11 ms·
Keystone pipeline shut after spilling 1.4M litres of oil in North Dakota
- cascom 7y agoPretty unacceptable - in context this is 10-12 average swimming pools or ~8,800 bbls which I suppose is much less dramatic than 1.4m l.
- triceratops 7y ago"Pretty unacceptable" is how I'd describe the spill. 8800 bbls is 3.4% of what was spilled in the Exxon Valdez accident[1]. This is in addition to the 1.07m liters in 2017, which the article also mentions.[2] So the pipeline has already spilled equivalent to about 6.5% of one of the worst human-caused ecological disasters ever. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exxon_Valdez_oil_spill https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exxon_Valdez_oil_spill 2. https://www.cbc.ca/news/business/keystone-spils-over-1-million-litres-oil-north-dakota-1.5343509 https://www.cbc.ca/news/business/keystone-spils-over-1-milli...
- lettergram 7y agoI believe the fact I’m this is on land may make it dramatically less impactful though.
- hinkley 7y agoIt’s in land that feeds one of the largest watersheds in the US, and an important aquifer: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ogallala_Aquifer https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ogallala_Aquifer This is why people protested so hard. Not some vague Luddite treehugger ideal. Not even global warming although that was a distant second. But because this was a really fucking stupid place to have an oil spill. Let alone two. And of course there will be more.
- ryanlol 7y agoIt seems worth noting that this particular spill is clearly not in the area you're describing. The title states North Dakota, where this Aquifer is not. lettergram is most likely correct.
- masonic 7y agoNone of the Ogallaga Aquifer is in North Dakota, where this spill is.
- hinkley 7y agoIs there something about the pipeline, the maintenance crews, safety practices, government oversight and corporate policies, that makes North Dakota a special place where all of the problems will occur? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keystone_Pipeline https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keystone_Pipeline Where does the existing pipeline go? Where does the proposed one go?
- wahern 7y agoThat area seems closest to the Northern Great Plains aquifer system, but not actually in it: https://pubs.usgs.gov/ha/ha730/ch_i/gif/I049.GIF https://pubs.usgs.gov/ha/ha730/ch_i/gif/I049.GIF And the area seems to be part of the Hudson Bay watershed: https://www.environment.fhwa.dot.gov/Pubs_resources_tools/resources/eei_awards/2011nd.aspx https://www.environment.fhwa.dot.gov/Pubs_resources_tools/re... So it doesn't seem that even the runoff would threaten any American aquifers.
- Reason077 7y agoIn terms of volume spilled, the Deepwater Horizon spill was much larger than the Exxon Valdez: 4.9m bbls (579,000 metric tons) vs 290,000 bbls (31,000 metric tons).
- black_puppydog 7y agoYeah, it could be much worse. That's a shit defense line though.
- SlowRobotAhead 7y agoFor those interested in the math; it leaked about 1.5% of one day’s total transfer.
- NullPrefix 7y agoIn other words, nothing too worry about. Just a few drippings from loose couplings. Production continues as usual.
- Erlich_Bachman 7y agoI hope you are sarcastic.
- dade_ 7y agoThe percentage is rather meaningless without a clue as to how much the daily transfer is and the time-frame is completely arbitrary. You have easily picked 100% of 21.6 minutes of transfer, by the week or by the decade. Leaks used to be reported in barrels, but the numbers aren't nearly as dramatic. I assume the media learned that headlines with 'millions of litres' get far more clicks.
- lazyjones 7y agoIt's 300,000 gallons or 8806 barrels of oil, which makes it smaller than the October 3 accident in Texas nobody here was interested in: https://www.ksstradio.com/2019/10/hopkins-county-diesel-spill-in-miller-grove-2/ https://www.ksstradio.com/2019/10/hopkins-county-diesel-spil...
- swampthinker 7y agoThe same pipeline that the Native Americans protested, some of which are still in prison.
- ZeroGravitas 7y agoI believe this is actually a different pipeline (not XL) but this pipeline's issues gave good solid reasons for protesting the other.
- ALittleLight 7y agoDon't you have to factor in the expected oil spill for alternative oil transfer mechanisms to know if this is a good reason or not?
- NullPrefix 7y agoEnergy delivery over wires, if buried underground, mitigates this issue. Deprecating transportation dependency on oil safeguards against these environmentally devastating spills.
- manigandham 7y agoOil is used for a lot more than transportation, even if it was all switched over to electric. The only other viable oil transfer over land is rail or trucking, both of which cost much more, pollute more, and have even higher risks of spills and accidents.
- Retric 7y agoYou don’t need to transport crude oil over these distances. A refinery near the source would significantly reduce the risks associated with these transports.
- manigandham 7y ago
- londons_explore 7y agoWhat is the likely cause of this leak? Someone cutting a hole in the pipe to steal oil? Structural supports of the pipe failing and the pipe cracking?
- dade_ 7y agoUsually age and inadequate maintenance, but I expect TC is within regulatory requirements. Usually Enbridge is making headlines with pipeline leaks. There are very reliable testing methods that require shutting down the pipeline, and I understand there are some technologies available too, but both are 'too expensive'. The position of petroleum producers is that the existing regulations are already too strict and burdensome to justify the capital cost and risk of building new pipelines. They aren't doing themselves any favors and may need to get used to lower margin business. To me, the growing demand for petrol, the age of the existing pipelines, the relaxed regulation, low popularity of new pipelines, and the relatively low margins in the current market are a recipe for disaster. Populism is only making it worse (drill baby drill vs shut down all the pipelines), such stupidity makes my head hurt.
- jammygit 7y agoThey won’t get their new pipelines at all if they keep getting spills in the news
- brian-armstrong 7y agoThat's a lot of damage!
- mcthrowaway123z 7y agoI'm glad my country could externalize this cost for you. I'd like to thank the leaders I elected for selling me out to your shareholders.
- Claudus 7y agoFor people who oppose pipelines, what is the safer alternative for transporting oil?
- black_puppydog 7y agoFor one: not transport oil. Use oil (and other fossil fuels) if and only if there is no way to use something else. Or: change the system that builds these pipelines so the incentives of the entity/entities building and maintaining it have "safety of environment" as a clear and unambiguous incentive.
- ethbro 7y ago> have "safety of environment" as a clear and unambiguous incentive That's non-trivial to do in practice. It's already incentivized, via inspections and fines. What you're presumably talking about is prioritizing it above other incentives. Which gets into how much risk is acceptable and how much risk mitigation is reasonable to pay for. Hint: never enough that risk approaches zero. I absolutely think fines (and especially inspections, or likelihood of catching violations) should be increased, but the world economy is still transitioning off oil. It's easy to forget that we can absolutely put such a premium on risk that energy prices spike, that suppresses downstream consumers and economic activity, that causes worse outcomes. IMHO, accelerating the shift to clean renewables, while simultaneously continuing to raise fines and regulation on oil pipelines as the actual energy mix shifts is the optimal choice.
- noja 7y agoNobody could have foreseen this.
- einpoklum 7y agoThat's right, nobody except everybody...
- specialist 7y agoAh, the Condoleezza Rice Defense. (PS- I know you're being sarcastic. Just naming the tactic. Mostly out of anger.)
- dboreham 7y agoI have relatives who live very close to this pipe spill. That these pipes leak was well known to everyone locally back when it was laid.
- mac01021 7y agoAnd no lawsuit emerged from that knowledge?
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- RaiseProfits 7y agoWe should imprison Obama or give up.
- Donwangugi 7y agoDfr
- lazyjones 7y agoSome perspective: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_pipeline_accidents_in_the_United_States_in_2019 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_pipeline_accidents_in_... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_pipeline_accidents_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_pipeline_accidents_in_... I'm not sure why this appears to be interesting for HN. Are there obvious problems/possible improvements with the way pipelines are currently built, or does it cater to general anti-oil sentiments (= political)?
- armSixtyFour 7y agoBecause Keystone is in the name, and the keystone XL pipeline has been on Canadians, and Americans minds for about a decade now, that's the only reason this is getting attention right now. the proponents for pipelines will see this as a reason to finish Keystone because they believe that it will be safer. Others will argue that a larger, newer one will only increase the risks of a larger spill. It's been a big talking point in Canada more recently with the Trans mountain pipeline as well.
- einpoklum 7y agoWhy don't these pipelines run in wider-pipes, which are typically unused, so that spillage from the inner pipe doesn't immediately leek into the soil? Or some other technical solution? (Yes, I know the answer: It would cost more and oil execs and investors never go to jail for polluting.)
- sandworm101 7y agoThat would be very hard to engineer. (1)Pipes change size with heat. Getting the external empty pipe to reliably keep position over the smaller pipe would be tricky. (2) pipe inspections have to happen. In burried sections this may be a non-issue but wrapping all the valves and above-ground facilities in layers would make inspection problematic. (3) the volume and speed of material in pipes is immense. The void space between pipe layers would have to run continuously for the length of the pipe. Any blockage or constriction would produce a water hammer effect, turning one leak into many. A cracked pipe is bad, but a double-layered pipe exploding because of a crack miles upstream is horrible. What fills this void space? Air? Air plus hydrocarbon in an enclosed/hot environment?
- blattimwind 7y ago> (1)Pipes change size with heat. Getting the external empty pipe to reliably keep position over the smaller pipe would be tricky. It's not like this space has to be particularly small. Double walled pipes are relatively common in many forms. Long-distance heating uses double walled stainless steel piping with insulation between the walls. HV systems sometimes use double walled conduits to have a second layer for the insulating gas (e.g. SF6) in case the inner layer leaks. Double walled pipes are used for lines containing especially hazardous materials. The inter-wall space is often monitored for ingress of "stuff", triggering a controlled shutdown if it is flooded. > In burried sections this may be a non-issue but wrapping all the valves and above-ground facilities in layers would make inspection problematic. This is about risk mitigation, so total mitigation is not required. Protecting, say, 80-90 % of a pipeline would reduce spill risk a lot. Also, the facilities you mention may be suitable to other forms of mitigation (e.g. walls, flood basins). > That would be very hard to engineer. I don't think engineering is the real problem here. Cost and incentives are.
- liotier 7y ago< Applying extreme self-control to keep myself within HN's rules by not quoting "The Front Fell Off" >
- dekken_ 7y agoAs long as it's taken outside the environment.
- Jemm 7y agoShocker. No really ally, a shocker that an oil pipeline would fal and cause horrific pollution. No one could have foreseen this as a result. All hail he magnanimous and great corporation.
- hervature 7y agoI don't understand this statement. You think the corporation wanted to lose 1.4M L of oil? The alternative is this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lac-M%C3%A9gantic_rail_disaster#The_route https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lac-M%C3%A9gantic_rail_disaste... which was 7M L and dozens of deaths.
- shkkmo 7y agoYou mean where people KNEW that kind of a car was a risk and tried to get it removed from use but oil and rail companies valued their profits for than safety? From your link: > Even before the Lac-Mégantic accident, attempts were made to require redesign or replacement of existing cars in the U.S.; these were delayed amidst fierce lobbying from rail and petroleum industry groups concerned about the cost. I don't see why we should be forced to accept this risk when the companies that profit off this risk won't pay to do it responsibly?
- hervature 7y agoShould car companies stop making cars because they profit off of the death of 35,000 people per year in the US? As a cyclist, I don't see why I should be forced to accept the risk of cars when the companies that profit off this risk won't pay for separate bike lanes. Everything in life has risk/reward. What is the alternative that is a more palatable risk/reward?
- shkkmo 7y agoI think there is something to the idea that car manufactures should bear some of the cost of the risks associated with the vehicles they sell. When they bear less of the risks to pedestrians, cyclists and the environment, they don't do anything to minimize those risks and even do things to accentuate those risks when doing so will increase their profits.
- wyxuan 7y agoThis one will probably take longer to reissue because it is both underground and in a sensitive natural area
- woodpanel 7y ago1.4M literes = 1400 m^3 = a square the length of 12 meters?
- gatherhunterer 7y agoI’m sure the EPA, which is run by a man who was previously a lobbyist for oil companies, will handle this without a hint of corporate bias.
- eloff 7y agoFor those opposing pipelines, you're fighting the wrong battle. It will just go onto trains and trucks which burn oil to move oil, and are much less safe. Some would argue we shouldn't be using oil in the first place now that we know the true cost. And those people are right. But when it comes to disincentivizing oil, I'd much rather see the externalities priced into fossil fuels through carbon taxes, ramped up incrementally over ten years. Let the market work its magic once the true cost is accounted for. People will switch so fast to greener alternatives it will make your head spin.
- gregable 7y agoAgreed, but keep in mind that shipping via vehicles raises the cost which potentially lowers consumption and or production. Nothing inconsistent about both fighting for a tax and fighting to keep costs higher at the same time given uncertainty about the success of a tax.
- manigandham 7y agoUsing vehicles is also much more risky. They've done studies before and accidents like the Lac Megantic disaster that blew up a town show that pipelines are safer compared to alternatives. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lac-M%C3%A9gantic_rail_disaster https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lac-M%C3%A9gantic_rail_disaste...
- Someone 7y ago”It will just go onto trains and trucks which burn oil to move oil” “burn _more_ oil”. It also takes energy to move oil through pipelines, but given that we want to move lots and lots of oil between two fixed locations, building a pipeline and pumping the oil through it is cheaper than building rail tracks or roads and using trains or trucks (I would hope and expect it also uses less energy, but that isn’t necessarily true; having to pay train/truck drivers may be the deciding factor)
- eloff 7y agoPipelines are far more energy efficient. A cost comparison isn't that interesting to me. Pipelines are usually cheaper over time, but I don't care about bringing costs down for fossil fuel production.
- whocaresaboutu 7y agoWho gives a fuck about what you think? Go fuck yourself.
- lumberingjack 7y agoOne of these spills happened near where I live they always do a great job of cleaning up the EPA sees to it.I know it's probably not the normal and probably rare but they actually revitalize the area that got the leak here it was a garbage mess with trash and junk and they had to clean it up and make it a wetland so it's actually better off now.