Skip to comments.Study Warns of Economic Damage in a Keystone Pipeline Spill (Must be BS)
Posted on 03/14/2012 12:24:59 PM PDT by Hojczyk
The institute, which advocates the creation of union jobs in renewable energy and analyzes sustainability issues, said that more than a million people work in agricultural or tourism jobs in the six states along Keystone XLs route and that the economic costs could be considerable if a major spill occurred.
The risks of an economically damaging accident are higher than those for conventional crude, the report said, because pipelines carrying oil sands crude are more prone to spills, an argument long made by opponents of the Keystone XL project.
The report cited a spill from an Enbridge Energy pipeline in July 2010 that dumped about 843,000 gallons of oil sands crude near Marshall, Mich., and has been especially difficult and expensive to clean.
Given where the pipeline is scheduled to go, its not inconceivable that a spill like the Enbridge pipeline spill could occur, said Sean Sweeney, the institutes director and a co-author of the study. And if it contaminated a major waterway in a remote area, it could take a long time to deal with.
TransCanada, whose application to build Keystone XL was rejected by President Obama in January, dismissed the report and cited an initial review by the State Department that found the pipeline would have little adverse environmental impact if operated properly.
(Excerpt) Read more at green.blogs.nytimes.com ...
More manufactured "news".
I live in Nebraska and one of the requirements that we had was the company buy a ONE BILLION dollar insurance policy to clean up any spills, they did.
Wikipedia cites 806 Enridge spills in a little over a decade. Sounds like really poor construction to me. I’ve been responsible for a small private water mutual for years, and we’ve had our share of breaks through the years. I we had proportionately as many breaks as Enridge, I’d be strongly looking at cheap and sloppy work from my installers. No excuse for that.
I defy anyone at the New York Times to
1) find Marshall, Michigan, and then
2) find the location of this 1 1/2 old oil spill that was so "difficult and expensive" to clean up.
There are a couple of refineries in Washington state. Just wondering why they don’t run the pipe line that way? It would also be a hell of a lot shorter. Anybody have any ideas on that?
I mean look at what happens every time there is a land-based pipeline spill- remember all those horror stories?
And do you recall all the tragic events that occurred with the Alaska pipeline?
We have thousands and thousands of miles of pipe lines in the USA and each time one spills it is like a horror movie!!
Neither do I
Compare the output of those refineries in Washington state with those in the Houston area and those in the Beaumont-Nederland-Port Arthur area.
“the economic costs could be considerable if a major spill occurred”
Yeah, well, that’s sorta the definition of “major.” In a related story from Tautological News: it would impose a considerable cost on myself if I were suddenly paralyzed by slipping in the shower
blah blah blah blah....the chattering class.....
Exactly. Pipelines are segmented and constantly monitored, and pumps and valves isolate a section that has any kind of anomaly automatically.
The Nebraska Sandhills are called that for a reason. Sand. Not water. Think about taking a gallon of crude oil and dumping it into a kids sandbox. How difficult would it be to remove the clumps of oily-sand, vs. dumping the same gallon of oil into a swimming pool?
This whole thing is idiotic, and political. Gov. Heineman got caught playing politics by giving a nod to the environmentalists and Obama and the Dems latched onto it.
There are 5 refineries in Washington running a total of 613,150 Barrels Per Day. All but ~10% of that oil is already supplied by North American sources, mostly Alaska. So they import from overseas ~60,000 BPD.
What would they do with another 710,000 BPD?
It would also be a hell of a lot shorter.
It would also cross the Rocky Mountains. You can cross a lot of miles of flat land for the cost of a mile through the Rocky Mountains.
The Gulf Coast area refineries import millions of barrels per day of oil from overseas. We could use the existing refineries, with the existing gasoline, diesel, etc distribution pipelines by just replacing some of the imported oil and extending one crude oil pipeline.
The only REAL DAMAGE is the BS coming out of Washington, DC and the Obama Administration! The country is in the ditch because Obama drove it there!
A spill doesn’t equal a break. A break is very rare.
If a worker unloading a pig (scrapper) from a receiver spills a pint of oil outside the containment, it is a reported spill.
Water spills don’t get reported like petroleum pipelines.
Working in the industry, including in Alaska, I do remember the overhyped media reports. They don't come back to report on them after the clean up.
Enbridge has 15,294 miles of pipeline and moves more than 2.2 million barrels per day of crude oil and liquids.
How many breaks on your system would be proportional comparison?
Do you know how many really fun conspiracy theories have been ruined by you and your actual facts?
Obviously I have no idea.
But thanks for playing.
At times, it feels like billions...
I learn a lot here. I try to share back.
I thought if you were responsible for it you might know the miles or the flow rates.
It would have been interesting for a scale comparison.
My perception, as being outside of the water pipeline work, that their regard to leaks is far less than the petroleum industry. But it is easy to think that from the outside looking in. Numbers would have been more reveling.
NY TIMES = ZERO CREDIBILITY
Right, as with BP in the Gulf, they are going to have to clean up and fully compensate for any damage. Seems to me the Alaskan pipeline has operated for a very long time with only relatively minor spills.
It’s a very small operation...only 30 shares. Sorry if I gave the impression that it was large. I’d guess that the miles of pipe are around ten or so.
But with thirty homes being without water it can turn into a pretty frustrating “big” deal at times.
And with Murphy’s law always functioning, it generally breaks on a Sunday afternoon or holiday, when people to help with it are unavailable.
So I’m just saying that having quality repairs every time becomes kind of a big issue for me.
Fair enough, lots of places depend upon a system like that.
But if we take 806*10/15,294 we get a comparable single leak per 20 years for your operation. To me that is a proportional comparison, ignoring the higher volumes and flow rates.
Would you say 1 leak per 20 miles per decade is a sign of poor construction, cheap and sloppy work from the installers?