7
7
0
From the TOLD-YA-SO Department: Thousands of protesters fought against Keystone and were ignored (or worse)... Drone footage captures extent of catastrophic Keystone oil leak...
Dramatic drone footage shows US oil leak
Posted from bbc.co.uk
Oil
Drones
Protest
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 6
4
4
0
I do not know what the Canadian requirement is for a pipeline system. But 5000 barrels lost sounds about right. 5000 barrels is probably the volume within the pipeline between pumping emergency shut down valves. So the system most likely worked as designed. I don't care to go into all the mechanics of it, but will if you want. It is part of my training as a firefighter.
In the US, in the event of an unscheduled drop in pressure on a pipeline, each pumping station has multiple systems that 1) Shut down the pumps. 2) Close emergency shutoffs on either side of a leak. 3) Notifies personnel at the manned pumping stations on either side of the leak. 4) Notifies personnel at regional pumping control centers and national offices of the companies involved 5) Notifies the EPA watch desk.
That pipeline cannot be put back into operation until triple redundant automatic shut offs at the pumping station on each side of the leak have been reset, triple redundant automatic remote shut offs at the regional pumping control center have been reset, the corporate offices have reported to the EPA watch desk and the EPA watch desk has assessed the damage, inspected repairs and given permission to recharge the line. That process normally takes weeks, possibly months. There are both criminal and civil liabilities for individuals, and entities involved in non-compliance.
In comparison with other methods of transportation; maritime shipping, rail, and over the road tankers; Pipelines carry 1000's of times more oil per barrel of spill than the other methods, for tiny fractions of the cost per barrel. Maritime spills are orders of magnitude harder and more expensive to clean up per barrel spilled. Rail while the second least expensive means of overland transport, is more likely to have a spill in populated areas (the sight of most derailments) and over the road tankers are the most are far more likely to produce human casualties.
Either the journalist writing the article hasn't done their research, or the is counting on the general public's level of knowledge about transportation safety. Ask yourself why...?
So you tell me... How should we transport petroleum products? I'll be honest I am perfectly willing to go back to an America that existed prior to the internal combustion engine. My family and I will do well on our farms. How will suburbanites and urbanites do? Not very well, but most will probably die or be too weak to fight before than can get to my farm to try to pillage for food. (Just felt like throwing a little melodrama in at the end.)
In the US, in the event of an unscheduled drop in pressure on a pipeline, each pumping station has multiple systems that 1) Shut down the pumps. 2) Close emergency shutoffs on either side of a leak. 3) Notifies personnel at the manned pumping stations on either side of the leak. 4) Notifies personnel at regional pumping control centers and national offices of the companies involved 5) Notifies the EPA watch desk.
That pipeline cannot be put back into operation until triple redundant automatic shut offs at the pumping station on each side of the leak have been reset, triple redundant automatic remote shut offs at the regional pumping control center have been reset, the corporate offices have reported to the EPA watch desk and the EPA watch desk has assessed the damage, inspected repairs and given permission to recharge the line. That process normally takes weeks, possibly months. There are both criminal and civil liabilities for individuals, and entities involved in non-compliance.
In comparison with other methods of transportation; maritime shipping, rail, and over the road tankers; Pipelines carry 1000's of times more oil per barrel of spill than the other methods, for tiny fractions of the cost per barrel. Maritime spills are orders of magnitude harder and more expensive to clean up per barrel spilled. Rail while the second least expensive means of overland transport, is more likely to have a spill in populated areas (the sight of most derailments) and over the road tankers are the most are far more likely to produce human casualties.
Either the journalist writing the article hasn't done their research, or the is counting on the general public's level of knowledge about transportation safety. Ask yourself why...?
So you tell me... How should we transport petroleum products? I'll be honest I am perfectly willing to go back to an America that existed prior to the internal combustion engine. My family and I will do well on our farms. How will suburbanites and urbanites do? Not very well, but most will probably die or be too weak to fight before than can get to my farm to try to pillage for food. (Just felt like throwing a little melodrama in at the end.)
(4)
(0)
LT Brad McInnis
It is the same type of math when I was Chief Engineer on a ship. How much fluid was left in the pipe after the safety valves were closed? If it is more than expected, then I have a problem. Sounds like this worked as designed. Certain groups want everything to work 100% correct all of the time... not the way it works in real life, which is why we have safety procedures. In the big picture, 5000BBLs is not a lot compared to the amount that they carry. Thanks for the great explanation Maj John Bell !
(3)
(0)
3
3
0
Looks terrible. It is always a shame. But this leak (5,000 barrels) is tiny compared to a large oil tanker ship leak (1989 Exxon Valdez: 262,000 barrels) or an offshore platform leak (2010 Deepwater Horizon: 4,900,000 barrels). If we care about the environment, we should continue trying to minimize oil leaks and use the safest, most reliable means to transport oil. We know what the answer is. Pipelines are the safest, most reliable means.
(3)
(0)
Maj John Bell
MAJ Bryan Zeski -
Please allow me to engage in the same level of unsubstantiated speculation:
1) We are still probably decades away from the majority of our energy needs being met by anything other than fossil fuels. Market forces still demand fossil fuels and pound for pound, they carry more useable energy than any the other methods to which you allude.
2) There has not been a lack of research in alternative energy sources, in fact petroleum companies are the largest investors in alternative energy sources and have been since the 1950's. Some current technologies are well-past the point of diminishing return on investment, and until some as yet undiscovered, undreamt of technologies come into play, no further advances will be possible. propeller theory, chemical battery energy storage, fission and fusion theory, come to mind immediately.
3) There is NO alternative energy source that comes free of environmental impact. There is substantial reason to believe that many of those energy sources will have environmental impacts we haven't even thought about yet.
4) Petroleum companies provide far more than fossil fuels. There is probably no product that reaches your home for use, that is not made possible, less expensive, more durab, by petroleum. I am sorry but the petroleum companies are THE GOOD GUYS.
Please allow me to engage in the same level of unsubstantiated speculation:
1) We are still probably decades away from the majority of our energy needs being met by anything other than fossil fuels. Market forces still demand fossil fuels and pound for pound, they carry more useable energy than any the other methods to which you allude.
2) There has not been a lack of research in alternative energy sources, in fact petroleum companies are the largest investors in alternative energy sources and have been since the 1950's. Some current technologies are well-past the point of diminishing return on investment, and until some as yet undiscovered, undreamt of technologies come into play, no further advances will be possible. propeller theory, chemical battery energy storage, fission and fusion theory, come to mind immediately.
3) There is NO alternative energy source that comes free of environmental impact. There is substantial reason to believe that many of those energy sources will have environmental impacts we haven't even thought about yet.
4) Petroleum companies provide far more than fossil fuels. There is probably no product that reaches your home for use, that is not made possible, less expensive, more durab, by petroleum. I am sorry but the petroleum companies are THE GOOD GUYS.
(2)
(0)
SSgt Christopher Brose
MAJ Bryan Zeski - It's all about energy density. Nuclear power is at the top of the pyramid. Way below that are fossil fuels. Way below those is everything else.
(0)
(0)
MAJ Bryan Zeski
SSgt Christopher Brose - Other nations are already capable of producing all of their needed power for multiple days on renewable resources. I get that we currently have a need for fossil fuels. I also understand that we have the capability of weening ourselves off of fossil fuels if we choose to.
I'm all for nuclear power as well.
I'm all for nuclear power as well.
(1)
(0)
SSgt Christopher Brose
MAJ Bryan Zeski - I disagree with you about the feasibility of green or renewable energy sources. They will always only be bit players in the energy market, again because of the low energy density. They wouldn't even be as far as they are now without huge subsidies -- if they were forced to compete in an open market with fossil fuels, they'd never be anything more than an oddity or a luxury. Also, with regards to wind and solar power, you have to ask yourself not only how many birds are you comfortable killing, but how many species of birds you are comfortable with becoming extinct.
We should be building nuclear powerplants like it's cool.
We should be building nuclear powerplants like it's cool.
(0)
(0)
1
1
0
Authorities are still investigating the possibility of sabotage.
(1)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google