SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Keystone Pipeline leaks 210,000 gallons of oil in South Dakota
Keystone Pipeline leaks 210,000 gallons of oil in South Dakota
"A total of 210,000 gallons of oil leaked Thursday (Nov 16, 2017) from the Keystone Pipeline in South Dakota, the pipeline's operator, TransCanada, said.
Crews shut down the pipeline Thursday morning, and officials are investigating the cause of the leak, which occurred about three miles southeast of the town of Amherst, said Brian Walsh, a spokesman for the state's Department of Environment and Natural Resources.
This is the largest Keystone oil spill to date in South Dakota, Walsh said. The leak comes just days before Nebraska officials announce a decision on whether the proposed Keystone XL Pipeline, a sister project, can move forward."
Keystone pipeline - major leak/spill
Elsewhere there are notes of smaller spills in the same pipeline--this AC submitter is wondering about the long term use of a pipeline that is leaking when it's nearly brand new. Doesn't sound good for the long term.
PBS has a followup article from today (Saturday), 'We need to know' more about Keystone oil pipeline leak, tribal chairman says
The leak comes as the debate over the proposed path of the Keystone XL pipeline rages on. Nebraska's Public Service Commission is scheduled to announce its decision Monday on whether to permit TransCanada to build Keystone XL along its proposed route in the state, the Omaha World-Herald reported. A spokeswoman for the commission told the AP that the board's members will only use information provided during public hearings and official public comments in order to make their decision.
Related:
US District Court: Approval of Dakota Access Pipeline Violated the Law
Dakota Access Pipeline Suffers Oil Leak Even Before Becoming Operational
Company Behind Dakota Access Oil Pipeline Sues Greenpeace
(Score: 5, Insightful) by edIII on Sunday November 19 2017, @07:04AM (4 children)
Accidents can be meticulously and thoroughly prepared for so that the consequences are mitigated as much as possible. When the consequences are really, seriously, tremendously fucking bad for us, we need to ask ourselves is it worth it? When we do that, we need to completely ignore the oil executives and investors that blindly say yes cuz the billions.
No, I don't have a problem with pipelines. As long as they're made safe, as long as their continually inspected, and as long as their maintained with government oversight. That little spill months back was at a pumping station that can handle it. The real catastrophe is when something happens in the middle of the piping in between pumping stations. You need irises and valves that can isolate that part of the line immediately so the whole volume of the pipe can't flow out. Ohhh, and it goes without saying, not violating any of our treaties. So the DAPL line is instantly disqualified, and the investors and everyone else can go fuck themselves. It's sovereign land, and it ain't ours. Fuck off.
You can also have a ditch below the pipe to at least divert the oil, and it can be made with dual pipes (one within another). If they actually used all the scientific instruments the way they could be, that would mean regular inspections of the line from within the pipe itself. As I stated before, the little trivial leak at the pumping station was no big deal, and a thousand gallons lost in an accident is capable of being handled. It's when you lose 210,000 fucking gallons into nature, or waterways, that it becomes an issue worth putting people in jail for and you might want to just shut the whole line down. It should've never happened if they were behaving, and if they were behaving and a major accident happened, then I'll agree it's an act of God and we can learn and move forward. Although, again, I'm not sure we're really weighing the risks to nature appropriately here.
It's not a technical issue why the lines shouldn't be allowed, it's a humanity issue. Specifically, that the oil executives and investors have none of it, and I think this is possible proof of that. At the very least I expect an investigation into the cause, and if negligence is found, then people need to "hang".
Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by sjames on Sunday November 19 2017, @08:08AM (3 children)
It's funny how the executives never find their own water supply or property threatened by a pipeline. I have to wonder how much more safety they would demand if they faced the danger.
(Score: 2) by HiThere on Sunday November 19 2017, @06:00PM (1 child)
Well, before the current route it was going to be routed through an area inconvenient for some city (forget which city and inconvenient in what way). That was the route the engineers thought best. It got rerouted through Indian lands. Possibly because the land would have been too expensive, but I don't think I ever knew exactly why.
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
(Score: 2) by frojack on Sunday November 26 2017, @02:28AM
You lie!
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday November 20 2017, @02:13AM
How would you know?
Let's also suppose that this pipeline is as threatening to water supplies as you think it is. Where should we route pipelines when we have the choice? High population density areas or low population density areas? Which areas are likely to generate higher risk?