Last updated on 2013.02.03
Surprise...not! TransCanada has lowballed its estimate of how often the proposed Keystone XL pipeline will leak by a factor of eight. So says University of Nebraska–Lincoln engineering professor John Stansbury. His full report and an executive summary are archived at Bold Nebraska.
TransCanada predicts Keystone XL will produce 11 major spills over 50 years. Stansbury checks the data and says no, we can more realistically expect 91 significant spills. TransCanada says that in case of a leak, it expects to be able to shut down the pipeline in 11 minutes. Stansbury looks at TransCanada's technology and recent spills and concludes the shutdown time may be more like two hours.
Empirical data from the Keystone I pipeline coursing through our South Dakota soil right now suggest that even Stansbury's warnings may be conservative. TransCanada told us we could expect spills on that line at a rate of 1.4 every ten years. In just one year of operation, we've seen four reportable leaks in South Dakota, 12 in the United States, and 21 in Canada.
The intrepid Jane Kleeb makes clear what Stansbury's numbers mean:
The report confirms one thing--Nebraskans can not take TransCanada at their word. While TransCanada is busy assuring elected officials that everything is fine and will be fine, Nebraska scientists and water experts are issuing warning signs over and over again. The report gives black and white evidence to county officials, state officials and federal officials that this pipeline is not ready to be laid because there are too many unanswered questions and safety risks [Jane Kleeb, "New Report: Analysis of Frequency and Worst Case Spills for TransCanada Pipeline," Bold Nebraska, 2011.07.12].
The House Natural Resources Committee, on which South Dakota Congresswoman Kristi Noem sits, has before it a bill that would accelerate the State Department's review of the environmental impact of the Keystone XL pipeline. But Dr. Stansbury's review, as well as the information to be gathered about Exxon's Yellowstone River pipeline rupture, suggest that, far from taking less time, Rep. Noem should urge the President to order a much longer review of the real risks posed by Keystone XL.
Related (update 10:48 CDT): Alas, there is evidence the Administration needs no push from Congress to green light Keystone XL. Wikileaks found a 2009 cable from a U.S. State Department envoy indicating we've assured Canadian officials we'll let more of their crude into our market and advised them to improve their messaging on oil sands. That envoy, David Goldwyn, is now a lobbyist who has testified to Congress in favor of Keystone XL.
Transporting oil by pipeline is still the safest way to transport oil. More petroleum is spilled by people filling their cars up than oil being transported between facilities. More oil is spilled on the beaches of california by citizens than is leaked from any off shore drilling. What happened in Montana was an accident and they were very quick about cleaning it up. It will happen from time to time, but it is still safer than the number of tankers that overturn.
Dan, you continue to be the king of non sequitur. None of what you said negates Dr. Stansbury's finding that TransCanada has not been honest about how many leaks we can expect. None of what you said negates the good sense in requiring that pipeline to be as safe as possible. None of what you said justifies endangering the Ogallala Aquifer with the current proposed pipeline route.
But go ahead, Dan. Keep trying to change the subject.
"None of what you said negates the good sense in requiring that pipeline to be as safe as possible. None of what you said justifies endangering the Ogallala Aquifer with the current proposed pipeline route."
Don't worry Cory. I see through the BS. This entire blog entry is supposed to entice people to believe the pipeline is not safe and is not needed. Call it what you want, but this is just another attempt to undermine the need and importance of the pipeline. Unfortunately, statistics show that transporting oil through pipeline is still the safest way to transport oil. Slant it anyway you want it, but you aren't fooling anyone when it comes to your main agenda, and that is, make sure the pipeline isn't built.
Dan is a bot, Cory: http://www.greatfallstribune.com/article/20110713/NEWS01/107130301/Protesters-demand-Schweitzer-end-support-pipeline-megaloads?odyssey=tab
Good focus, Cory.
The point remains, Dan: you demonize and personalize, pretend to read minds and accuse of nefarious agendas, but you don't refute anything I have said. I give facts. You give spin and fairy tales.
TransCanada underestimates the risk of accidents on its pipeline.
"Dan is a bot"
I guess that makes you king of the bots, Larry.
"Dan: you demonize and personalize, pretend to read minds and accuse of nefarious agendas, but you don’t refute anything I have said. I give facts. You give spin and fairy tales."
Wow Cory, when was the last time you made a blog entry in support of Keystone? Yeah....I didn't think you did either. Continue on with trying to discredit the pipeline. It will be built and you will be sitting there in the back being ignored by everyone as usual. You aren't fooling anyone with your agenda to stop the pipeline. The fact you act like you are non-partisan is hilarious. While you complain about their few minor spills, this year alone 47 million gallons of oil will leak into the ocean through natural seepage. Natural seepage accounts for 60 percent of the petroleum entering North American waters, and over 45 percent of the petroleum entering the marine environment worldwide. So maybe you need to revise your idea of a major spill, because there hasn't been one in SD yet.
"Andover-Ferney metroplex here in South Dakota blew a gasket and spilled ten gallons of tar sands crude and mystery dilutents on our turf."
OH THE HORROR!!!!!! I guess comparative analysis isn't quite up your alley. Using small spills to discredit their numbers when they openly state that this is for spills of over 50 barrels(2750 gallons). There, I discredited your entire blog entry. They aren't saying what you are trying to imply so keep spinning.
Pumping petroleum to perpetuate plastic in China proliferating our plethora of plastic packaged products is pure poppycock. Some smart engineer should design the ultimate aseptic paper beer can for Dan and his pals and start the revolution to fix the planet.
Dan, the more you open your mouth, the more you prove my point. Instead of addressing the argument I have offered, you keep resorting to gratuitous personal digs and distracting issues.
You have discredited nothing that I have actually said. I don't claim to be non-partisan. I don't claim not to oppose the pipeline. Those claims or absence thereof do not change the fact that you have failed to refute what Professor Stansbury says in his report: TransCanada underestimates the spill frequency of the Keystone XL pipeline.
Now, on the related issue of Keystone I, click on this link (which I provided in the original article) and read what I said about Keystone I's spill estimates. Or if that's too hard, read the exact text from TransCanada's 2006 Pipeline Risk Assessment for Keystone I, with my emphasis added:
--------
Of the postulated 1.4 spills along the Keystone Pipeline system during a 10-year period, the study's findings suggest that approximately 0.2 would be 50 barrels or less; 0.8 would consist of 50 to 1000 barrels; 0.3 would consist of between 1,000 and 10,000 barrels; and 0.2 would contain more than 10,000 barrels (Appendix A). The spill volume frequency distribution likely underestimates the proportion of spill volumes under 50 barrels due to reliance upon the greater than 50 barrel reporting criteria within the USDOT incident database. The current analysis tends to overemphasize large spills and underreport the small spills, making the assessment conservative.
Based on probabilities generated from the study, the estimated occurrence intervals for a spill of 50 barrels or less occurring anywhere along the entire pipeline system is once every 65 years, a spill between 50 and 1,000 barrels might occur once in 12 years; a spill of 1,000 and 10,000 barrels might occur once in 39 years; and a spill containing more than 10,000 barrels might occur once in 50 years. Applying these statistics to a 1-mile section, the chances of a larger spill (greater than 10,000 barrels) would be less than once every 67,000 years [ENSR Corporation for TransCanada, "Pipeline Risk Assessment and Environmental Consequence Analysis," Document No. 10623-004, June 2006].
---------
My point stands: TransCanada underestimated the number of spills on the Keystone I pipeline. Dr. Stansbury's point stands unchallenged by anything you've said: TransCanada has similarly underestimated spill frequency for the Keystone XL pipeline.
And, if Trans Canada has misled us and government officials on something like numbers of leaks, what is it's credibility on other issues?
The State Dept CD with the original environmental assessment includes indications of a pipeline to the Gulf coast. That is not there to provide oil to the Midwest of the US as Trans Canada propagandizes.
"The best way to solve the tar sands problem is for the world to agree on a practical scheme for putting a price on carbon emissions."
Reading about the oil companies behavior and attitudes in Montana via the Billings Gazette and others is eye-opening and a foreshadowing of the eventual oil spills in South Dakota Here's a clip from another media: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/vp/43763769#43693355
Exactly, John: Deceit from BP and Exxon, withholding information... Big Oil's track record shows us why we must hold TransCanada to great scrutiny and respond very negatively and vocally when we get evidence from experts like Dr. Stansbury that TransCanada is trying to fool us.
The UK allows mass-murderers to come and go: Pinochet and Kissinger for example. But #Assange is clearly a much bigger threat: RT @moronwatch
I think the pipeline is what we need. There is already 21,000 miles of pipeline transporting gas, oil, and other hazardous chemicals across the Aquifer. Many people don't know that. There hasn't been any major spills yet. Also, do you know how much time and money the pipeline will save? It is something the country needs.