Dakota Access Pipeline leaks in first week of operation

 Pages PREV 1 2 3
 

Thaluikhain:

inu-kun:
The only check is letting something flow in it beforehand. Maybe you can let an alternative resource run through it but you'll need a fuckton of it to check it handles the pressure (and will need to have the same liquid type as oil). Finally it might pollute the oil if it is used.

Depends on how accurately you want to test it, you could use water (doesn't have to be potable). Not the same as oil, of course.

There are some high tech things you can try, IIRC one method was a machine containing something mildly radioactive moving down the inside of the pipe and see if radiation can be detected outside the pipe.

Again, you might not catch all potential problems, but there are issues you can detect that way.

Not only do I think you're right, but I also think you're understating it. There are millions of miles of oil pipeline in this country. Who honestly believes we have not developed methods to both build a pipeline AND protect water ways? The answer isn't to start chaining ourselves to bulldozers like we're hippies in the 70s. Regulation, oversight, and enforcement. The dangers of the current administration don't come from wanting this pipeline, that's reasonable. The danger is the liklihood that they'll undercut regulation and oversight, but that's a much broader problem then with just this pipeline. Not to give the anti-pipeline crowd any credit since they started back when Obama was in and Clinton was being groomed.

inu-kun:
Snip

Saelune's reaction says all, but I'll put the cherry on the cake:

Oil and water don't mix.

FalloutJack:

inu-kun:
Snip

Saelune's reaction says all, but I'll put the cherry on the cake:

Oil and water don't mix.

You'll still need to filter out all traces of water from what comes in the well. Processes synthesizing the oil might react differently with water, and that's assuming salt from the water doesn't affect the oil.
And yes, pollute is a word.

Thaluikhain:

inu-kun:
The only check is letting something flow in it beforehand. Maybe you can let an alternative resource run through it but you'll need a fuckton of it to check it handles the pressure (and will need to have the same liquid type as oil). Finally it might pollute the oil if it is used.

Depends on how accurately you want to test it, you could use water (doesn't have to be potable). Not the same as oil, of course.

There are some high tech things you can try, IIRC one method was a machine containing something mildly radioactive moving down the inside of the pipe and see if radiation can be detected outside the pipe.

Again, you might not catch all potential problems, but there are issues you can detect that way.

Using water might work but you'll need A LOT of water, which even if not drinkable need to be transported and afterwards clear the pipes of everything. In the end you are causing way more pollution than there would have been had the original spill was not dealt with.

The radioactive idea might work but I assume that if it was that simple they world have done it regardless, most likely the problem comes from the high pressure.

inu-kun:

FalloutJack:

inu-kun:
Snip

Saelune's reaction says all, but I'll put the cherry on the cake:

Oil and water don't mix.

You'll still need to filter out all traces of water from what comes in the well. Processes synthesizing the oil might react differently with water, and that's assuming salt from the water doesn't affect the oil.
And yes, pollute is a word.

Ok, yes, pollute is a word. But our reactions is that you seem to care more about oil being polluted by water than by water being polluted by oil. We find your priorities in this backwards and thus concerning.

inu-kun:

It's literally the starting phase with checking things out. By that logic there shouldn't be planes because the very first models crashed after couple of meters.

And the benefits will be for using other stuff to pass through railways which will likely help the area's economy. Which is probably important for people there.

No, that logic doesn't follow at all. An oil pipeline is not somehow a new invention. We know how to stop leaks from happening, and we know when corners have been cut to save money at the cost of the environment.

Catnip1024:

Quick point - the original article said this was a leak on a worksite where they pump the oil into whatever. That's a far cry from some leaky pipe in the middle of a well-preserved ecosystem. If they are honest about the fact that it was all contained, there will be virtually no damage.

Also, bear in mind the bathtub curve, where things have a higher failure rate when you first start using them because you are working out the flaws.

One would hope that those flaws are ironed out in testing, before oil is actually flowing through them. But, yes, I do recognise that tests cannot fully simulate the pressures of a working model, so that isn't always possible.

However, given the frequency of leaks in pipelines that have been running for years, I do not have faith in the companies running them to place safety concerns over profit. They have a shoddy track record.

Catnip1024:

Final point on the nature of statistics - just because something happens in the first week does not mean it will happen every week. It could be a one in a million occurrence, and you are just unlucky. Come back when it's a regular thing.

Judging pipelines in general, it is a regular thing. At least too regular to be acceptable.

LetalisK:
Not to give the anti-pipeline crowd any credit since they started back when Obama was in and Clinton was being groomed.

Why does that make a difference?

Seanchaidh:

LetalisK:
Not to give the anti-pipeline crowd any credit since they started back when Obama was in and Clinton was being groomed.

Why does that make a difference?

Because had it been eventually approved I don't think a Obama/Clinton administration would undercut regulations and oversight. I don't see a reasonable argument against the pipeline crossing a waterway if you have the means to do it safely(which we do, we have millions of miles of pipeline that cross waterways countless times without issue*) and the will to enforce that safety(which we had, imo). I've moved to the anti-pipeline position not because they convinced me, but rather because we now have a suspect administration. I wanted to note that I now agree with their conclusion, but still don't agree with the argument.

*I know there are failures. Literally everything has failures. But we can and do minimize the magnitude and impact of those failures with sufficient regulation and enforcement.

LetalisK:
*I know there are failures. Literally everything has failures.

Indeed there are.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_pipeline_accidents_in_the_United_States_in_the_21st_century

LetalisK:
But we can and do minimize the magnitude and impact of those failures with sufficient regulation and enforcement.

On April 17, [2016] a 10 petroleum products pipeline failed in Wabash County, Illinois, resulting in a sheen on the Wabash River. About 48,000 gallons of diesel fuel was spilled.
On May 20, [2016] a Shell Oil Company pipeline leaked near Tracy, California, spilling about 21,000 gallons of crude oil.
On September 9, [2016] a Colonial Pipeline mainline leak was noticed by workers on another project, in Shelby County, Alabama. At least 252,000 gallons of gasoline leaked from line.
On September 10, [2016] a Sunoco pipeline ruptured near Sweetwater, Texas. About 33,000 gallons of crude oil were spilled. The pipeline was just over a year old.

Possibly we could. Do we really? That's just a small selection of the incidents of 2016.

Here's what just one company has done: $8.6 million in property damage in 2016 alone. $44 million in property damage from 2006 to now. This is just the first one that I arbitrarily clicked.
https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/comm/reports/operator/OperatorIM_opid_30829.html?nocache=9093#_Incidents_tab_1

What is there to undercut? How would it even be profitable to have less pipeline safety?!

Seanchaidh:

LetalisK:
*I know there are failures. Literally everything has failures.

Indeed there are.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_pipeline_accidents_in_the_United_States_in_the_21st_century

LetalisK:
But we can and do minimize the magnitude and impact of those failures with sufficient regulation and enforcement.

On April 17, [2016] a 10 petroleum products pipeline failed in Wabash County, Illinois, resulting in a sheen on the Wabash River. About 48,000 gallons of diesel fuel was spilled.
On May 20, [2016] a Shell Oil Company pipeline leaked near Tracy, California, spilling about 21,000 gallons of crude oil.
On September 9, [2016] a Colonial Pipeline mainline leak was noticed by workers on another project, in Shelby County, Alabama. At least 252,000 gallons of gasoline leaked from line.
On September 10, [2016] a Sunoco pipeline ruptured near Sweetwater, Texas. About 33,000 gallons of crude oil were spilled. The pipeline was just over a year old.

Possibly we could. Do we really? That's just a small selection of the incidents of 2016.

Here's what just one company has done: $8.6 million in damages in 2016 alone. $44 million from 2006 to now. This is just the first one that I arbitrarily clicked.
https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/comm/reports/operator/OperatorIM_opid_30829.html?nocache=9093#_Incidents_tab_1

What is there to undercut? How would it even be profitable to have less pipeline safety?!

So what do you think the solution is?

LetalisK:

Seanchaidh:

LetalisK:
*I know there are failures. Literally everything has failures.

Indeed there are.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_pipeline_accidents_in_the_United_States_in_the_21st_century

LetalisK:
But we can and do minimize the magnitude and impact of those failures with sufficient regulation and enforcement.

On April 17, [2016] a 10 petroleum products pipeline failed in Wabash County, Illinois, resulting in a sheen on the Wabash River. About 48,000 gallons of diesel fuel was spilled.
On May 20, [2016] a Shell Oil Company pipeline leaked near Tracy, California, spilling about 21,000 gallons of crude oil.
On September 9, [2016] a Colonial Pipeline mainline leak was noticed by workers on another project, in Shelby County, Alabama. At least 252,000 gallons of gasoline leaked from line.
On September 10, [2016] a Sunoco pipeline ruptured near Sweetwater, Texas. About 33,000 gallons of crude oil were spilled. The pipeline was just over a year old.

Possibly we could. Do we really? That's just a small selection of the incidents of 2016.

Here's what just one company has done: $8.6 million in damages in 2016 alone. $44 million from 2006 to now. This is just the first one that I arbitrarily clicked.
https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/comm/reports/operator/OperatorIM_opid_30829.html?nocache=9093#_Incidents_tab_1

What is there to undercut? How would it even be profitable to have less pipeline safety?!

So what do you think the solution is?

Stop subsidizing oil companies, stop approving pipelines, ramp up public investment into alternative energy (including non-gasoline automotive tech). And beef up regulations on currently existing pipelines. Also, stop allowing oil companies to buy our politicians: mine is a centrist position if ever there was one.

Seanchaidh:

Stop subsidizing oil companies, stop approving pipelines, ramp up public investment into alternative energy (including non-gasoline automotive tech). And beef up regulations on currently existing pipelines. Also, stop allowing oil companies to buy our politicians: mine is a centrist position if ever there was one.

The only one I would dispute is the second one(stop approving pipelines). Is the point of that to force more private investment into alternative energy by restricting/capping oil supply?

LetalisK:

Seanchaidh:

Stop subsidizing oil companies, stop approving pipelines, ramp up public investment into alternative energy (including non-gasoline automotive tech). And beef up regulations on currently existing pipelines. Also, stop allowing oil companies to buy our politicians: mine is a centrist position if ever there was one.

The only one I would dispute is the second one(stop approving pipelines). Is the point of that to force more private investment into alternative energy by restricting/capping oil supply?

Moreso just to stop increasing the amount of risk and impact beyond what already exists, though the effect on oil supply I don't mind either. The possible downside is that the oil might simply be transported by road instead (which carries its own risks), but that is more expensive and in many cases is not likely to be a viable alternative to a pipeline.

inu-kun:

FalloutJack:

inu-kun:
Snip

Saelune's reaction says all, but I'll put the cherry on the cake:

Oil and water don't mix.

You'll still need to filter out all traces of water from what comes in the well. Processes synthesizing the oil might react differently with water, and that's assuming salt from the water doesn't affect the oil.
And yes, pollute is a word.

Oh no! They'll have to- *Gasp!* -do some actual work! Those poor souls... You're missing the point, though.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here