Keystone Pipeline

[Axulus]

This is what happens when pipeline transport is not an available option.

Nice chart, but some context would be useful.

Did these incidents involve oil which was previously transported by pipeline and if so, why was the transport switched to rail?

If these incidents are the result of increase volume, then isn't it incumbent upon the rail transporters to explain why they can't maintain the previously low level of incidents?


As it stands, your chart indicates not a nightmare scenario where pipelines are not available, but that something pretty drastic has changed in the previously safe rail transport industry.

It's volume driven:

The oil is primarily originating in the Bakken region (North Dakota and Montana) and Alberta oil producing regions. Alberta, North Dakota and Montana currently have limited pipeline access (North Dakota and Montana especially). This is what Keystone XL is about, providing additional pipeline capacity to Alberta oil producing region (the current pipelines are at full capacity), and giving the Bakken region a pipeline transport option.

 

[Ford]

It's volume driven:

The oil is primarily originating in the Bakken region (North Dakota) and Alberta oil producing regions. Alberta and North Dakota currently have limited pipeline access (North Dakota especially). This is what Keystone XL is about, providing additional pipeline capacity to Alberta oil producing region (the current pipelines are at full capacity), and giving North Dakota region a pipeline transport option.

So help me out here...


If the volume of rail transport has increased, and the incidents involving rail transport have increased accordingly, isn't that a failure of the rail transport system which needs to be addressed?

Because as your previous chart showed, incidents were low for the better part of a decade, then apparently increased as the volume did so. This means the rail infrastructure and safety protocols need to be looked at, not that rail transport should be necessarily abandoned.

 

[Axulus]

It's volume driven:

The oil is primarily originating in the Bakken region (North Dakota) and Alberta oil producing regions. Alberta and North Dakota currently have limited pipeline access (North Dakota especially). This is what Keystone XL is about, providing additional pipeline capacity to Alberta oil producing region (the current pipelines are at full capacity), and giving North Dakota region a pipeline transport option.

So help me out here...


If the volume of rail transport has increased, and the incidents involving rail transport have increased accordingly, isn't that a failure of the rail transport system which needs to be addressed?

Because as your previous chart showed, incidents were low for the better part of a decade, then apparently increased as the volume did so. This means the rail infrastructure and safety protocols need to be looked at, not that rail transport should be necessarily abandoned.

Read the top of the first chart: "Rail incidents involving crude oil"

The safety of rail transport hasn't changed, there have always been a small number of incidents that happen, including accidents and derailments. It's just that the use of rail transport for crude oil has gone up an astonishing 8,000%+ since 2006 due to the boom in oil production in the Bakken region, which has very limited pipeline access, making rail the only viable transport method for all this new oil being produced there.

This is also true to an extent for Alberta's oil producing regions, although it does currently have a pipeline option, that pipeline is already at full capacity. More capacity is needed, so, until Keystone XL or some alternative pipeline is built, the excess production there is also being transported by rail.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

So help me out here...


If the volume of rail transport has increased, and the incidents involving rail transport have increased accordingly, isn't that a failure of the rail transport system which needs to be addressed?

Because as your previous chart showed, incidents were low for the better part of a decade, then apparently increased as the volume did so. This means the rail infrastructure and safety protocols need to be looked at, not that rail transport should be necessarily abandoned.

Or ...

It means that rail isn't the safest mode of transit. There are risks to using it and the more you use it, the greater those risks are. Just like if you move it by trucks, a certain percentage of those trucks are going to have accidents. Saying "Well, people should just drive more carefully then" isn't much of a response to the risks of transporting stuff in trucks.

 

[Ford]

So help me out here...


If the volume of rail transport has increased, and the incidents involving rail transport have increased accordingly, isn't that a failure of the rail transport system which needs to be addressed?

Because as your previous chart showed, incidents were low for the better part of a decade, then apparently increased as the volume did so. This means the rail infrastructure and safety protocols need to be looked at, not that rail transport should be necessarily abandoned.

Or ...

It means that rail isn't the safest mode of transit. There are risks to using it and the more you use it, the greater those risks are. Just like if you move it by trucks, a certain percentage of those trucks are going to have accidents. Saying "Well, people should just drive more carefully then" isn't much of a response to the risks of transporting stuff in trucks.

Okay, so then the question becomes, is pipeline delivery completely safe? What are the corresponding risks of pipeline transportation, are those risks magnified by increased use of pipelines, and - all things being equal - is it demonstrably less risky to put the oil in a pipeline rather than a truck or rail car?

 

[laughing dog]

Yes, and I think we're all keen to avoid the train accident that wiped out Kansas.


Sorry, but this idea that the proponents of the Keystone project are doing it to prevent environmental disasters is just daft. Spills are the least of their concerns.

But we aren't talking about the proponents of the pipeline but rather the opponents, who supposedly have environmental issues at the top of their concern list. None doesn't seem to be a proponent and he specifically brought up environmental concerns.

The environmental issue is the possible effects on the Ogallala aquifer which supplies water to 1000s of people in that region. That concern is real and nontrivial.

 

[Axulus]

But we aren't talking about the proponents of the pipeline but rather the opponents, who supposedly have environmental issues at the top of their concern list. None doesn't seem to be a proponent and he specifically brought up environmental concerns.

The environmental issue is the possible effects on the Ogallala aquifer which supplies water to 1000s of people in that region. That concern is real and nontrivial.

The proposed pipeline corridor would cross the
Ogallala Aquifer for some 250 miles. To help put
this number in perspective, there are currently
15,000 miles of pipelines that already transport
more than 30 billion gallons of oil and hazardous
liquids safely across the Ogallala every year, of
which 21,000 miles cross through Nebraska itself
including almost 3,000 miles of hazardous liquid
pipelines. In addition, oil wells in Nebraska produce
over 6,000 barrels of oil right through the Ogallala
Aquifer every day.

...

Leaks from pipelines are rare and tend to be small. In addition, Keystone
XL Pipeline incorporates proven design features and construction methods,
as well as a state-of-the-art integrity management program. Overall, the
approach helps ensure Keystone XL operates safely in the area of the
Ogallala Aquifer. However, TransCanada also is prepared to respond to
limit any release from the pipeline and to clean-up if a leak were to occur
.
Upon detection of a leak, pumps would be immediately secured from
the Operations Control Center and valves would be closed to isolate the
affected section of pipe and to limit spill volumes. TransCanada personnel
would be mobilized to the spill site immediately to begin emergency
containment and begin clean-up. Additional actions would include the
notification to landowners and appropriate public agencies of potential
groundwater impacts. Even for a spill in the area of a shallow aquifer,
prompt clean-up would limit the ability of crude-oil contaminants to
dissolve in water.

https://keystone-xl.com/wp-content/...ne-safety-and-ogallala-aquifer-fact-sheet.pdf

So, what is being proposed is a 1.7% increase in the miles of pipeline across the Ogallala. There are sound safeguards in place and sound mitigation strategies. The safety of the Ogallala hasn't been compromised thus far. Why worry so much about a 1.7% increase using modern construction and engineering (read: safer)?

 

[NobleSavage]

Go ride a bike.

I do. Now we just need to convince everyone else.

 

[NobleSavage]

Don't accept rumors for face value. The facts are that it will help our refineries by giving them a new supply option, lower our reliance on Venezuelan and other US unfriendly sources of oil, coming from Canada instead, lower Canada's reliance on transporting the oil by train which is more costly and more dangerous/accident prone than modern pipes, provide a few long-term jobs (monitoring the pipeline, inspecting it, and the occasional maintenance), and a good number of short-term construction jobs.

People seem to forget or are ignorant (the president) that the oil has to be extracted from the sand. This requires dump trucks, bulldozers, backhoes, entire emulsion factories, snowplows, pickup trucks, housing, food...and on it goes. All these things create jobs in Canada and the US. Plus the jobs in the refineries and in both building ocean going tankers and sailing them. But then I suppose there will be jobs lost in the munitions factory...because there are no Ayatollahs to bomb in Alberta.

Yes, it's not just jobs of people working on the pipeline. I have a friend in Montana who is giddy about the the Canadian leg being finished. The business men there are preparing for it in 101 different ways that don't actually involve the pipeline.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Or ...

It means that rail isn't the safest mode of transit. There are risks to using it and the more you use it, the greater those risks are. Just like if you move it by trucks, a certain percentage of those trucks are going to have accidents. Saying "Well, people should just drive more carefully then" isn't much of a response to the risks of transporting stuff in trucks.

Okay, so then the question becomes, is pipeline delivery completely safe? What are the corresponding risks of pipeline transportation, are those risks magnified by increased use of pipelines, and - all things being equal - is it demonstrably less risky to put the oil in a pipeline rather than a truck or rail car?

Actually, that's been the question since the beginning. The oil is going to moved somehow, so what's the least risky way to move it?

Everything that's looked at the issue has found pipelines to be the least risky way to transport oil.

http://www.cbj.ca/study_shows_pipeline_oil_transport_poses_fewer_risks_than_rail_o/

 

[laughing dog]

The environmental issue is the possible effects on the Ogallala aquifer which supplies water to 1000s of people in that region. That concern is real and nontrivial.

The proposed pipeline corridor would cross the
Ogallala Aquifer for some 250 miles. To help put
this number in perspective, there are currently
15,000 miles of pipelines that already transport
more than 30 billion gallons of oil and hazardous
liquids safely across the Ogallala every year, of
which 21,000 miles cross through Nebraska itself
including almost 3,000 miles of hazardous liquid
pipelines. In addition, oil wells in Nebraska produce
over 6,000 barrels of oil right through the Ogallala
Aquifer every day.

...

Leaks from pipelines are rare and tend to be small. In addition, Keystone
XL Pipeline incorporates proven design features and construction methods,
as well as a state-of-the-art integrity management program. Overall, the
approach helps ensure Keystone XL operates safely in the area of the
Ogallala Aquifer. However, TransCanada also is prepared to respond to
limit any release from the pipeline and to clean-up if a leak were to occur
.
Upon detection of a leak, pumps would be immediately secured from
the Operations Control Center and valves would be closed to isolate the
affected section of pipe and to limit spill volumes. TransCanada personnel
would be mobilized to the spill site immediately to begin emergency
containment and begin clean-up. Additional actions would include the
notification to landowners and appropriate public agencies of potential
groundwater impacts. Even for a spill in the area of a shallow aquifer,
prompt clean-up would limit the ability of crude-oil contaminants to
dissolve in water.

https://keystone-xl.com/wp-content/...ne-safety-and-ogallala-aquifer-fact-sheet.pdf

So, what is being proposed is a 1.7% increase in the miles of pipeline across the Ogallala. There are sound safeguards in place and sound mitigation strategies. The safety of the Ogallala hasn't been compromised thus far. Why worry so much about a 1.7% increase using modern construction and engineering (read: safer)?

You are employing the fallacy of sunk costs. The people served by that aquifer have every right to be concerned about the security of their water quality from this increase in risk. Especially in the age of terrorism.

 

[KeepTalking]

This is what happens when pipeline transport is not an available option.

Let's contrast this with the number of pipeline incidents:

Note: though not noted on the graph itself, the data is from the same source as the previous graph (PHMSA Hazardous Materials Incident Database)

Pipeline incidents, while below the 20 year average in the same time frame as the rail incidents, are still significantly higher than rail incidents.

 

[Axulus]

This is what happens when pipeline transport is not an available option.

Let's contrast this with the number of pipeline incidents:

Note: though not noted on the graph itself, the data is from the same source as the previous graph (PHMSA Hazardous Materials Incident Database)

Pipeline incidents, while below the 20 year average in the same time frame as the rail incidents, are still significantly higher than rail incidents.

Far more oil is transported by pipeline than by rail. The relevant comparison is pipeline incidents vs. rail incidents per unit of volume. Tom Sawyer posted that data.

 

[KeepTalking]

Let's contrast this with the number of pipeline incidents:

Note: though not noted on the graph itself, the data is from the same source as the previous graph (PHMSA Hazardous Materials Incident Database)

Pipeline incidents, while below the 20 year average in the same time frame as the rail incidents, are still significantly higher than rail incidents.

Far more oil is transported by pipeline than by rail. The relevant comparison is pipeline incidents vs. rail incidents per unit of volume. Tom Sawyer posted that data.

Tom Sawyer posted the data for Canada, I believe the data source that our graphs relied upon is with regard to the US. Tom's link also has this to say:

“It’s not a completely simple comparison. When you have a pipeline spill the release volumes are higher than for a truck or train incident. But with road and rail you have risk of more incidents in more places, so the overall question of environmental protection becomes unclear.”

So while there may be fewer incidents per billion-ton miles in Canada, this may not necessarily be the case in the US (though it is a good indicator), and it certainly does not translate to the total volume of spills, which I think is the more relevant metric (and one that has not been analyzed in this thread).

 

[NobleSavage]

You are employing the fallacy of sunk costs. The people served by that aquifer have every right to be concerned about the security of their water quality from this increase in risk. Especially in the age of terrorism.

At some point you have to look at ALL the risks and start prioritizing. The people served by that aquifer are probably more likely to get killed driving to work. A terrorist could easily hijack a school bus full of kids. As long as these people can sue the shit out of someone I'm not going to be too worried. The can move. They can use Perrier to shower and flush their toilets.

 

[KeepTalking]

You are employing the fallacy of sunk costs. The people served by that aquifer have every right to be concerned about the security of their water quality from this increase in risk. Especially in the age of terrorism.

At some point you have to look at ALL the risks and start prioritizing. The people served by that aquifer are probably more likely to get killed driving to work. A terrorist could easily hijack a school bus full of kids. As long as these people can sue the shit out of someone I'm not going to be too worried. The can move. They can use Perrier to shower and flush their toilets.

Every person served by that aquifer are not likely to get killed in a single auto accident, however, it is increasingly likely every person served by that aquifer will lose access to clean water from that aquifer from a single spill as more pipelines are routed across it. How does that figure into your risk prioritization?

 

[Axulus]

At some point you have to look at ALL the risks and start prioritizing. The people served by that aquifer are probably more likely to get killed driving to work. A terrorist could easily hijack a school bus full of kids. As long as these people can sue the shit out of someone I'm not going to be too worried. The can move. They can use Perrier to shower and flush their toilets.

Every person served by that aquifer are not likely to get killed in a single auto accident, however, it is increasingly likely every person served by that aquifer will lose access to clean water from that aquifer from a single spill as more pipelines are routed across it. How does that figure into your risk prioritization?

Sorry, but no, a single spill doesn't contaminate the entire aquifer unless the spill is of epic proportions. Most spills are small and can be contained to a small area and subsequently cleaned up.

Posted previously:

Keystone
XL Pipeline incorporates proven design features and construction methods,
as well as a state-of-the-art integrity management program. Overall, the
approach helps ensure Keystone XL operates safely in the area of the
Ogallala Aquifer. However, TransCanada also is prepared to respond to
limit any release from the pipeline and to clean-up if a leak were to occur
.
Upon detection of a leak, pumps would be immediately secured from
the Operations Control Center and valves would be closed to isolate the
affected section of pipe and to limit spill volumes. TransCanada personnel
would be mobilized to the spill site immediately to begin emergency
containment and begin clean-up. Additional actions would include the
notification to landowners and appropriate public agencies of potential
groundwater impacts. Even for a spill in the area of a shallow aquifer,
prompt clean-up would limit the ability of crude-oil contaminants to
dissolve in water.

https://keystone-xl.com/wp-content/...ne-safety-and-ogallala-aquifer-fact-sheet.pdf

 

[KeepTalking]

Every person served by that aquifer are not likely to get killed in a single auto accident, however, it is increasingly likely every person served by that aquifer will lose access to clean water from that aquifer from a single spill as more pipelines are routed across it. How does that figure into your risk prioritization?

Sorry, but no, a single spill doesn't contaminate the entire aquifer unless the spill is of epic proportions. Most spills are small and can be contained to a small area and subsequently cleaned up.

How do you contain a spill that has leaked into an underground aquifer, and more importantly, how do you clean it up?

 

[Axulus]

Sorry, but no, a single spill doesn't contaminate the entire aquifer unless the spill is of epic proportions. Most spills are small and can be contained to a small area and subsequently cleaned up.

How do you contain a spill that has leaked into an underground aquifer, and more importantly, how do you clean it up?

The containment overview is discussed in the post edit. Here is one method to clean it up:

In 1998, persisting contamination prompted the pipeline company to install a dual-pump recovery system targeted at removing crude oil in the subsurface that was floating on and above the water table. Wells extending to 3 meters below the water table were installed and pumped to create a cone of depression on the water table that would collect and enable withdrawal of residual crude oil. Crude oil was removed from each well using a pneumatic skimmer pump. The scientists had the opportunity to evaluate the performance of the remediation. They estimated that the remediation, which extended from 1999 to 2003, resulted in removal of about 115,000 liters of crude oil, 36 to 41 percent of the volume of oil (280,000 to 316,000 liters) estimated to be present in 1998.

http://toxics.usgs.gov/highlights/2014-07-03-remediation_challenge.html

Also, don't forget that the oil tends to float on the surface of the water table. Clean water can be pumped from well below the surface while clean-up efforts are underway.

 

[KeepTalking]

How do you contain a spill that has leaked into an underground aquifer, and more importantly, how do you clean it up?

The containment overview is discussed in the post edit.

The containment overview seems to describe more how to contain the spill from entering the aquifer in the first place. Once it is in the aquifer I don't see how what they are proposing will keep it from spreading throughout the aquifer.

Here is one method to clean it up:

In 1998, persisting contamination prompted the pipeline company to install a dual-pump recovery system targeted at removing crude oil in the subsurface that was floating on and above the water table. Wells extending to 3 meters below the water table were installed and pumped to create a cone of depression on the water table that would collect and enable withdrawal of residual crude oil. Crude oil was removed from each well using a pneumatic skimmer pump. The scientists had the opportunity to evaluate the performance of the remediation. They estimated that the remediation, which extended from 1999 to 2003, resulted in removal of about 115,000 liters of crude oil, 36 to 41 percent of the volume of oil (280,000 to 316,000 liters) estimated to be present in 1998.

http://toxics.usgs.gov/highlights/2014-07-03-remediation_challenge.html

Oh great, so they can clean up 36-45% of it in 4 short years. Somehow I don't think that is going to be enough for those who rely upon that aquifer for clean water.

Also, don't forget that the oil tends to float on the surface of the water table. Clean water can be pumped from well below the surface while clean-up efforts are underway.

Tell that to the 10 million gallons of oil sitting on the bottom of the Gulf of Mexico:

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/missing-oil-from-2010-bp-spill-found-on-gulf-seafloor/

Also, isn't this tar sands oil supposed to be much heavier than your typical oil?