Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by mrpg on Sunday November 19 2017, @04:25AM   Printer-friendly
from the color-me-oil dept.

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


Original Submission #1Original Submission #2

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 5, Informative) by Arik on Sunday November 19 2017, @06:20AM (1 child)

    by Arik (4543) on Sunday November 19 2017, @06:20AM (#598858) Journal
    "But chances are it forces a review of all the weld x-ray images. And that might turn up other suspect joints.
      Baring a leak, there's no reason to do this kind of a review."

    Huh?

    Granted I've never worked on a pipeline, but I'd expect higher standards there not lower. The practice I've seen and would expect is that x-rays are reviewed before the weld is considered to have passed inspection, not that it gets filed without anyone looking at it. That sounds like a massive, systematic failure at QA.
    --
    If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +3  
       Insightful=1, Informative=2, Total=3
    Extra 'Informative' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   5  
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 20 2017, @03:24PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 20 2017, @03:24PM (#599258)

    I believe he is rationalizing the sin, due to the sin of neglect being the most convenient and profitable outcome for those responsible, considering the facts.

    remember, those in charge of the pipeline place no value on the land the pipe goes through. that's someone else's problem and valuation, and the laywers already know how to tie up small claims like this forever. someone might get a pay out somewhere, but that's just to keep the PR from going entirely negative. mostly negative is OK.