Keystone Pipeline

[HuskerNation1]

One of the easiest and quickest items President Trump can pass is approval of the Keystone Pipeline. While I understand Obama wanted to cater to his Progressive environmental wing of the party, this is one of those issues he should have proceeded with.

 

http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/305631-mcconnell-asked-trump-to-approve-keystone-pipeline

 

[Moiraine]

Money isn't everything. There are important things, like having drinking water and growing food. And not being able to irrigate (i.e. grow food) is going to be pretty damn bad for the economy anyway. This is one of those things I hope to God I never have to say "I told you so" to anyone about.

 

University of Nebraska professor Dr. John Stansbury conducted an independent analysis that provides more detail on the potential risks for the Ogallala Aquifer.[80] In his analysis, Dr. Stansbury concludes that safety assessments provided by TransCanada are misleading. According to Dr. Stansbury, "We can expect no fewer than 2 major spills per state during the 50-year projected lifetime of the pipeline. These spills could release as much as 180 thousand barrels of oil each.

 

Other items of note in Dr. Stansbury's analysis:

"While TransCanada estimates that the Keystone XL will have 11 significant spills (more than 50 barrels of crude oil) over 50 years, a more realistic assessment is 91 significant spills over the pipeline’s operational lifetime. TransCanada arbitrarily and improperly adjusted spill factors to produce an estimate of one major spill on the 1,673 mi (2,692 km) of pipeline about every five years, but federal data on the actual incidence of spills on comparable pipelines indicate a more likely average of almost two major spills per year. (The existing Keystone I pipeline has had one major spill and 11 smaller spills in its first year of operation.)"

"Analysis of the time needed to shut down the pipeline shows that response to a leak at a river crossing could conservatively take more than ten times longer than the 11 minutes and 30 seconds that TransCanada assumes. (After the June 2010 spill of more than 800,000 US gallons (3,000,000 L) of crude oil into a tributary of the Kalamazoo River, an Enbridge tar sands pipeline – a 30-inch (760 mm) pipe compared to the 36-inch (910 mm) Keystone XL – was not completely shut down for 12 hours.)"

"Realistic calculations yield worst-case spill estimates of more than 180,000 barrels (7,600,000 US gal; 29,000,000 L) in the Nebraska Sandhills above the Ogallala Aquifer, more than 160,000 barrels (6,700,000 US gal; 25,000,000 L) of crude oil at the Yellowstone River crossings, more than 140,000 barrels (5,900,000 US gal; 22,000,000 L) at the Platte River crossing and more than 120,000 barrels (5,000,000 US gal; 19,000,000 L) at the Missouri River crossing."

"Contaminants from a release at the Missouri or Yellowstone River crossing would enter Lake Sakakawea in North Dakota where they would adversely affect drinking water intakes, aquatic wildlife, and recreation. Contaminants from a spill at the Platte River crossing would travel downstream unabated into the Missouri River for several hundred miles affecting drinking water intakes for hundreds of thousands of people (e.g., Lincoln, NE; Omaha, NE; Nebraska City, NE; St. Joseph, MO; Kansas City, MO) as well as aquatic habitats and recreational activities. In addition, other constituents from the spill would pose serious risks to humans and to aquatic species in the river."

"The worst-case site for such a spill is in the Sandhills region of Nebraska. The Sandhills are ancient sand dunes that have been stabilized by grasses. Because of their very permeable geology, nearly 100 percent of the annual rainfall infiltrates to a very shallow aquifer, often less than 20 feet below the surface. This aquifer is the well-known Ogallala Aquifer that is one of the most productive and important aquifers in the world."

 

The original Nebraska route would have run the pipeline through a region of erodible, grass-covered sand dunes known as the Sandhills. Heineman said in his letter that the new, 195-mile route through Nebraska avoids the Sandhills but would still cross over a small part of the aquifer.

 

Also, why did you choose to word it the way you did? "Obama wanted to cater to..." This was his last term. He didn't need to endear himself to anyone. He did it because he thought it was the right thing to do, and so do I.

The environment is probably my most important issue. Republicans seem to want the world to burn as long as it helps corporations. Even if climate change is all a lie, we're leaving the world in worse condition for our descendants. There are thousands of other things that we're doing to harm it.

[Stumpy1]

I have worked in the pipeline business for over 10 years and have witnessed more tanker truck spills and train wrecks then I have pipeline leaks.

 

According to Hazmat, who we work with, there is 10 tanker wrecks and a train wreck to every pipeline leak. Just to give you an idea on gallons. A tanker will haul anywhere from 7800 - 10,000 gallons depending on the product. A train that is fully loaded will carry an average of 250,000 gallons. It still doesn't make it okay but people tend to give pipelines a bad rap when in reality, it is the safest mode of transportation for petroleum products.

[Moiraine]

I have worked in the pipeline business for over 10 years and have witnessed more tanker truck spills and train wrecks then I have pipeline leaks.

 

According to Hazmat, who we work with, there is 10 tanker wrecks and a train wreck to every pipeline leak. Just to give you an idea on gallons. A tanker will haul anywhere from 7800 - 10,000 gallons depending on the product. A train that is fully loaded will carry an average of 250,000 gallons. It still doesn't make it okay but people tend to give pipelines a bad rap when in reality, it is the safest mode of transportation for petroleum products.

 

 

Thanks for the insight. There are a few things to keep in mind with that. Tankers and trains have a limited amount of oil in them (or a much more limited amount of oil than a pipeline). I don't have the data, but the number of spills isn't nearly as important as the amount of oil spilled and where it's spilled.

[HuskerNation1]

I have worked in the pipeline business for over 10 years and have witnessed more tanker truck spills and train wrecks then I have pipeline leaks.

 

According to Hazmat, who we work with, there is 10 tanker wrecks and a train wreck to every pipeline leak. Just to give you an idea on gallons. A tanker will haul anywhere from 7800 - 10,000 gallons depending on the product. A train that is fully loaded will carry an average of 250,000 gallons. It still doesn't make it okay but people tend to give pipelines a bad rap when in reality, it is the safest mode of transportation for petroleum products.

 

Great points Stumpy. There have been many studies on this initiative that show it will have little impact on the environment. Here is just one of those studies.

 

http://nbcpolitics.nbcnews.com/_news/2014/01/31/22524683-report-keystone-pipeline-would-have-minimal-environmental-impact?lite

[Scratchtown]

I voted for Trump but I am not a fan of this.

 

When that pipe starts to leak, the aquifer is in trouble. It's going to leak at some point. Isn't it?

[BIGREDIOWAN]

I voted for Trump but I am not a fan of this.

 

When that pipe starts to leak, the aquifer is in trouble. It's going to leak at some point. Isn't it?

My guess is that's a safe bet and yes?

[ZRod]

The pipeline does not benefit this country. It will make a hanful of jobs, but the oil is going overseas, and it's profits to Canada. What does it do for us other than occupy our land and create potential risks? Let it die. We have better areas of energy we could be focusing on.

[Stumpy1]

 

I have worked in the pipeline business for over 10 years and have witnessed more tanker truck spills and train wrecks then I have pipeline leaks.

 

According to Hazmat, who we work with, there is 10 tanker wrecks and a train wreck to every pipeline leak. Just to give you an idea on gallons. A tanker will haul anywhere from 7800 - 10,000 gallons depending on the product. A train that is fully loaded will carry an average of 250,000 gallons. It still doesn't make it okay but people tend to give pipelines a bad rap when in reality, it is the safest mode of transportation for petroleum products.

 

 

Thanks for the insight. There are a few things to keep in mind with that. Tankers and trains have a limited amount of oil in them (or a much more limited amount of oil than a pipeline). I don't have the data, but the number of spills isn't nearly as important as the amount of oil spilled and where it's spilled.

 

The largest pipeline we have is 16" and it can exceed flowrates of 5,000 barrels/hr, that is 210,000 gallons/hr. Our average shutdown time on a possible leak is 7 mins. We would lose on average 24,500 gallons in that time period. It is a far cry from what is lost in tanker and train wrecks.

 

When Keystone says that they can have the line shutdown in 11 mins, that is probably correct. Every pipeline is required to run spill drills quarterly and it is simulated like a real leak. Government agencies are also apart of these drills and assist on anything that needs adjusted.

[Stumpy1]

The pipeline does not benefit this country. It will make a hanful of jobs, but the oil is going overseas, and it's profits to Canada. What does it do for us other than occupy our land and create potential risks? Let it die. We have better areas of energy we could be focusing on.

It profits the companies that are buying the oil, such as Exxon Mobile, Phillips, Chevron, Growmark, Valero and any other big refining company. These are the companies that are pushing for it and would benefit from it. A lot of it has to do with the ban being lifted on exported crude oils.

 

A majority of pipeline companies do not own the product that they are pumping or storing. The product is owned by the suppliers, named above, and they are the ones that determine where they want the product to go and how much of it goes.

[zoogs]

I have no opinion or knowledge on this atm. It's a good discussion here, though -- GJ, guys. Interesting stuff.

[Bigred_inSD]

Today is supposed to be a "No DAPL day of action" I believe numerous cities are having them. There will be one in Rapid. If we stream it live on Facebook for my work take pity on us as we try to keep up on the comments with cussing/racists remarks. I'm taking bets on " I would go but I have a job" being a popular saying

[BigRedBuster]

The pipeline does not benefit this country. It will make a hanful of jobs, but the oil is going overseas, and it's profits to Canada. What does it do for us other than occupy our land and create potential risks? Let it die. We have better areas of energy we could be focusing on.

Bingo.

 

I find it interesting that conservatives rant on about government taking land/property from individual owners without their consent. They typically don't like government forcing their will on individual local people who oppose it.

 

So....here we have a foreign country (Canada) that needs to get their oil to the coast so it can be refined and most of it shipped somewhere else. The oil companies are trying to get the government to force the issue of putting this pipeline across individual property owners land that don't want it.

 

This pipeline does not benefit the land owner one bit. In fact, it greatly hinders his use of the land. Once the pipeline is built, there are very few jobs in each state where it passes.

 

However, if and when it does leak, these landowners and local communities are the ones left with the mess.

 

If this oil really is for use in the US, then expand or build a new refinery in North Dakota and distribute it from there to the northern part of the US. Why don't they want to do that? Because then it can't be shipped somewhere else.

 

This pipeline is a complete load of BS for the US and the state of Nebraska.

[FrankWheeler]

Alabama has had problems with a pipeline recently that has impacted gas in Tennessee where I live. Two times in the past few months. The first time it leaked 336,000 gallons and was shut down for 12 days. The second time it was shut down for 6 days after an explosion killed 1 and injured 5 others. I couldn't find how much was leaked during the explosion, but I came across this interesting wikipedia page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_pipeline_accidents_in_the_United_States_in_the_21st_century#2016

 

(Is wikipedia 'leftist' media?)

[Bigred_inSD]

Alabama has had problems with a pipeline recently that has impacted gas in Tennessee where I live. Two times in the past few months. The first time it leaked 336,000 gallons and was shut down for 12 days. The second time it was shut down for 6 days after an explosion killed 1 and injured 5 others. I couldn't find how much was leaked during the explosion, but I came across this interesting wikipedia page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_pipeline_accidents_in_the_United_States_in_the_21st_century#2016

 

(Is wikipedia 'leftist' media?)

Its "leftist" if the headline isn't written in click bait fashion, end with a .co and not .com or use a z to spell newz.