Thank you for being a valued part of the CNET community. As of December 1, 2020, the forums are in read-only format. In early 2021, CNET Forums will no longer be available. We are grateful for the participation and advice you have provided to one another over the years.

Thanks,

CNET Support

General discussion

Pipelines safer than rail?

Feb 7, 2015 4:28AM PST

Discussion is locked

- Collapse -
how many neighborhoods
Feb 8, 2015 12:35PM PST

did it travel through?

- Collapse -
RE: how many neighborhoods did it travel through?
Feb 8, 2015 12:45PM PST

The river that the spill went into?

- Collapse -
(NT) that's probably in a big park
Feb 8, 2015 12:48PM PST
- Collapse -
RE: that's probably in a big park
Feb 8, 2015 12:57PM PST

AND? If it's in a BIG park it doesn't matter?

Out of sight...out of mind?

Can you see your God?

Not concerned about damaging his/her handiwork?


Yellowstone Oil Spills Expose Threat to Pipelines Under Rivers Nationwide

Such misjudgments have potentially troubling implications nationwide, since pipelines carrying crude oil and petroleum products pass beneath rivers and other bodies of water in more than 18,000 places across America. Many of them are buried only a few feet below the water.

"There were a lot of people who wanted to think that the last pipeline spill in the Yellowstone River in 2011 was a freak accident that would never happen again. After this most recent spill, no one believes that anymore," said Scott Bosse, Northern Rockies director for American Rivers. "The truth is, there are probably hundreds of pipelines across the country that are at considerable risk of rupturing under our rivers."

While corrosion is the No. 1 cause of pipeline spills, a sizable number of pipelines at water crossings have ruptured or been endangered by river scour. Among them:

- Collapse -
Isn't that where
Feb 8, 2015 8:34PM PST

blow holes in the earth are sending steam, mud and gases sky high every day? Maybe it was the right place to have a spill.

- Collapse -
From the article....
Feb 8, 2015 10:29PM PST

>>>>Some pipeline problems, including the one behind this month's Montana spill, are at least partly due to aging infrastructure. That pipeline was 55 years old and last inspected in 2012. It was deemed a moderate risk for failure in 2011 by government reports, which cited recent changes in the river's path that could raise the risk of erosion. (The 2011 Yellowstone River spill was caused by debris in the flooded river, another potential pitfall of building pipelines near waterways.)>>>>

And yet we never hear anything from this same government (aka BO) regarding 'shovel ready' infrastructure jobs regarding aging pipelines, do we? Increase the gas tax so we can rebuild/repair bridges and roads, but totally disregard the lines that bring that gas to the consumer in the first place? "Deem them to be a 'moderate risk for failure'"..........so who do you blame when they do actually fail? Failures HELP the green agenda so of course, they aren't going to red-flag them, are they?

- Collapse -
reminds me
Feb 9, 2015 4:21AM PST

of an overpass across I-695 loop around Baltimore, at Glen Burnie exit, right down the road from the Maryland's motor vehicle department. It was so bad it visibly sagged when any large truck came across it. The metal understructure was heavily corroded, some of it had broken. Water didn't drain off the bridge correctly so every freeze it was covered in ice. The guardrail there testified of all the people who going around it's curve, hit the ice and swapped sides and paint along the rail. It was just before total failure, in fact so bad I and my family refused to even use it anymore, when finally they replaced it. I fully expected it to collapse one day under a heavy fuel truck or other type onto the interstate below it. Maybe the feds and the state couldn't make up their mind who was supposed to replace it? Thankfully it was replaced. Now, if it had fallen, would that neglect have meant there shouldn't be any overpass across interstates? That would be sort of difficult to live with wouldn't it?

- Collapse -
(NT) No, it means they need to fix or replace them.
Feb 10, 2015 10:21AM PST
- Collapse -
Heaven forbid that Congress should quit giving
Feb 10, 2015 10:20AM PST

tax breaks to wealthy individuals and corporations and put that money toward fixing the infrastructure and make the oil companies walk their pipelines and fix them before they leak.

- Collapse -
OMG, Diana....AGAIN?
Feb 10, 2015 6:31PM PST

The GOVERNMENT inspected those lines and deemed them to be fine.....so who do you blame now?

Even with the subsidies (which I believe should be done away with for ALL companies and have said so many times here in SE), oil companies are at the top of the list of the highest payers of taxes......how much more do you think they should pay before you are happy?

http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/personalfinance/2013/03/17/companies-paying-highest-income-taxes/1991313/

You might be surprised to see that five out of the top ten payers are oil companies and banks and, heaven forbid, that evil Wal-Mart that pays their workers higher than the minimum wage to employees plus benefits....and Warren Buffet's company that owns the railroad company that hauls oil (while he contends that personally he pays less than his secretary because he takes his salary in stocks rather than cash).

- Collapse -
RE: he takes his salary in stocks rather than cash).
Feb 10, 2015 7:09PM PST

I can see him now...giving the cashier a "stock" for a loaf of bread.

- Collapse -
(NT) Are you being sarcastic or looking for proof?
Feb 10, 2015 7:28PM PST
- Collapse -
He takes his salary in stock?
Feb 10, 2015 7:38PM PST

So What? What's the problem?

Lots of people (small investors) buy stock, and receive their "salary/dividends" in stock and are taxed at a reduced rate than regular earned income.

His secretary probably also receives some "stock" as part of his/her salary. Saving her some "taxes".

I could be worse...he could hide his money offshore. You have no problems with that.

Just wait til the Koch boys get THEIR pipeline.

- Collapse -
RE: Are you being sarcastic or looking for proof?
Feb 10, 2015 7:47PM PST

Neither

Just pointing out that unless you do something to the stock, after you receive the stock, you can't "spend it".

So until then it's just a piece of paper....well, it used to be a piece of paper that you held...now, they just tell you that they'll hold the stock for you.

- Collapse -
"Just a piece of paper"?????
Feb 10, 2015 8:44PM PST

As you pointed out.....'unless you do something to the stock'......like use it as collateral to buy another business (even one overseas or in Canada where taxes are much lower)?

- Collapse -
Not much difference
Feb 10, 2015 9:15PM PST

between a "stock" and a 'Yankee dollar" is there?

You just pay less taxes on the income from a stock than income from a "regular job".

It's too bad there are no Republicans that are intelligent enough to get on that gravy train.

- Collapse -
(NT) As usual...nothing to say so go to smear instead
Feb 10, 2015 11:24PM PST
- Collapse -
RE: got to smear
Feb 10, 2015 11:30PM PST

I've been vaccinated against smearing.

At least I don't call them a pos

POS?...Point Of Sale?

Calling someone a Point Of Sale doesn't make any sense at all.

- Collapse -
I don't have to smear BO
Feb 11, 2015 2:05AM PST

....he does that to himself all by himself....he's gotten to be a very easy and predictable 'target' with that self-placed bullseye.

- Collapse -
RE: self-placed bullseye.
Feb 11, 2015 3:56AM PST

That comes with being pos (POtuS)

You're the smearER...Obama is the smearEE.

I know, you're not smearing him, you're using the short form for POtuS..... POS.

- Collapse -
May as well add another incident
Feb 16, 2015 7:35AM PST
- Collapse -
just saw it on nightly news
Feb 16, 2015 8:00AM PST

This is what Obama wants.