanup is expected to take 5 years!

Post # 57
Member
378 posts
Helper bee
  • Wedding: June 2017

View original reply
Ukulele4You :  So you’re saying that they purposefully chose to put the pipeline there BECAUSE native land is nearby? That’s the dumbest thing I’ve ever heard… You seem to be making this entire thing about how shitty white people are, and you sound ridiculous 😉

Post # 58
Member
1156 posts
Bumble bee
  • Wedding: May 2017

View original reply
prism :  not sure how it seemed that way, I was giving her information that I have researched based on how it impacts people on the ground and even said I would take what she said into account and continue to research. That’s how debates go, you go back and forth explaining your views. You shouldn’t trust everyone you come across, question everything.

View original reply
MrsMellyBean :  it’s not about lying, it’s about the regulations in place. And I’m sure you do your job well. Maybe it’s better in Canada but there’s a reason people don’t trust these tests here. People get sick, animals die, and we’re wondering why, then protesters get met with violence. So there is reason for questioning their practices. This isn’t an attack on you, it’s simply an exchange on opinions and perspectives. 

Post # 59
Member
1749 posts
Bumble bee

View original reply
mcmeow :  Right…. but like I said, regulations & values are based on scientific research. It’s not like the EPA goes and says, hey lets say X amount of this contaminant is okay because we like the number X. The values are based on the land type (what’s going on there, is this farm land, forested land, commercial land, residential, etc.), what kind of receptors are nearby (water ways, livestock/wildlife, humans, plants, etc.) and toxicity levels for each contaminant of concern. Then based on all that criteria, they implement  the guidelines that will protect the most succeptible receptor (which will be the most stringent criteria). The reason why some animals may die is because some are more succeptible or weaker due to genetics or other environmental factors unfortunately. Toxicity is based on calculations according to LD50 (median lethal dose) or LC50 (median lethal concentration), which is the same way we calculate safe dosages for drugs, worker exposure limits, even safe amounts of nutrients. 

Post # 60
Member
1156 posts
Bumble bee
  • Wedding: May 2017

View original reply
MrsMellyBean :  I understand that you guys check to make sure it’s no longer toxic based on the information you acquire, but you will be met with people who say these samples taken are not enough and that it’s done in a way so that they follow the law but still ignore important samples. Maybe it really is better in Canada which is awesome, but the US is slimey as hell but I hope they do the same thing. People just want spills investigated more thoroughly. Just like when lead tests are done, many times they’re signed off as being safe but they aren’t, because they ignored significant locations that they should have tested, like the water heater for example when the law says to test the tap water only. If oil corporations were more transparent or were less secretive about these things and actually listened/responded to concerns they wouldn’t be met with as much resistance and instead the protests will be about switching to renewable energy completely. Oil is just bad, whether you test it, whether it spills, whether it doesn’t, bottom line is we need to let go of it. Won’t happen during this presidency though.

 

Thanks for explaining what you do specifically though.

edit: added more info

The topic ‘I am absolutely sick over Standing Rock anyone else?’ is closed to new replies.

Find Amazing Vendors