Just spotted this on the news. According to a couple local reports EMPCo said that the fast moving water will make recovery or capture of the spilled oil almost impossible. I don't know how much damage 42,000 gallons of crude oil will do to the river, but it has to be worse than no oil spill.
Here's MSNBC's blurb. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/43619463/
REE
While any amount of oil spilled certainly is not good, 42,000 gallons isn't really that much considering that the river is pushing 10x that much water every second.
I wonder if Exxon Mobil will ever get sued for enough to force them into at least thinking about the environment. It's like they don't even care as long as there's dollar in it for them. I know, I know, when they get sued we pay for it in higher gas prices. I just think it's time someone put there foot down about price gouging and environmental destruction. I mean, look at all the smoke and mirrors involved in felt sole wading boots, then it seems the EPA looks the other way when crude oil is dumped into a pristine waterway.
Rant over, thank you very much.
The ExxonMobil bigwigs were sitting around one day, thinking to themselves, "what are we going to do with this extra $100,000 worth of oil that we have sitting around?" "I know! Let's dump it in the river, then we can pay to clean it up too!"Quote:
Originally Posted by Lotech
I saw them out there myself, dumping barrel after barrel of the stuff into the river, laughing about how good it felt to be throwing away money.
Joe's fears are not unfounded or did you forget about Prince William Sound and the Exxon Valdeze?Quote:
Originally Posted by Poke 'Em
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exxon_Valdez_oil_spill
While the EPA may not be at fault here other parts of the government and courts are. Exxon passed the cost on to the insurance companies as well as you and I.
Back to the case at hand. 1,000+ barrels of crude oil is very damaging to the environment no matter how high the flow rate of the river! Crude oil is not a finished product or distillate therefore it does not dilute near as easily nor does it evaporate as rapidly. Take a look at this report:
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/07/03...est=latestnews
Even if the damage is limited to the Billings area the environmental and economical impact will not be good. As far as what Company, state or federal types say I personally don't trust them any further than I could pick them up and throw them.
While no one can know what happened until they can inspect the damage people are speculating that the exceptional amount of debris carried by this years high water may have uncovered and ruptured the pipe. While we can ask for better design to avoid this kind of thing it would not seem possible to do inspections or maintenance in those conditions,
A lot of pipeline inspection is internal. They run devices called "pigs" through the pipe to determine corrosion, cracks, and so on. Kind of hard to tell much on a buried pipe otherwise.
And am I the only one who wonders about the safety of gasoline tankers driving the highway from Bozeman to West Yellowstone, right beside the Gallatin?
I also wonder about the gasoline tankers driving along highway 12, right beside the Clearwater and Lochsa Rivers.
REE
C'mon, Ron, there are never any truck accidents along 12! No fires...
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v3..._truckfire.jpg
How about trains? Let's not forget the chemical spill in the Upper Sacramento River in 1991.
http://abclocal.go.com/kgo/story?sec...t_7&id=8126390