8 thoughts on “Keystone Pipeline Massive Spill

  1. The pipeline carries 622,000 barrels of oil a day, so a 14,000-barrel spill is a testament to the efficiency of their safety systems. That’s about 6 seconds of spill.

    The section that broke is old construction so getting on with the replacement would seem prudent.

    Like

    1. “The section that broke is old construction so getting on with the replacement would seem prudent.”

      Aren’t you the sly one. The rejected Keystone Pipeline XL was a new segment. It was not to replace an old segment. The operators should have maintained the existing pipeline to avoid spills. They obviously had other priorities.

      14,000 barrels dumped into a creek is a massive spill even if it represents a small part of the overall flow. But nice try to spin down to insignificance. The environmental objections to the XL extension have been vindicated whether you want to admit that or not.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. 14,000 barrels is a big spill, but not a disaster and with modern cleanup procedures in a year you won’t know it happened.

        The cause seems to have been a faulty attachment of a submerging weight placed when the pipeline was laid, (oil is lighter than water so when pipelines might get flooded before they are buried they are weighed down) The locations of similar weights are charted and are being inspected.

        The alternative is to carry the oil in train cars which is far more dangerous.

        Like

        1. …”but not a disaster and with modern cleanup procedures in a year you won’t know it happened.”

          If it occurred on your compound, would you still feel the same way?

          And in a year, WE may not know it happened. But the property owner will.

          Liked by 1 person

          1. As opposed to 50 tanker cars getting overturned on the Rail line down the road?

            The oil will be moved, by declining order of safety, by pipeline, rail or truck.

            Pipelines are by far the safest.

            Like

          2. Why did you not answer the question I posed?

            I posited that the leak was a disaster for the people who own the property where it occurred. You spun it around to tankers down he road.

            I do not disagree that pipelines are the safest way to get oil from A to B. But I also believe that you may feel differently about the idea of it being a disaster, or not, if it occurs on YOUR property.

            Like

          3. “As opposed to 50 tanker cars getting overturned on the Rail line down the road?”

            The point here was that people objected to the XL Pipeline because they did not trust that it would operate over THEIR land and waterways without damaging the environment. This incident confirms the stance they took. If the industry cannot operate existing lines without this kind of incident, it is reasonable to oppose expanding a pipeline system that is just there to enhance FOREIGN corporate profits and bring no benefits to the communities it passes through.

            Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s