US Senate passes Keystone XL bill

[CampbellsTransgressions]

Once again we demonstrate that we can't prevent leaks and that the activists are right.

Let me guess, operators decided to ignore the leak detection because "there was an aberration during startup".

[Robbob]

Is it not loading for anyone else?

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by Robbob

Is it not loading for anyone else?

Ya, link is broken. I googled.

[Senator Clay Davis]

My bad, updated the link.

[DownhillGoat]

Originally Posted by CampbellsTransgressions

Let me guess, operators decided to ignore the leak detection

Please show me one shred of evidence that even suggests the operators ignored the leak detection.

[TSXCman]

Omg, I just reallocated heavily to TC stock at 1:50pm. My luck has been comical lately

[DownhillGoat]

Originally Posted by TSXCman

Omg, I just reallocated heavily to TC stock at 1:50pm. My luck has been comical lately

Well it did go up today...

[TSXCman]

Spill news was after hours. Will see if there is any effect tomorrow.

[Frequitude]

Originally Posted by CampbellsTransgressions

Once again we demonstrate that we can't prevent leaks and that the activists are right.

Let me guess, operators decided to ignore the leak detection because "there was an aberration during startup".

Of course we can’t prevent leaks. Find me one credible pro pipeline person who advocates that pipelines are 100% leak proof. The argument is that pipelines >>>> trains, birth in terms of leaks and emissions.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by CampbellsTransgressions

Once again we demonstrate that we can't prevent leaks and that the activists are right.

Let me guess, operators decided to ignore the leak detection because "there was an aberration during startup".

That's the wrong question to ask. Keystones current capacity is 590,000 barrels a day or just under 100,000 m^3. A tanker truck contains 40m^4. The length of the current pipeline is 3500km so 1.5 days drive. This takes 3750 trucks per day off the road and reduce km driven by 6 million kilometres per day. The death rate from trucking is roughly 1 per 200 million kms. So this pipeline saves about 10 lives per year

In terms of leaked if 1 L is spilt loading and unloading a truck and that would be very low you are spilling this spill volume in 6 months and that is neglecting all the spills from accidents.

Pipelines are by far without question the safest form of transporting oil.

This is a tiny spill relative to the volume shipped safely every day and mitigating a 5000bbl spill is very managable. 1000 bathtubs of oil or enough oil to fill a CFL field about 10cm deep.

This leak was 14 minutes of through put.

[manwiches]

I haven't read through this whole thread, but the general idea of pipelines being bad is infuriating.

The way pipelines are built now, it is pretty well impossible to not figure out the cause of leaks/failures. Every single joint, coating, weld, test, and remaining pups are ALL logged with where it is, who built/installed it, and who tested it. If there is a failure in the pipe, it is found almost right away.

Yes, back in the day, pipelines were not installed with this sort of methodology, however now, there isn't a single sales line that isn't installed this way.

There is more likely for a truck of oil to crash and cause human injury/fatalities than there is a pipeline leak.

[Regorium]

Originally Posted by tkflames

Conventional to who? An industry insider or investor?

In 99% of countries convention is to measure fluids in litres. Where this incident occurred the conventional unit of measure is gallons. People can relate 200,000 gallons to jugs of milk or gas tanks in their vehicle.

I am by no means anti pipeline (in fact strongly pro), but when an incident like this occurs the average person should have the impact explained to then in a unit they can understand and relate to.

Can they though?

They think 200,000 gallons of milk is a lot, but they don't understand that Keystone ships 25,000,000 gallons of milk a day. They don't understand that Keystone has shipped 55,000,000,000 gallons of milk safely in 6 years (I'm being conservative because the pipeline has been operating for almost 10 years now).

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by GGG

That's the wrong question to ask. Keystones current capacity is 590,000 barrels a day or just under 100,000 m^3. A tanker truck contains 40m^4. The length of the current pipeline is 3500km so 1.5 days drive. This takes 3750 trucks per day off the road and reduce km driven by 6 million kilometres per day. The death rate from trucking is roughly 1 per 200 million kms. So this pipeline saves about 10 lives per year

In terms of leaked if 1 L is spilt loading and unloading a truck and that would be very low you are spilling this spill volume in 6 months and that is neglecting all the spills from accidents.

Pipelines are by far without question the safest form of transporting oil.

This is a tiny spill relative to the volume shipped safely every day and mitigating a 5000bbl spill is very managable. 1000 bathtubs of oil or enough oil to fill a CFL field about 10cm deep.

This leak was 14 minutes of through put.

When you mention 10 lives/year are saved, I think it is cherry picking statistics a little because it is very difficult to come up with a counter statistic for the human costs of oil spills.

It’s like saying nuclear power is safer than coal power because a 1000 coal miners die every year. That statistic sounds good, until you compare it to Chernobyl.

I do agree that safe pipelines are the most sensible way to go, I just think there needs to be improved measures to actually make pipelines safe.

[puckedoff]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

I do agree that safe pipelines are the most sensible way to go, I just think there needs to be improved measures to actually make pipelines safe.

Yeah this makes sense, I want the same standard applied to vehicles too. I know they are currently the best way to get around, but I think we should ban them until we can be sure there will be 0 accidents or fatalities per year.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by puckedoff

Yeah this makes sense, I want the same standard applied to vehicles too. I know they are currently the best way to get around, but I think we should ban them until we can be sure there will be 0 accidents or fatalities per year.

Wow that’s an extreme approach. I would just try to make improvements as new vehicles are manufactured, but to each their own I guess.

[OldDutch]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

When you mention 10 lives/year are saved, I think it is cherry picking statistics a little because it is very difficult to come up with a counter statistic for the human costs of oil spills.

It’s like saying nuclear power is safer than coal power because a 1000 coal miners die every year. That statistic sounds good, until you compare it to Chernobyl.

I do agree that safe pipelines are the most sensible way to go, I just think there needs to be improved measures to actually make pipelines safe.

..or like not building a pipeline, and having more oil shipped by rail and using Lac Megantic as a comparison?

[GGG]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

When you mention 10 lives/year are saved, I think it is cherry picking statistics a little because it is very difficult to come up with a counter statistic for the human costs of oil spills.

It’s like saying nuclear power is safer than coal power because a 1000 coal miners die every year. That statistic sounds good, until you compare it to Chernobyl.

I do agree that safe pipelines are the most sensible way to go, I just think there needs to be improved measures to actually make pipelines safe.

Well since pipelines reduce spillage over all and human exposur To emissions we should add that to the human life savings column. I suppose a water supply comprimising event line the Husky leak might due some damage but it's still no contest relative to trucking.

Actually if you compare the effects of Chernobyl on the whole to the thousands of lives shortened by coal mining I think nuclear power still comes out well ahead.

As for improved measures what you are seeing is it. This leak was caught quickly and will be remediated. The leak detection system appears to have worked. It leaked 1% of a days capacity that's a pretty good reaction time. Leaks due to filling and emptying trucks a trains are greater on an operational basis before you even factor in accidents

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by GGG

Well since pipelines reduce spillage over all and human exposure
To emissions we should add that to the human life savings column.

Actually if you compare the effects of Chernobyl on the whole to the thousands of lives shortened by coal mining I think nuclear power still comes out well ahead.

As for improved measures what you are seeing is it. This leak was caught quickly and will be remediated. The leak detection system appears to have worked. It leaked 1% of a days capacity that's a pretty good reaction time. Leaks due to filling and emptying trucks a trains are greater on an operational basis before you even factor in accidents

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”.

[Weitz]

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”.

The bolded is incorrect.

[peterh]

Though alarms sounded in Enbridge's Edmonton headquarters at the time of the rupture, it was eighteen hours before a Michigan utilities employee reported oil spilling and the pipeline company learned of the spill. Meanwhile, pipeline operators had thought the alarms were possibly caused by a bubble in the pipeline and, while for some time it was shut down, they also increased pressure for periods of hours to try to clear the possible blockage, spilling more oil.

Pretty bad operator failure here...