Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Relapse wrote:

To start with, I will agree with your point about some conservatives, just as this is my point about some of the enviornmentalists.

You've changed your argument. Originally you claimed that the protesters were "...the same type of people..." that are protesting the Keystone pipeline, now your argument is that only "...some of the environmentalists" are like that.

Which is it?

 dogma wrote:

 focusedfire wrote:

The problem is people. Now, I'm not talking about trained professionals. I'm talking about the ignorant donkey-caves that manage to get themselves into a position to affect the transportation of hazardous materials.

The woman who was arrested got herself into a position to affect the transportation of a hazardous material by standing (and potentially sitting) on the tracks. Not a lot of managing going on there.

 focusedfire wrote:

I don't think that anyone with a lick of common sense will argue against having better than adequate staffing of well trained and paid work crews to insure safe transportation.

Yet one rail company is doing precisely that, because "better" often means "more cost effective".

Exactly as the rest of my post you quoted points out.

No matter how good the automated systems, one man train crews are a horrible idea. When I first heard about ghis I wondered id Tom Kirby had somehow bought BNSF.

You need trained crew aboard not only for mechanical issues but also safety and security issues.

Seriously, one man train crews are a recipe for disaster. It makes the lone suicidal nut-case scenario much more a probability.

Whack job taking out 3-man crew without an alert to the central communications, while still possible is nowhere as
likely as whack job taking out a lone crewman.


Off topic:
What's sadly ironic is that most moderates and conservatives (who are not 2%'ers) are very much against things as stupid as one man train crews.

Most have problems with how the current corporate system is corporatism(corporate socialism) and is used to shield board members.

Conservatives believe in accountability and modern corporate regulatory laws create a system that allows many who should be held accountable to side step their responsibility.

If the liberals were not so adversarial and let the moderates lead on such things as transportation safety and punishing the decision makers rather than the company as a whole.
You would see many republicans who would join in such a bi-partisan movement.

That is why we need a moderate party. So that the extreme left and right can work together without being called sell-outs or accused of "losing".


Later,
ff

 dogma wrote:

Relapse wrote:

To start with, I will agree with your point about some conservatives, just as this is my point about some of the enviornmentalists.

You've changed your argument. Originally you claimed that the protesters were "...the same type of people..." that are protesting the Keystone pipeline, now your argument is that only "...some of the environmentalists" are like that.

Which is it?

To repeat myself in answer to the question you asked me on the first page I said,

"The same kind of people that don't give a thought to how they are able to stay warm in the winter, drive their car, etc."

That does not encompass the whole group, as I suggest you are trying to claim I said.


The links I posted illustrate the type of people I speak of.

Relapse wrote:
That does not encompass the whole group, as I suggest you are trying to claim I said.


The links I posted illustrate the type of people I speak of.

Fair enough, it seemed as though you were attempting to paint all the people protesting oil trains and Keystone with that brush.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 focusedfire wrote:

If the liberals were not so adversarial and let the moderates lead on such things as transportation safety and punishing the decision makers rather than the company as a whole.

How would you go about doing such a thing in a cost effective, and legal, manner?

 dogma wrote:

Relapse wrote:
That does not encompass the whole group, as I suggest you are trying to claim I said.


The links I posted illustrate the type of people I speak of.

Fair enough, it seemed as though you were attempting to paint all the people protesting oil trains and Keystone with that brush.

I can understand your point, though, as I look back at my comments and see where it seemed I was.

dogma wrote:

focusedfire wrote:
If the liberals were not so adversarial and let the moderates lead on such things as transportation safety and punishing the decision makers rather than the company as a whole.

How would you go about doing such a thing in a cost effective, and legal, manner?

The moderate in me says that I should ask you and Whembly how we should go about doing such legally?

What regulatory safety laws could be put forward in a bi-partisan manner?

What laws could we agree on as suitable punishments for the individual board members who decide to endanger the public in the name of profit?


*Bi-partisan in this case is where neither the extreme left or right can claim a victory, but is a win for the people of the US.

Later,
ff

Such politics! Much money talk! Wow!

That's all it is. We should be working on other options and/or creating other energy options.

But you see all those dollar bills behind the politicians? Yea.

Why do you assume there are other energy options?

 Frazzled wrote:
Why do you assume there are other energy options?

We need nukes. Lotsa nukes...

Oil companies have been known to fund candidate who opposes Nukes in the name of mother Gaia.

 focusedfire wrote:

The moderate in me says that I should ask you and Whembly how we should go about doing such legally?

You seem to be under the mistaken impression that I'm liberal. On social issues, yes, but on everything else I'm fairly moderate. I merely play devil's advocate a lot.

 focusedfire wrote:

What regulatory safety laws could be put forward in a bi-partisan manner?

I think a big one could be limiting the length and speed of trains carrying petroleum or natural gas. I don't think there's much to be done to improve pipeline safety aside from ensuring it is properly monitored, though I understand why people wouldn't necessarily want it near the place they live.

 focusedfire wrote:

What laws could we agree on as suitable punishments for the individual board members who decide to endanger the public in the name of profit?

If he were acting under the auspices of the relevant corporation, at least in this case, there is essentially nothing that can be done. Because, generally speaking, the only way to go after someone in such a situation is to file suit against the corporation and let them mete out discipline, meaning there is no way around punishing the corporation; even if by negative publicity alone. Doing otherwise basically defeats the purpose of corporations altogether.

I guess you could try regulating executive pay, but that's never going to happen, and I would guess 50% or more the country wouldn't go for it. Also, it would be nearly unenforceable.

 d-usa wrote:
Are we doing the other thread again and pretend that the pipelines don't explode or leak all over the place?

The leaky and pipelines mostly happen AFAIK a) in countries where the acceptance criteria for the welds are ridiculously lenient and nobody cares about the environment (ie, Russia, Africa, et al), or b) in pipelines that are being used for far longer than their intended life expentancy without proper in-service inspection which I suppose can happen anywhere, although some countries do have regulations governing when a pipeline needs to be inspected to ensure its continued structural integrity.

Exploding pipelines usually occur along a pipe's longseam (ie, factory defect in the pipe, nothing to do with my field of expertise) when it is first put into service or when something goes wrong in a pumping station during service where the increased pressure causes a pre-existing defect along said longseam to become the weakest point of the pressure vessel. But those situations are exceedingly rare.
Or, as happened to one guy at a pipeline in Africa, when you try to use an electric drill to drill a hole in an in-service gas-pipeline to steal some of it for his own use. Electricity + high pressure + explosive gas mixture is apparently a dangerous combination...

I can also tell you that in recent years (accelerated following BP's f*ckup in the Gulf, but the trend was already underway), the acceptance criteria for pipeline welds in the Western world have become increasingly strict, to the point where occasionally perfectly fine welds are rejected because the criteria (and sometimes a client who doesn't understand the inspection technique) force you to make calls on signals originating from the material's grain structure or weld/parent material interface.

Bran Dawri wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
Are we doing the other thread again and pretend that the pipelines don't explode or leak all over the place?

The leaky and pipelines mostly happen AFAIK a) in countries where the acceptance criteria for the welds are ridiculously lenient and nobody cares about the environment (ie, Russia, Africa, et al), or b) in pipelines that are being used for far longer than their intended life expentancy without proper in-service inspection which I suppose can happen anywhere, although some countries do have regulations governing when a pipeline needs to be inspected to ensure its continued structural integrity.

Exploding pipelines usually occur along a pipe's longseam (ie, factory defect in the pipe, nothing to do with my field of expertise) when it is first put into service or when something goes wrong in a pumping station during service where the increased pressure causes a pre-existing defect along said longseam to become the weakest point of the pressure vessel. But those situations are exceedingly rare.
Or, as happened to one guy at a pipeline in Africa, when you try to use an electric drill to drill a hole in an in-service gas-pipeline to steal some of it for his own use. Electricity + high pressure + explosive gas mixture is apparently a dangerous combination...

I can also tell you that in recent years (accelerated following BP's f*ckup in the Gulf, but the trend was already underway), the acceptance criteria for pipeline welds in the Western world have become increasingly strict, to the point where occasionally perfectly fine welds are rejected because the criteria (and sometimes a client who doesn't understand the inspection technique) force you to make calls on signals originating from the material's grain structure or weld/parent material interface.

Agreement here on the tightening of standards in the oil industry. By way of example, I have worked with people that tell me it's not uncommon for drill bits brought to the field to be rejected because the paint job on them is a little off. The reasoning is that if the QC on the painting of the bit wasn't up to snuff, what else was skimped on with it? The last thing you want to do is throw that down a hole and have it fail.

This whole thread is an argument for LFTR Nuclear Reactors.

Panels on every roof.
Charge your car at every stop.
How likely is that going to happen?

Relapse wrote:


Agreement here on the tightening of standards in the oil industry. By way of example, I have worked with people that tell me it's not uncommon for drill bits brought to the field to be rejected because the paint job on them is a little off. The reasoning is that if the QC on the painting of the bit wasn't up to snuff, what else was skimped on with it? The last thing you want to do is throw that down a hole and have it fail.

I don't really have much to do with drill bits, my job is the inspection of pipeline girth welds with ultrasound, but scratches on paint don't usually concern people very much. It's different with gouges on coating, those have to be repaired.
Another little-known fact is that it isn't usually the CEO or someone high-up in the oil company (the eventual owner of the pipe) who push for more lenient standards or try to push or otherwise influence the NDT operator to accept dodgy welds/indications, it's the contractor hired by the oil company to construct the pipeline who does that. The oil company obviously wants their pipeline to be as sturdy and well-constructed as possible, and so push for stricter standards whereas it's in the contractor's best interests to keep standards as low as possible so it's easier for them to weld. Easier welding criteria means faster welding, less repairs and cutouts and leads to a finished pipeline ahead of or on schedule, which usually gets them a bonus.

Although ultimately it's the oil company's responsibility, I'm not sure it's always fair to blame them for something that went wrong. Not given what I've seen and heard of (some) contractors doing behind their backs. To be fair, some contractors are more honest than others, and some clients are notorious for working at cross purposes without any real insight into or knowledge of the techniques involved. Petrobras, for instance, is notorious for trying to slow down contractors as much as possible however they can to avoid having to pay out the bonus or even receive the fine for late delivery. And even so, it very much depends on the person you're dealing with at the time.

Edit: @ Skinnereal: I'm having solarpanels put on my roofs right now. It's prohibitively expensive here in the Netherlands, unless you make a lot of money by, for instance, working in the oil industry...

If the paint on a bit is a couple shades lighter or darker, or in any way outside of standard, it can be rejected depending on who it is recieving it.
Rig operators can be really picky when it comes to the possibility of having to pull a mile of pipe to replace a bad bit.

When in doubt take it out

Fair enough on that then. Like I said, not my area of expertise.

 Jihadin wrote:
When in doubt take it out

Spoken like a true whoremaster!

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:

 easysauce wrote:

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:

Considering that the people who has the keystone pipe in their backyard in Canada were complaining about the fact that the soil and water sources was becoming flammable, not to mention the effects of the drilling in the oil sands, I'm pretty sure when your Tap Water is able to be set fires you start growing a bit concerned.

that sounds like a lot of made up stuff... do you have some kind of citation for that?

http://globalnews.ca/news/855258/albertan-warns-newfoundland-of-fracking-risk/

http://www.calgaryhealthregion.ca/publichealth/envhealth/program_areas/drinking_water/documents/Methane_gas_in_Domestic_Well_Water_Sept_2006.pdf

Sorry, not drilling "Fracking"

Current lawsuit going on over it.

yes, your post is 100% unrelated to oil pipelines, thanks for owning up to that.


re fracking:
while she may or may not be correct

She has filed a $33-million lawsuit with the Court of Queen’s Bench in Alberta against North American energy producer Encana, the provincial energy regulator and the provincial government. Her unproven statement of claim alleges gas wells fracked around her property between 2001 and 2006 unleashed hazardous amounts of methane and ethane gas and other chemicals into her private water well."


also note, that dissolved gasses in water, are perfectly normal, naturally, occuring things in areas with lots of underground gas... especially for untreated well water.

"Dissolved gases, including methane, in well water are a common occurrence in Alberta. Other
gases that may be found in well water include carbon dioxide, nitrogen and hydrogen sulfide.
The ability of water to hold dissolved gases varies with temperature and pressure (similar to
carbonated beverages – opening the container decreases pressure and gas escapes as fizz). "

several of the people claiming that fracking caused water to become flammable have been proven to be hoaxes, and documented cases of these areas ALREADY having gas in their water prior to fracking existed prior to their claims.


I also know several other people who have had gas in their well water... they love it... free natural gas, they do the responsible, intelligent thing and just vent it like every other sane person who discovers it in their water. the extra gas can then be used productively.

its not some new thing, nor is it dangerous unless you let the gas escape and accumulate, its a well known phenomenon before fracking (ok maybe not as well known as after all the youtube vids, but it is being undeservedly hyped)


even IF, and its a big IF, the fracking directly pushed more gas into her well water, its a very easily fixed problem, that plenty of people deal with when digging wells in areas rich in natural gas. One persons private well needing some extra equiptment installed on it is worth the huge amounts of gas that is extracted,

IF its encanas fault, they should have to fix up her well of course, and pay some restitution,

but asking for 33 million screams of a cash grab to me for something that takes a few thousand to fix, at MOST, provides you with usable gas, and maybe claim a mill or two in "I was so scared I would blow up".... I cant see how she justifies 33 million.

I have a friend who digs water wells in Texas and he told me that you have to set the pipe at the right depth in the water table or you can get some really nasty water.

 easysauce wrote:

also note, that dissolved gasses in water, are perfectly normal, naturally, occuring things in areas with lots of underground gas... especially for untreated well water.

The issue is the concentration, not the mere presence.

 easysauce wrote:

but asking for 33 million screams of a cash grab to me for something that takes a few thousand to fix, at MOST, provides you with usable gas, and maybe claim a mill or two in "I was so scared I would blow up".... I cant see how she justifies 33 million.

I believe that's called "bargaining".

 dogma wrote:

 easysauce wrote:

also note, that dissolved gasses in water, are perfectly normal, naturally, occuring things in areas with lots of underground gas... especially for untreated well water.

The issue is the concentration, not the mere presence.

and again, the concentration found is not something out of the ordinary, such a concentration can be formed by many natural means, as well as by shifting it via fracking.

If the concentration is the issue, then we are good, because one persons well out of millions of peoples drinking water, isnt a huge concentration, nor are the levels she reports (if confrimed) something that isnt easy to deal with.

 easysauce wrote:

and again, the concentration found is not something out of the ordinary, such a concentration can be formed by many natural means, as well as by shifting it via fracking.

That isn't what you initially claimed. You initially claimed that you had no special knowledge of the case in question and that the woman may be right, but now you are basically claiming that she must be wrong.

 easysauce wrote:

If the concentration is the issue, then we are good, because one persons well out of millions of peoples drinking water, isnt a huge concentration, nor are the levels she reports (if confrimed) something that isnt easy to deal with.

Which still doesn't make the lawsuit, or the amount requested in judgment, unjustified. It is not uncommon for people to request exorbitant sums when filing suit against a corporation, as it makes the corporation more likely to settle; something which natural persons generally need in order to find restitution.

 dogma wrote:

 easysauce wrote:

and again, the concentration found is not something out of the ordinary, such a concentration can be formed by many natural means, as well as by shifting it via fracking.

That isn't what you initially claimed. You initially claimed that you had no special knowledge of the case in question and that the woman may be right, but now you are basically claiming that she must be wrong.
*no, what I initially claimed, was that it was total BUNK to attribute a natural gas phenominon to the crude oil pipelines, and this is a true claim. re read, you are making an incorrect assertion here. Wrong or right, her claims have yet to be proven, and wether she is proven wrong or right, its still a very VERY modest problem with easy solutions.*

 easysauce wrote:

If the concentration is the issue, then we are good, because one persons well out of millions of peoples drinking water, isnt a huge concentration, nor are the levels she reports (if confrimed) something that isnt easy to deal with.

Which still doesn't make the lawsuit, or the amount requested in judgment, unjustified. It is not uncommon for people to request exorbitant sums when filing suit against a corporation, as it makes the corporation more likely to settle; something which natural persons generally need in order to find restitution.

sure it does... 33 million is exorbitant considering her claims are unproven in that her water may not be as bad as she thinks it is, and she has even less proof that it was specifically fracking that caused it instead of natural causes.

 easysauce wrote:

no, what I initially claimed, was that it was total BUNK to attribute a natural gas phenominon to the crude oil pipelines, and this is a true claim.

No, that's wrong.

while she may or may not be correct

She has filed a $33-million lawsuit with the Court of Queen’s Bench in Alberta against North American energy producer Encana, the provincial energy regulator and the provincial government. Her unproven statement of claim alleges gas wells fracked around her property between 2001 and 2006 unleashed hazardous amounts of methane and ethane gas and other chemicals into her private water well."

The first sentence very well illustrates that you don't know whether or not the woman's claims are correct; meaning you did not initially claim them to be "bunk".

 easysauce wrote:

sure it does... 33 million is exorbitant considering her claims are unproven in that her water may not be as bad as she thinks it is, and she has even less proof that it was specifically fracking that caused it instead of natural causes.

Alright, should she ask for less until her claims are proven?

As to whether or not fracking was the cause: that's for the courts to decide.

On gas occurring inwater wells:

http://energyindepth.org/marcellus/study-naturally-occurring-methane-ubiquitous-in-ne-pa-groundwater/


A paper on Methane in Pennsylvania water:

http://www.ngwa.org/Media-Center/press/2013/Pages/2013-05-24-groundwater-.aspx


Popular Mechanics article:

http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/energy/coal-oil-gas/top-10-myths-about-natural-gas-drilling-6386593#slide-1

 Skinnereal wrote:
Panels on every roof.
Charge your car at every stop.
How likely is that going to happen?

Let me know when you find a few trillion sitting around to fund this.

Relapse wrote:
On gas occurring inwater wells:

http://energyindepth.org/marcellus/study-naturally-occurring-methane-ubiquitous-in-ne-pa-groundwater/

That's nice, but it pertains only to one region, and the cited study makes no mention as to whether or not fracking could contribute to an existential issue. A fact the author even notes, then ignores, when reaching his conclusion.

I also like how the author said "...over 1,700 water wells..." when the number surveyed was 1,701.

Relapse wrote:

Popular Mechanics article:

http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/energy/coal-oil-gas/top-10-myths-about-natural-gas-drilling-6386593#slide-1

Interesting.

 Skinnereal wrote:
Panels on every roof.
Charge your car at every stop.
How likely is that going to happen?

Same way we put a computer in every building. Advances in a technology will increase its prominence.