• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Keystone Pipeline leaks...

Homerboy

Homerboy

Lifer
Dang, who would have guessed this was going to happen. I'm shocked!
Only 210,000 gallons though... *sigh*

http://www.cnn.com/2017/11/16/us/keystone-pipeline-leak/index.html

(CNN)A total of 210,000 gallons of oil leaked Thursday from the Keystone Pipeline in South Dakota, the pipeline's operator, TransCanada, said.

Crews shut down the pipeline Thursday morning and officials are investigating the cause of the leak.
This is the largest Keystone oil spill to date in South Dakota, said Brian Walsh, a spokesman for the state's Department of Environment and Natural Resources.
In April 2016, there was a 400-barrel release -- or 16,800 gallons -- with the majority of the oil cleanup completed in two months, Walsh said.
Developing story - more to come
Click to expand...
 
bradly1101 said:
Totally unpredictable! /s

Are pipelines really better than trucks or rail cars? I know accidents have happened with all.
Click to expand...
If they're installed right they most certainly are confining the spill to the immediate area of the pipeline. With mobile containers the oil can spill anywhere along the route.
 
"Crews shut down the pipeline Thursday morning and officials are investigating the cause of the leak."

What did the eco-terrorist group Greenpeace have to say about the cause of the leak?
 
Puffnstuff said:
If they're installed right they most certainly are confining the spill to the immediate area of the pipeline. With mobile containers the oil can spill anywhere along the route.
Click to expand...
I guess they've done the numbers:

"so what is the safest way to move it?

The short answer is: truck worse than train worse than pipeline worse than boat(Oilprice.com). But that’s only for human death and property destruction. For the normalized amount of oil spilled, it’s truck worse than pipeline worse than rail worse than boat(Congressional Research Service). Different yet again is for environmental impact (dominated by impact to aquatic habitat), where it’s boat worse than pipeline worse than truck worse than rail.

So it depends upon what your definition is for worse. Is it death and destruction? Is it amount of oil released? Is it land area or water volume contaminated? Is it habitat destroyed? Is it CO2 emitted?"

https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesc...ude-pipeline-rail-truck-or-boat/#2214effc17ac
 
 
Meh. All pipelines leak occasionally. Until you can power society with promises and unicorn farts, oil is here to stay.

This is why I would have preferred it go near a major city than across sparsely populated tribal lands though - pipelines passing near major cities tend to be much more closely monitored and better maintained.
 
werepossum said:
Meh. All pipelines leak occasionally. Until you can power society with promises and unicorn farts, oil is here to stay.

This is why I would have preferred it go near a major city than across sparsely populated tribal lands though - pipelines passing near major cities tend to be much more closely monitored and better maintained.
Click to expand...
Except it doesn't cross Sioux Tribal lands, although it does cross lands they claim from an 1851 treaty.
"
Is the pipeline on private or tribal land?
It's complicated. The Dakota Access pipeline route crosses North Dakota, South Dakota, Iowa and Illinois on mostly private land, plus some federally controlled areas like water crossings. The route does not cross the Standing Rock Indian Reservation.

But the private land making up the pipeline corridor just north of the reservation is part of the tribe's ancestral homeland. It was promised to the Sioux people in the 1851 Treaty of Fort Laramie but later taken for private use. Farmers and ranchers have owned and worked the land for generations. The Dakota Access battle has in many ways become a proxy for a broader debate over tribal treaty rights."





https://www.eenews.net/stories/1060045082
 
imported_tajmahal said:
"Crews shut down the pipeline Thursday morning and officials are investigating the cause of the leak."

What did the eco-terrorist group Greenpeace have to say about the cause of the leak?
Click to expand...

Never worked in petrochem I see.

Seals fail.
Pipes fail.

Most of the time due to design defects, manufacturing defects, installation defects, operational errors, lack of maintenance, natural causes, and very very rarely intentional sabotage.
 
imported_tajmahal said:
Except it doesn't cross Sioux Tribal lands, although it does cross lands they claim from an 1851 treaty.
"
Is the pipeline on private or tribal land?
It's complicated. The Dakota Access pipeline route crosses North Dakota, South Dakota, Iowa and Illinois on mostly private land, plus some federally controlled areas like water crossings. The route does not cross the Standing Rock Indian Reservation.

But the private land making up the pipeline corridor just north of the reservation is part of the tribe's ancestral homeland. It was promised to the Sioux people in the 1851 Treaty of Fort Laramie but later taken for private use. Farmers and ranchers have owned and worked the land for generations. The Dakota Access battle has in many ways become a proxy for a broader debate over tribal treaty rights."

https://www.eenews.net/stories/1060045082
Click to expand...
Good point. If Native Americans still owned all the lands they were promised, they'd still own most of the country.
 
werepossum said:
Meh. All pipelines leak occasionally. Until you can power society with promises and unicorn farts, oil is here to stay.

This is why I would have preferred it go near a major city than across sparsely populated tribal lands though - pipelines passing near major cities tend to be much more closely monitored and better maintained.
Click to expand...

Problems I have with this pipeline is the tar sand oil was already being used in the mid west. The pipeline is designed to send oil to China.
Second is more trivial but irritating, when it was proposed the thousands of jobs were only for a year. I've read long term the pipeline will employ about 50 people.
 
bradly1101 said:
Totally unpredictable! /s

Are pipelines really better than trucks or rail cars? I know accidents have happened with all.
Click to expand...

Less so when the rail cars are the proper ones for the job. When industry gets to write much of it's own regulation, we're not discussing safety, we're discussing the level of safety they deem worth paying for.

When did mobility become a liability? Yeah that Trans Alaska pipeline was smooth sailing after it was finished. Weather, earthquakes, drunk hunters, no big deal. And remember, elevation changes mean ramping up the pressure so those leaks will be fun.
 
imported_tajmahal said:
https://archives.fbi.gov/archives/news/testimony/the-threat-of-eco-terrorism
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...es-greenpeace-claims-it-incites-eco-terrorism
https://www.dallasnews.com/business...ers-eco-terrorism-towardits-pipeline-projects
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/jun/26/greenpeace-under-fire-for-eco-terrorism-tactics/

It's why I found it questionable that CNN would even give them space on the story, but CNN.
Click to expand...
.
In your links there is nothing about Greenpeace itself. The FBI specifically states that the acts were performed by "disaffected" members of Greenpeace who joined/created another group. Is there a clue in there why they were possibly disaffected? The others are just accusations from industry groups saying "Greenpeace-inspired" people or groups. How does a group with "peace" in its name inspire violence except to those who don't like (and/or perceive less money because of) green groups?

"Mission Statement. Greenpeace is an independent campaigning organisation, which uses non-violent, creative confrontation to expose global environmental problems, and to force the solutions which are essential to a green and peaceful future."

http://www.greenpeace.org/international/en/about/our-core-values/
 
imported_tajmahal said:
Except it doesn't cross Sioux Tribal lands, although it does cross lands they claim from an 1851 treaty.
"
Is the pipeline on private or tribal land?
It's complicated. The Dakota Access pipeline route crosses North Dakota, South Dakota, Iowa and Illinois on mostly private land, plus some federally controlled areas like water crossings. The route does not cross the Standing Rock Indian Reservation.

But the private land making up the pipeline corridor just north of the reservation is part of the tribe's ancestral homeland. It was promised to the Sioux people in the 1851 Treaty of Fort Laramie but later taken for private use. Farmers and ranchers have owned and worked the land for generations. The Dakota Access battle has in many ways become a proxy for a broader debate over tribal treaty rights."





https://www.eenews.net/stories/1060045082
Click to expand...
I thought the main argument from natives is that in case of a spill upstream, their water would be the most affected.

Edit: their! not they're!
 
Last edited:
Paratus said:
Never worked in petrochem I see.

Seals fail.
Pipes fail.

Most of the time due to design defects, manufacturing defects, installation defects, operational errors, lack of maintenance, natural causes, and very very rarely intentional sabotage.
Click to expand...
Sorry if i'm better informed on some things.
http://www.desmoinesregister.com/st...m-responsibility-pipeline-sabotage/504136001/

"The two women said they researched how to pierce the steel pipe used for the pipeline and in March they began using oxyacetylene cutting torches to damage exposed, empty pipeline valves. They said they started deliberately vandalizing the pipeline in southeast Iowa's Mahaska County, delaying completion for weeks."
 
bradly1101 said:
.
In your links there is nothing about Greenpeace itself. The FBI specifically states that the acts were performed by "disaffected" members of Greenpeace who joined/created another group. Is there a clue in there why they were possibly disaffected? The others are just accusations from industry groups saying "Greenpeace-inspired" people or groups. How does a group with "peace" in its name inspire violence except to those who don't like (and/or perceive less money because of) green groups?

"Mission Statement. Greenpeace is an independent campaigning organisation, which uses non-violent, creative confrontation to expose global environmental problems, and to force the solutions which are essential to a green and peaceful future."

http://www.greenpeace.org/international/en/about/our-core-values/
Click to expand...
Oh OK, peace out. Soon to be renamed imported peaceful tajmahal.
 
Puffnstuff said:
If they're installed right they most certainly are confining the spill to the immediate area of the pipeline. With mobile containers the oil can spill anywhere along the route.
Click to expand...

Surely the size of each incident's maximum potential is a factor in the severity of environmental impact.
 
imported_tajmahal said:
Sorry if i'm better informed on some things.
http://www.desmoinesregister.com/st...m-responsibility-pipeline-sabotage/504136001/

"The two women said they researched how to pierce the steel pipe used for the pipeline and in March they began using oxyacetylene cutting torches to damage exposed, empty pipeline valves. They said they started deliberately vandalizing the pipeline in southeast Iowa's Mahaska County, delaying completion for weeks."
Click to expand...
So one case of a sabotage means all cases are
?

Ok.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top