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This discussion has been archived.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: 2) by drussell on Tuesday November 21 2017, @10:48AM

    by drussell (2678) on Tuesday November 21 2017, @10:48AM (#599606) Journal

    Having physically seen both, yeah, there is a pretty big difference. Regular oil is a lot more easier and safer to transport, in particular because tar sands actually contain sand. It's fucking abrasive as hell to the pipes. At least more so than regular oil, making tar sands pipelines inherently more dangerous. Yet, I'm still not against it if the proper measures are taken, and triple that at waterway crossings or anyplace it traverses groundwater too close to the surface.

    That mostly applies to stuff moving around right near the mines, getting it to the upgrader, etc. You do realize we don't ship the actual sandy goo over long distances, right? That isn't what spilled out of the Keystone Pipeline. It only has any significant sand and crap in it at the first stages of production. The goo is extracted and via various different possible processes is turned into what is called "synthetic crude" so it is still "heavy" in oil parlance, but it isn't like asphalt anymore...

    Tar sand spills prove even more toxic and difficult to clean up than typical oil spills. That’s because the heavy mixture of oil sand sinks in water, which means that tactics like skimming the surface can’t be used. ...

    Yeah, but that isn't what spilled! That applies mostly to the original goo that is processed here in Alberta, not the synthetic crude we ship out for further processing and refining. Sure, it has some nasty hydrocarbon fractions in it but so does other crude. As long as you keep it out of waterways and clean up anything else that ends up back on the ground it's not nearly as nasty as the zealots would have you believe.

    I can see your point about land, but you need to remember that it has been modified. That shit don't flow through a pipe, unless you make enough into a liquid to flow under pressure. So when the pipe breaks, it isn't natural bitumen finding a new place in nature with human assisted migration. It's what bitumen becomes after the process to prep it for shipping via pipeline.

    Crude of any type has all sorts of nasties in it. Cracking some long hydrocarbon chains or adding a bunch of lighter ones doesn't in and of itself make it any worse than some of the random blends that come out of some traditional wells. That's why we no longer dump any of them it into streams and rivers (like the early refiners in the US did with the "waste" gasoline, for example) and clean it up if it ends up in the soil. I'd be much more worried about the consequences of fracking mixing everything up in the geology than extracting some of the goo from the oilsands.

    Moreover, why do we need to ship this shit thousands of miles again? Canada isn't land locked or some shit. They could make it traverse their entire country to the Atlantic, or even better, perform the refining locally. After processing into regular product they could ship that far more safely.

    Yes, we could sell it abroad, however, it makes far more sense to send it safely through a pipe to the US for use instead of the US importing oil from abroad too. Shipping large quantities of crude by sea is really one of the worst ideas, IMHO.

    Only reason why we are taking the risks are the monetary rewards for the few.

    So, you don't ever use any oil or oil-related products? Kudos!

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2