US Senate passes Keystone XL bill

[Weitz]

Originally Posted by peterh

Pretty bad operator failure here...

Its nice that you quoted Wikipedia about a totally different spill (Kalamazoo River) by a totally different company.

[Flamenspiel]

What cause did though? Has sabotage been ruled out? Its happened on the Dakota and the Enbridge Pipelines.

[Sliver]

Originally Posted by peterh

Pretty bad operator failure here...

What's that quote from? Are you even talking about the KXL leak being discussed right now? Would Enbridge even be able to see what is happening on a TC pipeline?

[Nufy]

Enbridge had a pretty bad spill a few years back because of the reasons posted.

Operators ignored the detection system.

There is no reason to suspect the same thing happened here.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

I think you are misunderstanding where I’m coming from. Any size of leak will contaminate the area it happens in. It can be cleaned up, but also never completely. When you contaminate the eco system, the effect isn’t typically seen immediately.(Sydney tar ponds for example) That being the case I think it is premature to assume that the longterm effects will not be harsher.

Every transport system has flaws, so instead of focusing on why one isn’t as bad as the other, I prefer to focus on how any of the options can be improved. I’m not satisfied with the idea of building a pipeline where the same issue can occur, I think that’s an irresponsible approach. The response time was good, but there should be better preventative measures put in place. I don’t like when oil companies promote how unnoticeable their pipelines look, to me this is a smokescreen sales pitch. Knowing with any pipeline there is a risk of a spill, a solution such as a concrete storm drain style “gutter” system running under pipeplines that may not be as esthetically pleasing to the eyes and may cost more to build yet will also mitigate or potentially eliminate environmental impact during a spill, makes a lot more sense to me than focusing on saving money and making it look “nice”.

I disagree with fundamentally that a 5000 barrel spill is unacceptable.

Yes we need to make things better and work to improve safety but it has to be referenced against the next best alternative. Because if you oppose building a pipeline that will occasionally have a 5000 barrel leak then you are part of the zero pipeline spills are acceptable group. And that group implicitly supports trucking, rail and importing via tankers as the alternative.

Your concrete gutter approach would require pipelines to be built on surface. This means you will severely impact animal migration. Not to mention givem the various slopes the volume of this concert gutter would need to be ridiculous.

You could double pipeline cost and use double wall pipelines with interstitial monitoring but given the economics really that is supporting trucking and training oil.

Your zero spill is acceptable position means that you should be against gas stations as every time people fill up gas is spilt into the ground water.

[81MC]

Originally Posted by GGG

...Your zero spill is acceptable position means that you should be against gas stations as every time people fill up gas is spilt into the ground water.

Not to jump in here, because my opinion is pretty unpopular regarding pipelines, but this seems like a really, really silly comparison.

[Drummer]

Trump is on his way with paper towels!

[Izzle]

Originally Posted by Drummer

Trump is on his way with paper towels!

Spoilered for size

Spoiler!

[DiracSpike]

Originally Posted by 81MC

Not to jump in here, because my opinion is pretty unpopular regarding pipelines, but this seems like a really, really silly comparison.

Thanks for explaining why.

This spill is awful and I was really upset reading about it last night. No pipeline operator in history has ever claimed that their pipe is 100% spill proof though. Just like no airline has ever claimed they are 100% crash proof or any car company has said their vehicle is 100% death proof. Everyone operates within a certain standard of acceptable risk, ie the benefits of going on a european vacation outweigh the risk of death on the transport there.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by 81MC

Not to jump in here, because my opinion is pretty unpopular regarding pipelines, but this seems like a really, really silly comparison.

Why?

You spill fuel on pavement every time you fill up with gas. This is washed down the storm sewer into our waterways. Not to mention that the GHGs emitted by the vehicles is a far greater threat.

Opposition to pipelines only harms Albertans. The US state department found that this pipeline reduces GHG emissions when oil prices were below 80 or so a barrel.

Get rid of Cars and tax emissions to address the environmental concerns. Until then Pipelines are the most environmentally friendly method of transporting a product to meet its demands.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by DiracSpike

Thanks for explaining why.

This spill is awful and I was really upset reading about it last night. No pipeline operator in history has ever claimed that their pipe is 100% spill proof though. Just like no airline has ever claimed they are 100% crash proof or any car company has said their vehicle is 100% death proof. Everyone operates within a certain standard of acceptable risk, ie the benefits of going on a european vacation outweigh the risk of death on the transport there.

I guess my question is, what is the liability of the pipeline companies and how do they make it right with the people in the communities that it affects?

[CampbellsTransgressions]

"It's only 5000 barrels" becomes a weak argument when the oil seeps into a river.

[Nufy]

Originally Posted by CampbellsTransgressions

"It's only 5000 barrels" becomes a weak argument when the oil seeps into a river.

Yes...and if you would do your research you would know that this spill is nowhere near a river...

Nice try though...

[CampbellsTransgressions]

Well it's just as well Keystone isn't anywhere near any aquifers or rivers and that even if it was, it surely will never experience a leak again.

Honestly like watching Trump defend coal here.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by CampbellsTransgressions

"It's only 5000 barrels" becomes a weak argument when the oil seeps into a river.

I think the argument still stands. The consequences can be mitigated without bankrupting the pipeline owning company. For example the spill last year in the North Sask was 225 m^3 (1400 barrels) and from what I can tell the long term affects have been limited.

And again you need to provide the alternative for the oil supply and compare its affects. Pipelines are a clear case of better than any other alternative.

With Trump defending coal the clear answer is switch to natural gas. It's lower cost and cleaner. Where is that option for pipelines. You can be a billionaire overnight if you figure it out.

[DiracSpike]

Originally Posted by rubecube

I guess my question is, what is the liability of the pipeline companies and how do they make it right with the people in the communities that it affects?

I can't purport to know specifics as I'm not in the pipeline business. I do know that oil and gas companies in general pay a lot to private land owners, even just to operate a surface lease on their land with minimal risk of spillage. I would assume transcanada is 100% on the hook for clean up costs, they would be in Canada. A pipeline spill is in no ones best interest, it's really a sad event every time it happens.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by GGG

I disagree with fundamentally that a 5000 barrel spill is unacceptable.

You’re entitled to your opinion

Yes we need to make things better and work to improve safety but it has to be referenced against the next best alternative. Because if you oppose building a pipeline that will occasionally have a 5000 barrel leak then you are part of the zero pipeline spills are acceptable group. And that group implicitly supports trucking, rail and importing via tankers as the alternative.

I guess I fundamentally disagree with your labelling of me. I oppose building a new pipeline without any modifications knowing that the current model has room to improve.

Your concrete gutter approach would require pipelines to be built on surface. This means you will severely impact animal migration. Not to mention givem the various slopes the volume of this concert gutter would need to be ridiculous.

Many pipelines, or at least portions of them are built on the surface. Animal migration can be maintained by building animal crossings similar to those on our highways.

You could double pipeline cost and use double wall pipelines with interstitial monitoring but given the economics really that is supporting trucking and training oil.

I disagree, the upfront costs would be increased for sure. But the longterm potential savings from less impactful spills would IMO likely offset the costs when you consider clean up costs and the need to pay more for lobbying for future project approvals.

Your zero spill is acceptable position means that you should be against gas stations as every time people fill up gas is spilt into the ground water.

I like to think it means I’m just not in favour of the status quo when it can be improved.

[gasman]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

You’re entitled to your opinion


Many pipelines, or at least portions of them are built on the surface. Animal migration can be maintained by building animal crossings similar to those on our highways.

.

There are more than double the Kilometers of pipelines in Canada then there are of paved roads, how could you possibly support putting that much infrastructure above ground. I can’t imagine how detrimental that would be to almost every aspect of life.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by gasman

There are more than double the Kilometers of pipelines in Canada then there are of paved roads, how could you possibly support putting that much infrastructure above ground. I can’t imagine how detrimental that would be to almost every aspect of life.

Because it would be less impactful in the event of a spill. Even underground there could be adjustment made to mitigate the damage.

[para transit fellow]

https://globalnews.ca/news/571494/in...ls-in-alberta/