US Senate passes Keystone XL bill

[GGG]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

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

Can you explain to me why an above ground leak would be less damaging? And also how farmers will work around them.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

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

Can you explain to me why an above ground leak would be less damaging? And also how farmers will work around them.

Also if you oppose the building of new pipelines until 5000 barrel leaks never occur then you do not support the construction of a pipeline ever. It's not possible to create that guarantee for you.

Pipeline animal crossing create wolf kill zones as it forces migration through a single narrow point. They are better than nothing but not that effective.

[Regorium]

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?

Enbridge paid 1.5 billion dollars for their spill. BP paid 60 billion dollars (and counting last I checked) for deepwater horizon.

The liability of pipeline companies is 100% for any spill on their assets.

[DownhillGoat]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

Because it would be less impactful in the event of a spill.

It would also make it incredibly easy to target for eco terrorism, increase corrosion rates, and increase the chance of an inadvertent line strike from a vehicle, so your chances of a leak skyrocket.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by GGG

Can you explain to me why an above ground leak would be less damaging? And also how farmers will work around them.

Either leak would have an impact. Safety measures like a storm sewer type system to catch leaked oil would work both above an underground. There would be a cost obviously to implement one under or above ground. As for farmers, whether it be above or below ground there will be disruption for a farmer. Below, they will be disrupted during construction and a spill(no one should be buying anything grown above contaminated soil)

Also if you oppose the building of new pipelines until 5000 barrel leaks never occur then you do not support the construction of a pipeline ever. It's not possible to create that guarantee for you.

I’m not looking for a guarantee, I’m looking for a visible effort to address the issue. If pipeline A had a leak, I don’t think it makes sense to build pipeline B using the exact same model. Nothing will ever be predictably perfect, but refusing to attempt to address an ongoing(albeit improving) issue isn’t sensible IMO.

Pipeline animal crossing create wolf kill zones as it forces migration through a single narrow point. They are better than nothing but not that effective.

Pipeline spills create animal and ecosystem kill zones. Do you have any data the supports your claim, to the point where it would be more impactful than a massive spill? I’m not saying you’re wrong, but it hasn’t detered the construction of highway animal crossings being built.

[OMG!WTF!]

This is something I know very little about....but a storm sewer? For a seven thousand kilometer pipeline?

[GGG]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

Either leak would have an impact. Safety measures like a storm sewer type system to catch leaked oil would work both above an underground. There would be a cost obviously to implement one under or above ground. As for farmers, whether it be above or below ground there will be disruption for a farmer. Below, they will be disrupted during construction and a spill(no one should be buying anything grown above contaminated soil)

I’m not looking for a guarantee, I’m looking for a visible effort to address the issue. If pipeline A had a leak, I don’t think it makes sense to build pipeline B using the exact same model. Nothing will ever be predictably perfect, but refusing to attempt to address an ongoing(albeit improving) issue isn’t sensible IMO.

Pipeline spills create animal and ecosystem kill zones. Do you have any data the supports your claim, to the point where it would be more impactful than a massive spill? I’m not saying you’re wrong, but it hasn’t detered the construction of highway animal crossings being built.

Read the CSA Z662 code particularly the sections on leak detection and integrity. Then come back and tell me what you would like to see done. Your sewer system concept is ridiculous. And still wouldn't have stopped the Husky spill last year which was caused by the ground shifting so it likely takes out your sewer system.

Your above ground pipeline concept is terrible. The impact of a below ground pipeline is only during the construction period with an above ground line you wouldn't be able to share land with farms with a well gathering network. The only reason lines are put above ground is because with steam and emulsion pipes we don't have materials with high enough tensile strength to handle the thermal forces on fully restrained pipe. Because of this it creates significant animal impacts.

If a car has a fatality I don't think it makes sense to build the same model
If a horse bucks someone off I don't think it makes sense to ride horses
If our sun is going to go super nova I don't think it makes sense to rely on it.

These pipeline are going under continual improvement the z662 committee issues code updates every 4 years with mandatory bulletins in between which are then adopted into law by the provinces outlining the best practices of leak detection and prevention.

It seems like you are just not aware of the progress that is made and therefore don't want more built. Be informed before taking your position.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by kunkstyle

It would also make it incredibly easy to target for eco terrorism, increase corrosion rates, and increase the chance of an inadvertent line strike from a vehicle, so your chances of a leak skyrocket.

Eco terrorism puts the onus on the terrorists, not the pipeline or the company that operates it. Terrorists are running people down with their cars, but there is no movement to stop using cars. If that’s the concern it can be addressed through increased safety measures. Pardon the cliche but if we eliminate the option altogether because of fear isn’t that just letting the terrorists win?

Inadvertent strikes from vehicles causing it to skyrocket? How many existing above ground pipelines are being struck by vehicles? I’m not trying to dismiss the concern, but I think you’re hyperbolizing a bit here.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

Do you have any data the supports your claim, to the point where it would be more impactful than a massive spill? I’m not saying you’re wrong, but it hasn’t detered the construction of highway animal crossings being built.

Animal crossings over highway reduce vehicle animal collisions so of course they are built. They do have impact though. I can't find the article on the effects of pipeline crossings in particular but it is an extention on the concept of the caribou barrier zones being lost by seismic line

http://www.legassembly.gov.yk.ca/fr/...l_2002_CJZ.pdf

You still haven't explained how an above ground pipeline will reduce the probability or severity of leaks though.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by GGG

Read the CSA Z662 code particularly the sections on leak detection and integrity. Then come back and tell me what you would like to see done. Your sewer system concept is ridiculous. And still wouldn't have stopped the Husky spill last year which was caused by the ground shifting so it likely takes out your sewer system.

Your above ground pipeline concept is terrible. The impact of a below ground pipeline is only during the construction period with an above ground line you wouldn't be able to share land with farms with a well gathering network. The only reason lines are put above ground is because with steam and emulsion pipes we don't have materials with high enough tensile strength to handle the thermal forces on fully restrained pipe. Because of this it creates significant animal impacts.

If a car has a fatality I don't think it makes sense to build the same model
If a horse bucks someone off I don't think it makes sense to ride horses
If our sun is going to go super nova I don't think it makes sense to rely on it.

These pipeline are going under continual improvement the z662 committee issues code updates every 4 years with mandatory bulletins in between which are then adopted into law by the provinces outlining the best practices of leak detection and prevention.

It seems like you are just not aware of the progress that is made and therefore don't want more built. Be informed before taking your position.

Send me a link to what you would like me to read and spare me how much you dislike my ideas. I have my opinion of your acceptance of spills mentality, but it’s not constructive to sit here and insult you over it. I think you’re mature enough to do the same when responding to my posts

[GGG]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

Send me a link to what you would like me to read and spare me how much you dislike my ideas. I have my opinion of your acceptance of spills mentality, but it’s not constructive to sit here and insult you over it. I think you’re mature enough to do the same when responding to my posts

I don't dislike your ideas, your idea is just wrong. Your idea of abovegroind pipelines to reduce leaks and a sewer system is objectively terrible.. It is impractical, not effective at preventing spills and not economic. It simply would not reduce the amount of spills. It's like telling a doctor that turmeric will cure a disease.

The z662 code is behind a paywall. There are PDF copies floating around but would be inappropriate to link. I believe the public library has a copy.

But read Clause 9, Annex D,E,H,and M along with the Alberta pipeline Act and Rules. At that point you we able to understand what the industry is currently doing to prevent leaks.

For example every segment of pipeline is metered and compares the volumes of the previous segment to ensure no flow is lost. This is how you can detect a leak of 1% of the flow. Extensive engineering on soil, corrosion prevention, coating type and on and on occurs to make these pipelines as safe as possible.

In the end what you say you are asking for: Continiul Improvement to prevent future spills is already happening

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by GGG

I don't dislike your ideas, your idea is just wrong. Your idea of abovegroind pipelines to reduce leaks and a sewer system is objectively terrible.. It is impractical, not effective at preventing spills and not economic. It simply would not reduce the amount of spills. It's like telling a doctor that turmeric will cure a disease.

The z662 code is behind a paywall. There are PDF copies floating around but would be inappropriate to link. I believe the public library has a copy.

But read Clause 9, Annex D,E,H,and M along with the Alberta pipeline Act and Rules. At that point you we able to understand what the industry is currently doing to prevent leaks.

For example every segment of pipeline is metered and compares the volumes of the previous segment to ensure no flow is lost. This is how you can detect a leak of 1% of the flow. Extensive engineering on soil, corrosion prevention, coating type and on and on occurs to make these pipelines as safe as possible.

In the end what you say you are asking for: Continiul Improvement to prevent future spills is already happening

Before you attack my ideas, take a moment to consider that what you are proposing isn’t working at the moment. I would take impractical and effective over practical and ineffective in this situation. You can agree to disagree.

[DiracSpike]

Except your proposal isn't practical or effective, it's dumb.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

Before you attack my ideas, take a moment to consider that what you are proposing isn’t working at the moment. I would take impractical and effective over practical and ineffective in this situation. You can agree to disagree.

Explain how you design this ditch system to contain the spill you are proposing in all circumstances or day in any circumstances. For example your solution would not have stopped the Husky spill last year

You at least could be advocating for a double walled pipeline with interstitial monitoring. It's not cost effective but would at least it would stop some leaks

CSA Z662 is not my proposal. It is the industries and governments leading experts in pipelines, corrosion, and risk management. These are the best people in the world at what they do. But sure guy on the internet wanting to add a sewer system should be listened to instead.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by DiracSpike

Except your proposal isn't practical or effective, it's dumb.

Thanks smart guy

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by GGG

Explain how you design this ditch system to contain the spill you are proposing in all circumstances or day in any circumstances. For example your solution would not have stopped the Husky spill last year

You at least could be advocating for a double walled pipeline with interstitial monitoring. It's not cost effective but would at least it would stop some leaks

CSA Z662 is not my proposal. It is the industries and governments leading experts in pipelines, corrosion, and risk management. These are the best people in the world at what they do. But sure guy on the internet wanting to add a sewer system should be listened to instead.

You say that as if I’m opposed to things like double walled pipelines. Do you really expect guy on the internet to write out a detailed and perfected plan for you? What I’m saying is things should be done to continue improving things, which you seem to agree with. But it seems like you’re taking the if we can’t solve all the problems we shouldn’t bother solving any of them approach. If you don’t like any ideas you don’t agree with being put forward, then say so. But quit acting like the status quo and CSA Z662 are the best we can do just because you believe that to be true.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

You say that as if I’m opposed to things like double walled pipelines. Do you really expect guy on the internet to write out a detailed and perfected plan for you? What I’m saying is things should be done to continue improving things, which you seem to agree with. But it seems like you’re taking the if we can’t solve all the problems we shouldn’t bother solving any of them approach. If you don’t like any ideas you don’t agree with being put forward, then say so. But quit acting like the status quo and CSA Z662 are the best we can do just because you believe that to be true.

You came in here posting moronic ideas like you had experience in the area.You got caught playing internet lawyer. It's okay to admit you don't know the specifics about what you are talking about. Just stick to generalities.

Outside of the specifics, You stated you didn't want any more pipelines built at the current risk level. That is not a rational position given it's the safest way to transport oil. You can want improvement (we all do) but when you state that today's risk level is not acceptable that is a misinformed position. Because the absense of pipelines means trains, trucks and tankers (and all of the blood that comes along with the Middle East oil).

I think we all want continual improvement. The people that want it most are the pipeline operators with pipe in the ground who are liable for clean up of spills.

Here is the current state. 99.999% successful.

http://www.nrcan.gc.ca/energy/infrastructure/18858

[Fuzz]

The anti-pipeline environmentalist, end of the oil age people make no sense to me. If you really believe in the next 20 or 30 years that we will drastically shift away from oil, you should be screaming from the rooftops to build new pipelines now. That way, when the industry collapses, at least the remaining pipelines will be the newest, safest ones. By holding back these projects, you are ensuring when the industry starts to struggle, the oil that is needed(and come, on, it will still be needed in some amount) is going to flow through old technology, aged pipes that will be far more hazardous. As the industry dies, they will close down the old ones first. Why not let companies like TransCanada and Enbridge foot the bill now, to ensure safer pipelines in the future?

[DownhillGoat]

Eco terrorism puts the onus on the terrorists, not the pipeline or the company that operates it.

Haha, no it won't. If some P.O'ed farmer decides he's going tired of spills in his county and decides to take some target practice at a pipe or a line break valve and there's a leak because of it, nobody is going to put "onus" him. It will be another soapbox for environmentalists to paint pipelines as the bad guy because "hey, a leak".

And what increased safety measures would you suggest be increased to combat that? I think you underestimate how much 840,000 kms of pipe in Canada alone actually is. And mostly in remote regions. Seems like the best safety measure to combat threats would be, oh I don't know, maybe bury it.

Inadvertent strikes from vehicles causing it to skyrocket? How many existing above ground pipelines are being struck by vehicles?

No, the combination of all 3 of my concerns would cause the chances of a leak to skyrocket, and no, that's not hyperbole.

How many existing above ground pipelines are being struck by vehicles?

I don't have numbers but it does happen. Maintenance vehicles while working on pipe, farm vehicles while crossing right-of-ways.

And I'll point out the word 'existing' you used. The reason you don't hear about many of vehicle strikes, is because most existing lines are underground. Take 840,000 km of pipe, a large portion of which are along major highways, and now put them above ground...

[DiracSpike]

Just found some pictures of what Iggy_Oi's state of the art pipeline catchment trough will look like