Trump to advance Keystone, Dakota Access pipelines

Page 6 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Paratus

Lifer
Jun 4, 2004
17,636
15,822
146
In the midst of your sarcasm you are missing one critical point in all of this. Having the oil in a pipeline has minimized the contamination area versus transport by tanker car which exposes much more of the environment to the risk of contamination.

You don't understand the benefits and risk trade off between a pipeline and a tank car.

Tank cars have failures at about twice the rate of pipelines. They can also cause fires if they crash a speed.

Pipelines leak until someone stops the flow. Tank cars can only leak what it's in the tank.

I believe the IEA puts total gallons leaked via pipeline at multiples of loss via tank car spills.

So no, you are incorrect, this pipeline "did not minimize the contamination area". It's only benefit was the reduced likelihood of failure which it lost when it leaked.
 

Bitek

Lifer
Aug 2, 2001
10,676
5,239
136
Didn't they already build a large chunk of it? It's basically just "hold off until the next administration comes in"

No, it sounds like it's really dead this time.

They have committed to ending the project and closing it in.
 

K1052

Elite Member
Aug 21, 2003
52,614
46,281
136
Didn't they already build a large chunk of it? It's basically just "hold off until the next administration comes in"

The project was phased and has different (non Alberta sands) customers for some phases. Phase 4 was the "XL" portion for Alberta producers.


440px-Keystone-pipeline-route.svg.png


Phase 4 is probably dead for good. They're working on expanding pipeline capacity to Vancouver and Enbridge is replacing Line 3 which will already boost capacity into the US soon.