Study Warns of Economic Damage in a Keystone Pipeline Spill (Must be BS)

New York Times ^ | March 14, 2012 | DAN FROSCH

[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 XL’s 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, it’s not inconceivable that a spill like the Enbridge pipeline spill could occur,” said Sean Sweeney, the institute’s 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.

[thackney]

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.

Cheers

[spawn44]

NY TIMES = ZERO CREDIBILITY

[Williams]

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.

[EggsAckley]

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.

[hinckley buzzard]

The reason they could buy that insurance was that they knew your own Nebraska hydrogeologists had determined the XL pipeline to be essentially risk free.

[thackney]

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.

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?