Really? Three spills at the same site!

[FarmerDave]

tomgamber wrote:
DO YOU KNOW WHAT POSSIBLE CONTAMINANTS ARE IN THE CLAY?

No. Do you?

Do you know what contaminants were already in the soil before it was disturbed during drilling? If it was along a road, there is even more potential there, but lets talk about the drilling fluid some more.

MORE IMPORTANTLY, WHAT COMES OUT OF THE CLAY WHEN ITS AGITATED AND THEN GETS DISTRIBUTED INTO THE WATER AND DOWNSTREAM?

Lets see. Agitate silt and water what comes out of it? I'm thinking it just dilutes or spreads out the silt. What do I win?

Was the single event a big issue? IMO, no, but still should be reported and put on record, which it was. These add up, but as far as single events? I probably caused more damage to Penns when I swam in it years ago. But I swear I didn't leave a slick.

Does manufacturing a single and somewhat minor event into a crisis help? IMO, no.

Manufacturing a crisis where there isn't one only hurts ones cause in the big picture. It's scare tactics. And the truth of the matter is that these companies probably love discussions where people manufacture a crisis where there isn't one. As a minimum, it is a potential distraction from other possibly more serious things. And then there is the boy who cried wolf, or Chicken Little and the sky is falling. Do this enough, and then when something more serious occurs, what are the odds it is taken serious?

For the record, my curse on the Flyers is back on. Here come the Panthers. ;-)

 

[tomgamber]

FarmerDave wrote:

tomgamber wrote:
DO YOU KNOW WHAT POSSIBLE CONTAMINANTS ARE IN THE CLAY?

No. Do you?

Do you know what contaminants were already in the soil before it was disturbed during drilling? If it was along a road, there is even more potential there, but lets talk about the drilling fluid some more.

MORE IMPORTANTLY, WHAT COMES OUT OF THE CLAY WHEN ITS AGITATED AND THEN GETS DISTRIBUTED INTO THE WATER AND DOWNSTREAM?

Lets see. Agitate silt and water what comes out of it? I'm thinking it just dilutes or spreads out the silt. What do I win?

WIN? IF YOU HAVEN'T HAD THAT TESTED THERE COULD BE A LOT OF HEAVY METALS IN THAT DEPOSIT. ARSENIC, MERCURY... I'M NOT SAYING ITS CONTAMINATED BUT UNLESS YOU'RE JUST LOOKING TO CREATE ANOTHER CATCH AND RELEASE FISHERY LIKE SPRING OR VALLEY CREEKS, IT MIGHT BE A GOOD IDEA TO FIND OUT.

 

[FarmerDave]

I suppose, but I'm thinking it would have been way better to find out before the spill. ;-)

Seriously though, it's a good point in general, but for the spill, the volume isn't there.

I suspect, or at least I hope drilling fluid is regulated and sources of the clay are tested. But I am not in that industry.

These "inadvertent" discharges are a drop in the bucket to how much ends up in the soil through it's normal use. Pun not intended.

I've diluted the curse to Flyers falling only to 8th seed. ;-)

 

[tomgamber]

FarmerDave wrote:
I suppose, but I'm thinking it would have been way better to find out before the spill. ;-)

Completely agree. What they are required to do and what they should do aren't always the same thing. I wonder though if they are required to sample soil and sediment the entire length of the dig before they begin. My point is that you have to treat any spill as if it's bad. If you prove it wasn't you used due caution. Our fire department responds to a lot of false alarms.
????

 

[troutbert]

I'm interested in the topic, but I'm seeing all caps, so I'm out.

 

[tomgamber]

troutbert wrote:
I'm interested in the topic, but I'm seeing all caps, so I'm out.

When you have nothing to offer, worry about what font someone uses. Better?

 

[FarmerDave]

tomgamber wrote:

FarmerDave wrote:
I suppose, but I'm thinking it would have been way better to find out before the spill. ;-)

Completely agree. What they are required to do and what they should do aren't always the same thing. I wonder though if they are required to sample soil and sediment the entire length of the dig before they begin. My point is that you have to treat any spill as if it's bad. If you prove it wasn't you used due caution. Our fire department responds to a lot of false alarms.
????

I agree as well.

All spills should be treated as bad until they are determined otherwise. Guilty until proven innocent (not sarcastic).

 

[FarmerDave]

troutbert wrote:
I'm interested in the topic, but I'm seeing all caps, so I'm out.

[color=990000]THANKS FOR SHARING THAT.[/color]

 

[tomgamber]

YES, LIKE THAT.

 

[gulfgreyhound]

Dont MUDDY THE WATERS bert. GG

 

[salmonoid]

tomitrout wrote:

So are we better off transporting oil via tanker truck? Or should we not drill at all and import it from the middle east then transport via tanker.

I live about a mile from the largest hydroelectric plant in the east and the power from my house comes from coal and I pay about 3 times what someone from NYC who uses the power generated in my backyard does. I can appreciate the frustration of a pipeline running through someones backyard when they have no access to the oil.

This particular pipeline is going be used to export the product, it's taking it to port in Philly. Has really no effect on our dependence on oil from the middle east, apples and oranges in that regard. There is very little benefit to the local communities from the construction of this pipeline and they've been making a mess of the installation. As evidenced by yet another round of spills, er, I mean 'inadvertent returns'.

There is a benefit to local communities, namely to local service providers. The same holds true for pretty much any boom. Those cashing in on the boom can make money if they have the resources to go big. But the real money is being made by local business owners who rent the motel rooms to the out of state workers and serve the meals to them. And sell them their cigs and gas and overpriced sodas at Sheetz or whatever the local convenience store is.

Even though the original post was about the Mariner East 2, to pivot a bit, I have a front row seat to the construction of the ASR and my ears have had an almost 24x7 exposure to the drilling noise for a 48" 2/3 mile bore hole under a local stream, for the past six months. I've not benefited a dime from the construction of the ASR and arguably have been inconvenienced by it; a home that at time shakes as if a helicopter was constantly hovering, or a tractor trailer was constantly driving past, lights from five onsite big stadium-bright lights shining in my bedroom, noise up to 65 db, and passing 50-100 construction vehicles a day, one way, on my commute. But at the same time, let he (or she) who doesn't use any energy be the first to throw stones at the pipes. We may not realize any direct benefits from the export of this gas, but we're all complicit in the overall energy extraction culture. We can only hope to reduce our consumption of energy and be less complicit, but we're all guilty of using energy resources. Or we may very well be using cheap goods that are produced overseas from the energy we export. American consumerism and materialism helps fuel the global economy. That fly rod, reel or line you are using? Maybe made with American energy..

Those that cry foul of a few inadvertent exposures or de minimus releases are not being realistic. Accidents happen, so a call for no accidents is not realistic. Minimizing the amount of and the damage from accidents is realistic, and that is what companies should be held accountable for. For Sunoco, it is easier and cheaper for them to just pay the fines and slog along than it is to minimize spills. Anyone can make a lot of noise about being anti-drilling or this or that or the other thing, but a lot of those positions end up being pretty hypocritical, if we properly recognize the role we play as energy consumers, both directly and indirectly, via the goods and services we consume. I don't really know how to hold a big multi-national corporation accountable for their actions. I admit to feeling a bit defeated overall; I didn't want a pipeline going through all but my front yard, but now that it is, I want it built safely and properly, with as minimal impact to the environment as possible.

 

[tomitrout]

Those that cry foul of a few inadvertent exposures or de minimus releases are not being realistic. Accidents happen, so a call for no accidents is not realistic. Minimizing the amount of and the damage from accidents is realistic, and that is what companies should be held accountable for. For Sunoco, it is easier and cheaper for them to just pay the fines and slog along than it is to minimize spills. Anyone can make a lot of noise about being anti-drilling or this or that or the other thing, but a lot of those positions end up being pretty hypocritical, if we properly recognize the role we play as energy consumers, both directly and indirectly, via the goods and services we consume. I don't really know how to hold a big multi-national corporation accountable for their actions. I admit to feeling a bit defeated overall; I didn't want a pipeline going through all but my front yard, but now that it is, I want it built safely and properly, with as minimal impact to the environment as possible.

So, when one of these 'de minimus releases' happens in your front yard, you're just gonna shrug your shoulders about it? When that inadvertant exposure occurs in your favorite stream and you voice your concern and disgust about it, will it bother you at all if I chime in to remind you that you're just being a hypocrite about it all and you should really just shut your trap about the whole thing since you're not living an off the grid, Amish like lifestyle?

 

[salmonoid]

tomitrout wrote:

Those that cry foul of a few inadvertent exposures or de minimus releases are not being realistic. Accidents happen, so a call for no accidents is not realistic. Minimizing the amount of and the damage from accidents is realistic, and that is what companies should be held accountable for. For Sunoco, it is easier and cheaper for them to just pay the fines and slog along than it is to minimize spills. Anyone can make a lot of noise about being anti-drilling or this or that or the other thing, but a lot of those positions end up being pretty hypocritical, if we properly recognize the role we play as energy consumers, both directly and indirectly, via the goods and services we consume. I don't really know how to hold a big multi-national corporation accountable for their actions. I admit to feeling a bit defeated overall; I didn't want a pipeline going through all but my front yard, but now that it is, I want it built safely and properly, with as minimal impact to the environment as possible.

So, when one of these 'de minimus releases' happens in your front yard, you're just gonna shrug your shoulders about it? When that inadvertant exposure occurs in your favorite stream and you voice your concern and disgust about it, will it bother you at all if I chime in to remind you that you're just being a hypocrite about it all and you should really just shut your trap about the whole thing since you're not living an off the grid, Amish like lifestyle?

If that happened, I would voice my concern about the localized impact, but I would include the caveat that I am an energy consumer, and indirectly responsible. That's what I see few anti-whatever folks acknowledging. Most positions on issues in this world probably have a degree of hypocrisy to them, if we examine all the sides to the issues.

The pipeline is downhill from me, anyway ;-)

I support accountability of our corporate overlords. But I don't think those that claim to be anti-whatever-energy-related are on as moral of a high ground as they sometimes portray. It's not a black and white situation - there is a good bit of gray.

 

[tomitrout]

there is a good bit of gray.

Yep, there sure is.

The pipeline is downhill from me, anyway

And so is a lot of good fishin' and other folks...