Keystone pipeline springs leak in South Dakota

[GMDino]

http://money.cnn.com/2016/04/04/news/keystone-pipeline-oil-spill-south-dakota/index.html

Quote:A key section of the Keystone pipeline has been shut down due to an oil spill in South Dakota, TransCanada said on Monday.


TransCanada (TRP), which operates the pipeline, reported a spill of about 187 gallons of crude oil to the Coast Guard's National Response Center on Saturday afternoon.

The company said in a statement it is removing the oil and investigating the source. TransCanada said "no significant impact to the environment has been observed." The incident along the controversial pipeline is located about four miles away from the Freeman pump station in Hutchinson County, South Dakota.

A portion of the Keystone pipeline that transports oil from Alberta, Canada to Cushing, Oklahoma will be shut down until at least Friday. The section that connects Cushing to Texas remains in operation.

The incident was first reported on Saturday afternoon and TransCanada said it "immediately" shut down the pipeline, activated its emergency response procedures and dispatched ground crews to investigate. The crews initially found "visible signs of oil on a small surface area," TransCanada said.


Related: Oil crash closing in on its biggest victim yet

TransCanada said regulatory agencies and local landowners have been notified. The EPA referred questions to the U.S. Department of Transportation. The DOT's Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Administration told CNNMoney it's "actively investigating" the incident and has deployed an inspector to the site to determine the cause of the leak.

In 2008 TransCanada proposed a controversial expansion of the pipeline known as the Keystone XL that would have brought oil down from Canada directly into Nebraska. While TransCanada touted the project's employment and national security benefits, environmentalists strongly opposed the expansion.

Late last year President Obama denied a permit for Keystone XL after a lengthy review process. In January, TransCanada challenged the denial under the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) in federal U.S. court.

[BengalHawk62]

http://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/news/politics/2016/04/04/frustrations-grow-over-oil-pipeline-process/82626540/

[*Nately120*]

I guess we shall see how this plays out, but I'm already assuming this was one of those situations where a business says:

1. "The government shouldn't force us to employ pricey safety measures!"
2. accident happens
3. "The government should totally pay for some or all of the cleanup!"

[Benton]

Way to bury the lead. The big story here is that South Dakota has a coast to guard.

When did this happen!?

[*bfine32*]

187 gallons? Am I the only one that sees this as good news. I was always took the issue with Keystone was IF there was a spill it would be catestrophic. I've seen dude's Harley leak 187 gallons of oil in one riding season.

[NATI BENGALS]

One of the reasons ive been against the keystone xl. Why should we risk our environment so canada can ship oil globally? Piss off with that shit.

[fredtoast]

(04-05-2016, 03:22 PM)Benton Wrote: Way to bury the lead. The big story here is that South Dakota has a coast to guard.

When did this happen!?

rep

[GMDino]

(04-05-2016, 03:30 PM)bfine32 Wrote: 187 gallons? Am I the only one that sees this as good news. I was always took the issue with Keystone was IF there was a spill it would be catestrophic. I've seen dude's Harley leak 187 gallons of oil in one riding season.

Yes.

If the sections they already have are leaking (even a couple hundred gallons) what will a longer section do with less oversight?

[GMDino]

"Did we say 187 gallons?  Sorry.  We meant 16,000.  Our bad."



https://www.rt.com/usa/338845-keystone-oil-spill-dakota/

Quote:Keystone pipeline leaked 16,000 gallons of oil in South Dakota field
Published time: 7 Apr, 2016 21:01Edited time: 7 Apr, 2016 22:10
Get short URL

Cindy Myers

6078
TransCanada estimated that about 16,800 gallons of oil leaked in a field in South Dakota from the Keystone I pipeline on Thursday. The spill, discovered by a farmer over the weekend, led the company to close down the pipeline.

The company reported the estimate to the National Response Center and the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Administration which is equivalent to 400 barrels of oil, according to the Associated Press.

The company began excavating the site on Sunday in a field close the town of Freeman, South Dakota, by turning over topsoil. It said that more than 100 feet of pipe was exposed, with spillage estimate coming from oil being observed in the soil, and the potential area affected.

There are about 100 workers at the site working around the clock to pinpoint the source of the leak in the pipeline.
TransCanada spokesman Mark Cooper reported the revised estimate Thursday morning.

“The volume estimate reported this morning to the National Response Centre (NRC) and the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Administration (PHMSA) was based on the safe excavation of soil to expose more than 100 feet of pipe,” Cooper wrote, according to the Angus Leader. “It takes into account a number of factors, including oil observed in the soil and the potential area impacted.”

Cindy Myers
Elizabeth Lone Eagle, an official intervener for the state of South Dakota, however, is worried about the spill’s close proximity to the James and Missouri rivers and worried that the “groundwater contamination is heading to Yankton, Vermillion, Sioux City... all the way down,” according to CommonDreams.

The leak is the fifth in the state related to Keystone I, which was approved by the Public Utilities Commission in 2008. The Department of Environment and Natural Resources' spill map shows three releases of petroleum in 2010 and one in 2011, one of which took place at the same pump station in 2010, when less than five gallons were released due to a fitting leak, according to the Argus Leader.

TransCanada’s Keystone I pipeline carries light and heavy crude from Hardisty, Alberta to refineries in Illinois and Oklahoma, while passing through the eastern Dakotas, Nebraska, Kansas and Missouri. The Keystone I pipeline can handle 550,000 barrels, or about 23 million gallons, daily.

Cindy Myers

Cin

dy Myers

[*bfine32*]

(04-05-2016, 05:09 PM)GMDino Wrote: Yes.

If the sections they already have are leaking (even a couple hundred gallons) what will a longer section do with less oversight?

I guess we can just transport it by boat. What could go wrong there?

[SunsetBengal]

(04-07-2016, 07:19 PM)GMDino Wrote: "Did we say 187 gallons?  Sorry.  We meant 16,000.  Our bad."



https://www.rt.com/usa/338845-keystone-oil-spill-dakota/

dy Myers

Cute, but you do realize that is only .ooo727% of the 550,000 barrels that flow through that pipe each day, right?  Very tiny, as far as oil spills go.  I'd say that between the farmer that noticed the problem, and the company that took measures to remedy the issue, catastrophe was avoided.  Why all the false alarm over reactionness?

[BengalHawk62]

(04-07-2016, 08:04 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: Cute, but you do realize that is only .ooo727% of the 550,000 barrels that flow through that pipe each day, right?  Very tiny, as far as oil spills go.  I'd say that between the farmer that noticed the problem, and the company that took measures to remedy the issue, catastrophe was avoided.  Why all the false alarm over reactionness?

Because if it wasn't there in the first place, we would have had 0 gallons spilt.  Yes, a whole whopping 0 gallons.  This is the whole argument the farmers and environmentalists from Iowa have been arguing.

[GMDino]

(04-07-2016, 08:04 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: Cute, but you do realize that is only .ooo727% of the 550,000 barrels that flow through that pipe each day, right?  Very tiny, as far as oil spills go.  I'd say that between the farmer that noticed the problem, and the company that took measures to remedy the issue, catastrophe was avoided.  Why all the false alarm over reactionness?

Primarily because the people who have their land commandeered to run these things through over their objections don't want any oil spilled on their ground.

It *might* be because the people responsible for the clean up tend to lie underestimate the damage done when (not if) the spills happen and then...I know this will be hard to believe....and then they don't live up to any promises made to said landowners.

That might be why people react to it.

So when they want to build a longer one...that will extend valuable water tables and land...people get kind of "alarmed" by it.  

[*bfine32*]

(04-08-2016, 09:25 AM)BengalHawk62 Wrote: Because if it wasn't there in the first place, we would have had 0 gallons spilt.  Yes, a whole whopping 0 gallons.  This is the whole argument the farmers and environmentalists from Iowa have been arguing.

Hell, they'd probably be madder is they didn't have any gas or it cost $6 a gallon.

[GMDino]

(04-08-2016, 09:25 AM)BengalHawk62 Wrote: Because if it wasn't there in the first place, we would have had 0 gallons spilt.  Yes, a whole whopping 0 gallons.  This is the whole argument the farmers and environmentalists from Iowa have been arguing.

Imagine if we tried to spend as much on alternative fuels as we do on how to get oil out of the ground, from point A to point B, refined, from point B to point C...plus cleaning up all the messes when there is an accident and spill?

[*bfine32*]

(04-08-2016, 09:34 AM)GMDino Wrote: Primarily because the people who have their land commandeered to run these things through over their objections don't want any oil spilled on their ground.

It *might* be because the people responsible for the clean up tend to lie underestimate the damage done when (not if) the spills happen and then...I know this will be hard to believe....and then they don't live up to any promises made to said landowners.

That might be why people react to it.

So when they want to build a longer one...that will extend valuable water tables and land...people get kind of "alarmed" by it.  

Nobody wants their land taken, but sometimes it is necessary. Hell folks in the Kenai Peninsula don't want another 38 Million gallons spilled in their sound again. But what are you willing to do; walk?

[GMDino]

(04-08-2016, 02:38 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Nobody wants their land taken, but sometimes it is necessary. Hell folks in the Kenai Peninsula don't want another 38 Million gallons spilled in their sound again. But what are you willing to do; walk?

I could walk to work.

Oh, you weren't being serious...were you?

But I suppose the answer is keep doing the same and don't look for other solutions because we love oil?

[*bfine32*]

(04-08-2016, 02:45 PM)GMDino Wrote: I could walk to work.

Oh, you weren't being serious...were you?

But I suppose the answer is keep doing the same and don't look for other solutions because we love oil?

We are not alone on our love of oil; the rest of the world loves it too. Some are just looking for alternate sources besides being dependent on the Middle-East and countries like Russia and Venezuala.

I have a freind that just had to pay about $10,000 to covert his house from Septic to sewer because the city built a new road. I'm sure he wishes folks would have went a different direction, but folks have to get places.

[*michaelsean*]

(04-08-2016, 02:45 PM)GMDino Wrote: I could walk to work.

Oh, you weren't being serious...were you?

But I suppose the answer is keep doing the same and don't look for other solutions because we love oil?

We do look for other solutions.  Alternative energies aren't really a practical replacement to oil and gas right now.  So until they are, you have to deal with oil.  

[GMDino]

(04-08-2016, 03:10 PM)bfine32 Wrote: We are not alone on our love of oil; the rest of the world loves it too. Some are just looking for alternate sources besides being dependent on the Middle-East and countries like Russia and Venezuala.

I have a freind that just had to pay about $10,000 to covert his house from Septic to sewer because the city built a new road. I'm sure he wishes folks would have went a different direction, but folks have to get places.

There was a time when we didn't care what the rest of the world did...we were innovators.

But then there was a time when we didn't put profit in front of people and greed in front of new ideas.

Time marches on I guess.