Over 200 Oil-Pipeline Accidents in Last 10 Years. So What?

In response to a piece I wrote last week about the oil prohibitionists on the left, a liberal directed me to Wikipedia's comprehensive "List of pipeline accidents in the United States in the 21st century" to justify banning drilling for oil.

It is a quite expansive list. If the list is to be believed—and I, for one, do believe it—there have been over 200 oil-pipeline accidents in the United States since the year 2000, the causes of which ranged from natural disasters to negligence. And, being that the list is specific to pipeline accidents, oil-rig accidents such as occurred on April 20, 2010, at the Deepwater Horizon rig in the Gulf of Mexico are not included.

I'd bet that most everybody looking at that list, including environmentalists themselves, would be shocked to see how frequently there have been incidents that resulted in oil spilling out into the natural landscape of America. So frequent that, based on how we're told to feel and what we're told to think about oil spills, it is worth noting that we've gotten along just fine being ignorant of those 200-plus accidents. We're alive. We're healthy. Our food isn't oozing with oil.

Oil prohibitionists have done an impressive job getting the world to think of oil spills with much the same dread it once felt about the bubonic plague. Even we conservatives (or at least this one) stare agape when we're presented with a list of all the oil-pipeline spills from the last decade alone.

We are made to forget that oil is natural. We are made to forget that oil is created by the Earth (or, if you prefer, gestated in the womb of Gaia). The Earth has survived through and thrived after countless disasters, natural and man-made (though far more natural), and will certainly continue to survive and thrive no matter how much oil we take out and no matter how much of that oil is spilled. And we, too, will survive those future oil spills just as we've survived the hundreds (when counting oil-rig accidents as well) of oil spills just this past decade, as evidenced by the fact that we're still alive.

The reason nobody was even aware of all those oil spills in that list is because no great disasters have come about from those spills. There is the misconception that the spills themselves are the disasters, but that is incorrect. If oil spills and a few animals die from it, that does not constitute a disaster.

I really do love animals, but humans are more valuable, not just from my Christian perspective, but from the atheistic evolutionary perspective that I don't believe in and that is mostly adhered to by environmentalists and liberals. According to their own teachings, humans have earned their position at the top of the food chain by virtue of the fact that they are at the top of the food chain. If a species of moth cannot survive the progression and evolution of humans, then the moth deserved to go extinct. Isn't that survival of the fittest? Humans are the fittest, so we run the show. If some plants get covered in oil temporarily before Earth naturally washes the oil away, or if some animals get killed, how does that compare to the well-being of we who are at the top of the food chain?

Regarding the Wikipedia list again, after coming to the above realization, I now respond: So?


  • fliteking

    It is humorous that a liberal would use an oil driven technology (Computers, internet, electricity, plastics etc) to complain about oil drilling.

    Liberals are such morons, not to mention hypocrites.

    • argusmanargus

      I don't think most liberals are morons. In fact, the balance created by opposing view points probably keeps the US going in a more reasonable direction.

      Who really wants to live in a country where everything is only the way they think it should be? Narcissists? Dictatorships?

      • racefish

        Huh? Wouldn't that be ideal? The Liberals all want us to freeze and walk. They also believe property should be in the hands of government, and we should also be told how to act, how to think, and what to eat. Why? Bloomberg says so.

        • argusmanargus

          An example.. What is the danger of giving someone everything they want? The danger is that they become a brat, and not the person you would want.

          What is the danger of doing only what 1 person wants to do? That person would be a king or a dictator. It doesn't matter if they were benevolent, they would still be a king or dictator.

          It is a natural tendency for man to push to an outer limit of thought where emotion rides high. When emotion is high, the ability to rationalize is clouded.

          Politics is a bit of a game. You would have no game without an opponent who is capably up to the challenge.

        • Steven

          You just made an EXCELLENT argument against what liberal Democrats claim to support. Your first sentence is LETHAL to their stated goals, and 100% consistent with conservative positions.

      • fliteking

        Your references to Narcissists & Dictatorships sounds much like the Progressives and their notion of an agenda.

        Nice job on ducking the point made.

        • argusmanargus

          We all employee NIMBY when it is convenient for us, including myself.

          The truth is most spills are not serious issues with long lasting effects. However, those effects have to be felt by someone. It is good that we simply don't roll over in this country and allow anything to go. It pushes us to a point of excellence most other countries aspire to.

        • fliteking

          You said " It is good that we simply don't roll over in this country and allow anything to go. "

          No one has suggested the above, and all EPA & other oversight remains in place. Meanwhile we continue to send our grandchildrens' money over seas to known financiers of terrorists.

          You Said: "It pushes us to a point of excellence most other countries aspire to."

          No, actually, you are wrong, it has kept us from being energy efficient / independent and has slowed the economy. If anyone is truly environmentally prone, it is the USA.

        • argusmanargus

          I stand corrected then. We are not the country that everyone aspires to. I guess you live in a different world than I.

          The biggest problem I have here is the tone of this article,"So"? My wife gets upset with me when I act similar to this. "So" is what an immature person says.

          Then, first comment, liberals are "morons".

          This is typical of these articles and comments, which are often inflammatory and just as asinine as the typical liberal argument.

          You do not win the argument by selling venom, especially when we claim arguments are of the Holy Spirit (love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness) and not a hate spirit.

          There is a middle ground of peace that should be pursued for most issues. I do not speak of Abortion or Marriage here. The State governments should be restored in the eyes of the people to their place of prominence to handle those issues. If we get mad at everything liberals do, then say their oughta be a National law, then it plays right into their hands.

        • Steven

          You stand corrected, but TOTALLY miss the correction.

        • argusmanargus

          I disagree somewhat with his conclusion. Laws do help point people and companies to the straight and narrow. In that way they are a help. I do not disagree when those laws are many and onerous that they cause more problems then they fix. In that way they are a hurt.

          His point is in general. My point is that federalized governing typically meets challenges much better than any National decree.

        • Steven

          Actually, I would WELCOME an oil well, or nuclear plant, in my basement, if anyone was willing to put on there.

        • argusmanargus

          I should've left an exemption from the NIMBY comment for one Steven.

        • Steven

          Add a few million others. The MAJORITY of the population has never expressed a NIMBY position.

        • argusmanargus

          You are right, I shouldn't speak for others.

          I for one would not like a cell tower on my property or next door. I also wouldn't want drilling for natural gas right beside the house unless it was the only way I could make bank. Nor would I care for an oil pipeline going through my county right next to the lakes and rivers I fish, especially if someone farther away is good with it. Come to think of it, I wouldn't want a wind or solar farm, or a military base close, unless there was just no way around it.

          But that's just me..

        • Steven

          You probably wouldn't even NOTICE a cell tower if there were building to mount it on. You would only notice a natural gas well during the actual drilling phase. Once it went into production, the wellhead could be hidden by a typical bush. I am willing to BET there are buried pipelines that you pass daily without even knowing. I GUARANTEE they pass though whatever county you are in.

        • argusmanargus

          This is like arguing with my wife. Lets just agree to disagree.

        • Steven

          Lets just agree to disagree.

          That is my DEFAULT position for online discussions.

  • ARMYOF69

    Then we should also ban all cars. Many thousands of accidents on roads create all sorts of damage to property, and pain and suffering to humans.

  • freedomringsforall

    No kidding

    I have always asserted that question of: if it is a naturally occurring substance that comes from the earth why is it so bad for the earth.

    And why if carbon is the basis of life is it supposedly so bad for life.

    Maybe someone has their head up their ........ .

    Or maybe someone is just being really clever and trying to institute an elaborate scheme to put the world into a more manageable state for a few elitists to manage it with some slave labor assistance.

    Or maybe both.

    • argusmanargus

      There have and will always be elitists who scheme for control and influence, no doubt.

      In concentrated form, crude oil is bad for most life. Diluted and aged, much less so.

      We want to be careful with oil in all aspects, from safety to the preciousness of the commodity.

      • freedomringsforall

        So, according to your logic we should ban water.
        The human body is made up of 95% plus of water.
        If you submerge the human body in water you will die.
        So, lets ban water!
        So, lets ban people!

  • http://www.facebook.com/guy.daley.7 Guy Daley

    Author is writing for the hell of it and really doesn't have anything to say. There are no oil prohibitionists. We don't have any alternative to oil at the moment and until alternatives are developed, we're stuck with oil and for as many people that work in the oil industry 200 accidents is nothing. NOBODY BELIEVES THAT LIFE IS GOING TO BE ACCIDENT FREE OR THAT GOVERNMENT WILL GUARANTEE IT.

    • sablegsd

      The hell there aren't oil prohibitionists. They have held up and halted every effort that WOULD get us away from the insane muslims.

      • argusmanargus

        There are some ruthless folks in charge of some of the Muslim countries.

        What you suggest rigs a market though, just as we talk about how bad rigged markets are.

        Should not the cheapest, best quality commodity be bought for the price we will pay for it? If we don't buy it, I guarantee someone else will.

        • freedomringsforall

          Yeah so let's drill baby drill!

      • http://www.facebook.com/guy.daley.7 Guy Daley

        Yeah, they've halted drilling in North Dakota and the giant oil and gas boom we just had in Wyoming too. Unfortunately there are too many people with ill informed opinions. They form opinions with few or no facts and feel good about it.

    • Steven

      If only anything you said were true. There are oil prohibitionists in and lobbying Washington. There are also MILLIONS that think the government CAN and SHOULD make life accident free. They are hopelessly naive, but they exist, and vote.

      • http://www.facebook.com/guy.daley.7 Guy Daley

        Again see the reply I just made to sable. We've got an oil boom going in North Dakota and you completely ignore that and come up with your own garbage as some type of fact. Let me guess, the Russians are anxious to invade the US too.

        • Steven

          150% of the oil boom is on state and private land, which the federal government CAN'T control. The administration IS reducing oil leases where they have the ability. your reply to sable is an example of making up garbage and claiming it is fact. It actually proves the exact OPPOSITE of what you believe.

  • http://www.survivingurbancrisis.com/ Silas Longshot

    Another little detail that tabulated this list of "spills", did anyone get a tally of what exactly makes a "spill"? Is that a few drops to a quart that qualifies? A few gallons? When one considers the thousands of miles of petrol pipelines running all over this nation and the millions upon millions of gallons passing through them every day, the quantity of 200 in the past 13 years is so trivial as to be ridiculous.

  • stonemike

    Big dam deal, we have millions of miles of pipeline in this country! Ive worked in the drilling and transmission field ALL MY LIFE , but instead of having me address Congress , they have some dumb bi--ch like darryl hannah spew her incoherent c--p!

  • http://profiles.google.com/barelypure barely pure

    Accidents and natural disasters happen everywhere. Are we to assume that other oil producing countries have a better safety record so we should shut down our production and buy exclusively from them? I doubt many have a better record or the will to protect the environment that we do.

  • ARMYOF69

    That's probably the same number of rapes and murders going unsolved in Los Angeles every year.

  • WilliamSpires

    An awful lot of people tripped while walking too but does that mean we should ban walking? And how about the accidents when driving cars- is there a drive to make driving cars illegal? Not that I know of. That's the same logic the move to disarm America uses when pointing to shooting deaths while being careful to avoid mentioning the overwhelming percentage of gun owners who stop home invasion or murders. Liberals are grossly misnamed since they are liberal only in the amount of controls they seek on every area of society and are certainly not liberal towards FREEDOM .