In Greek legend, everytime the winged horse Pegasus struck his hoof to the Earth, an “inspiring spring burst forth.” Unfortunately for residents in Mayflower, Arkansas, when the Pegasus pipeline ruptured, the only thing bursting forth was a nasty tar sands oil spill.
Here’s what you need to know about the spill, with links to some reporting on this awful event, which at very least ruined the holiday weekends of many Mayflower, Arkansas residents, many of whom didn’t even know the pipeline was running through their neighborhood.
What is Pegasus?
The 20-inch pipeline carries diluted bitumen – originating from the Alberta tar sands – for 858 miles from Patoka, Illinois to refineries in Nederland, Texas. It was built in the 1940s and can carry up to 95,000 barrels a day.
Pegasus was built to funnel crude from the Gulf Coast up to the Midwest, but the flow was reversed in 2006 to help relieve the tar sands crude bottleneck in Cushing, Oklahoma. (The same reason given by proponents for the construction of Keystone XL.)
Cleanup crews scrambled to prevent the diluted bitumen (or dilbit) from reaching Lake Conway, an important local source of drinking water and a popular recreation spot. A local judge, who was responsible for declaring a state of emergency and is coordinating response efforts, told Lisa Song of InsideClimate News that they were successful in doing so.
Dodson said emergency crews led a “monumentally successful” effort to prevent the Exxon spill from entering nearby Lake Conway, a popular recreational area. First responders set up earthen dams to contain the flow of oil, he said, and crews are working to shore up the protections as rains continue to fall and complicate the cleanup operations.
Update 4/2: There are some troubling accounts from the ground of the cleanup efforts, however. Lisa Song from InsideClimate News is there on the scene and writes of how public officials are nowhere to be seen, and Exxon Mobil is clearly running the show, and limiting access to journalists and the public.
Along the same vein, on Mother Jones, Kate Sheppard has written about her frustrating interactions with Exxon's staff and is properly chastising the company for its vague responses to earnest and important questions about the spill.
Update: 4/6: Lisa Song from InsideClimate News has now been threatened with arrest for visiting the command center where federal authorities are working. Others in the media are reporting similar treatment.
We'll update this story with any new developments, but here are some of the best pieces of reporting on the Pegasus spill thus far:
Lisa Song at InsideClimate News was early on the story, and will continue to put this spill in context of tar sands expansion and the Keystone XL controversy.
So, umm, what do the people of Arkansas think of this Ethical Oil stuff now?
Seriously, Ben, Carol, you need to get their opinions on this posted up here right now. Let Ezra know what victims of ethical oil really think.
[I'm pro-pipeline… but I also believe that the people who are most affected by pipelines are the people whose properties the pipes lay beside. It ain't right to taint another man's property for another's personal gain. It ain't right to mess up their lives. Settlements for this kind of accident can take decades. I wouldn't wish that on anyone. Would you?]
“I know this is difficult because you are so directly affected by what is happening, but does this change or affect your views at all about pipelines, especially in light of Canada's wish to build another pipeline?”
“Its been an eye opening experience. Here in Arkansas we're what you'd call a red state, and most folks didn't have an issue before with any kind of pipeline, future pipeline, Keystone XL or what have you. After this, its been a sobering wake up to what happens when something goes wrong. I think the feeling here is that pipelines are fine until they rupture in your backyard, and thats been a sore spot with many folks this week.”
Just another observation, but has the definition of crude oil been changed to include dilbit? That pipeline was approved to carry crude in the 1940s. There was no dilbit back then, and isn't the chemical composition different?
The reason I ask is that by redefining crude its a lot easier to ship this stuff without checking if it is indeed safe for the pipes. For dilbit to be crude, crude now needs to be corrosive and abrasive. (For the southern leg of the Keystone XL, the US Army corp of engineers redefined crude to include dilbit. Land owners are being told that the pipeline will only carry crude… Also are there regulatory reasons for doing so?)
And just to add to the confusion, there's also syncrude (synthetic crude) which can be a component of the diluent. In fact, if the density of the fluid is 800kg/m3 or greater then the fluid is usually called synbit and not dilbit.
It's a great question about the “definition” of crude oil and of dilbit. Look at Carol's most recent post for a particularly shocking turn on this.
I'll look more into the full redefinition question, but her post (and how Exxon didn't have to pay into the oil spill cleanup fund b/c it wasn't technically crude) is a great place to start.
This defines the nature of how these companies operate. Its corporate malfeasance. Their objective is to save every dollar no matter what.
How does that make you feel about safety?
I'm curious but who's doing the clean up? I assume this is Exxon only because who ever is paid out of that cleanup fund should not be there. If its not crude they do not know what they are doing.
Democracy is utterly dependent upon an electorate that is accurately informed. In promoting climate change denial (and often denying their responsibility for doing so) industry has done more than endanger the environment. It has undermined democracy.
There is a vast difference between putting forth a point of view, honestly held, and intentionally sowing the seeds of confusion. Free speech does not include the right to deceive. Deception is not a point of view. And the right to disagree does not include a right to intentionally subvert the public awareness.
Chevron made waves in the business world when it announced its October 6 sale of 30-percent of its holdings in the Alberta-based Duvernay Shale basin to Kuwait Foreign Petroleum Exploration Company (KUFPEC) for $1.5 billion.
Previous Comments
Victims of Ethical Oil...
So, umm, what do the people of Arkansas think of this Ethical Oil stuff now?
Seriously, Ben, Carol, you need to get their opinions on this posted up here right now. Let Ezra know what victims of ethical oil really think.
[I'm pro-pipeline… but I also believe that the people who are most affected by pipelines are the people whose properties the pipes lay beside. It ain't right to taint another man's property for another's personal gain. It ain't right to mess up their lives. Settlements for this kind of accident can take decades. I wouldn't wish that on anyone. Would you?]
CBC
CBC had a property owner on the Radio this morning, and they ended the interview with the obnoxious question… about 6 minutes in.
http://www.cbc.ca/player/Radio/Local+Shows/Alberta/Calgary+Eyeopener/ID/2368889024/
“I know this is difficult because you are so directly affected by what is happening, but does this change or affect your views at all about pipelines, especially in light of Canada's wish to build another pipeline?”
“Its been an eye opening experience. Here in Arkansas we're what you'd call a red state, and most folks didn't have an issue before with any kind of pipeline, future pipeline, Keystone XL or what have you. After this, its been a sobering wake up to what happens when something goes wrong. I think the feeling here is that pipelines are fine until they rupture in your backyard, and thats been a sore spot with many folks this week.”
Just another observation, but has the definition of crude oil been changed to include dilbit? That pipeline was approved to carry crude in the 1940s. There was no dilbit back then, and isn't the chemical composition different?
The reason I ask is that by redefining crude its a lot easier to ship this stuff without checking if it is indeed safe for the pipes. For dilbit to be crude, crude now needs to be corrosive and abrasive. (For the southern leg of the Keystone XL, the US Army corp of engineers redefined crude to include dilbit. Land owners are being told that the pipeline will only carry crude… Also are there regulatory reasons for doing so?)
And just to add to the
And just to add to the confusion, there's also syncrude (synthetic crude) which can be a component of the diluent. In fact, if the density of the fluid is 800kg/m3 or greater then the fluid is usually called synbit and not dilbit.
It's a great question about
It's a great question about the “definition” of crude oil and of dilbit. Look at Carol's most recent post for a particularly shocking turn on this.
I'll look more into the full redefinition question, but her post (and how Exxon didn't have to pay into the oil spill cleanup fund b/c it wasn't technically crude) is a great place to start.
I saw...
This defines the nature of how these companies operate. Its corporate malfeasance. Their objective is to save every dollar no matter what.
How does that make you feel about safety?
I'm curious but who's doing the clean up? I assume this is Exxon only because who ever is paid out of that cleanup fund should not be there. If its not crude they do not know what they are doing.
So that means....
The entire ethical oil movement has nothing to do with the tar sands. How bizarre!
… that could explain the lack of ethics in the Tar Sands…