
Keystone pipeline shut after spilling 1.4M litres of oil in North Dakota - leothekim
https://www.cbc.ca/news/business/keystone-spils-over-1-million-litres-oil-north-dakota-1.5343509
======
mcthrowaway123z
I'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.

------
eloff
For 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
Agreed, 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
Using 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_disaste...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lac-M%C3%A9gantic_rail_disaster)

------
einpoklum
Why 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
That 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?

~~~
johnwalkr
It’s not very hard to engineer. I used to design underground piping for
locomotive fueling. In Nothern Canada where temperature differential is
significant. In that case double walled piping is used and the temperature may
vary greatly between the outer wall (ground temperature) and the inner wall
(outside temperature due to fluid stored in an above ground tank).

They are fixed together in some places, and able to slide relative to each
other in most places. Fixed points are located in the middle of straight
sections and there are C-shaped “expansion loops” that allow the inner pipe to
expand or contract relative to the outer pipe.

The outer pipe has a vacuum applied by a vacuum pump, and a greater than
nominal vacuum leak indicates an issue.

Of course, it’s expensive compared to a single pipe.

~~~
einpoklum
Your post makes me hopeful that this could be possible with some political
pressure by public protests. Although - we should never underestimate the
power of dark side^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H oil and gas lobby.

~~~
layoutIfNeeded
What does ^H^H^H^H^H mean?

~~~
d33
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Backspace#^H](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Backspace#^H)

------
noja
Nobody could have foreseen this.

~~~
dboreham
I 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
And no lawsuit emerged from that knowledge?

~~~
cannonedhamster
Situation normal. Corps run America including all the means of justice. I'm
sure they were involuntary forced into an arbitration agreement by having the
oil fall on their land and not putting it back into the pipe.

~~~
dboreham
Yeah the farmers were pretty much forced to sell the land to the pipeline
company. There wasn't a practical choice. The best you could do is to hold out
for a somewhat better offer than the first one.

------
cascom
Pretty 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
"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-milli...](https://www.cbc.ca/news/business/keystone-spils-
over-1-million-litres-oil-north-dakota-1.5343509)

~~~
Reason077
In 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
Yeah, it could be much worse. That's a shit defense line though.

------
Claudus
For people who oppose pipelines, what is the safer alternative for
transporting oil?

~~~
jdnenej
Discontinue the use of single use plastic and internal combustion engines.

~~~
campfireveteran
Just like recycling bins, that's only the virtue-signaling parts of the story.
It is vital to discontinue nearly all petrochem uses of fossil fuels and leave
much of the rest of it in the ground. This implies:

\- massive expansions of renewables (doable since costs have dropped
precipitously)

\- possibly temporary use of fission (replaced hopefully by fusion)

\- elimination of diesel-powered ships, replaced by electrical (battery)
and/or nuclear fission (again hopefully replaced by fusion)

\- elimination of FF-powered air transport with electric-powered

\- derivation of reasonable amounts of polymers from recycled materials and
plant sources

\- improved, efficient post-consumer recycling diverting a considerable
fraction of the waste stream back into raw materials

Furthermore, it is necessary and possible to spend on the order of what was
spent on the wars in Afganistan and Iraq on CCS to return GHGs to pre-
industrial levels... if we don't do this, nothing else matters because we (and
our progeny) will all be dead. We ought to examine:

\- ferrous ocean seeding of phytoplankton blooms

\- blooming the kelp over-proliferation between Mexico and Africa for harvest
and subterranean/hadopelagic CCS

And to be consistent, the top two other major sources of GHGs should be
minimized:

\- meat agriculture

\- clinker production (Portland cement / concrete)

~~~
swader999
The math to replace fossil fuels is staggering. Look at this analysis of what
it would take to replace existing fossil fuel with net zero carbon
alternatives by 2050 (11000 days from now). Here's the conclusions:

So the math here is simple: to achieve net-zero carbon dioxide emissions by
2050, the world would need to deploy 3 [brand new] nuclear plants worth of
carbon-free energy every two days, starting tomorrow and continuing to 2050.
At the same time, a nuclear plant’s worth of fossil fuels would need to be
decommissioned every day, starting tomorrow and continuing to 2050.

I’ve found that some people don’t like the use of a nuclear power plant as a
measuring stick. So we can substitute wind energy as a measuring stick. Net-
zero carbon dioxide by 2050 would require the deployment of ~1500 wind
turbines (2.5 MW) over ~300 square miles, every day starting tomorrow and
continuing to 2050.

Just consider the steel (coking coal) and cement needed to accomplish this.

source: [https://www.forbes.com/sites/rogerpielke/2019/09/30/net-
zero...](https://www.forbes.com/sites/rogerpielke/2019/09/30/net-zero-carbon-
dioxide-emissions-by-2050-requires-a-new-nuclear-power-plant-every-
day/#36b5a0a535f7)

Its a simple method and easy to validate on your own.

~~~
tyfon
This analysis assumes that we can continue on the current consumption spree
and growth in energy usage as before.

It has to be a combination and there will have to be painful adjustments to
the current western lifestyle.

We need to find better ways of moving around, buy less stuff and produce food
in better ways.

~~~
falcolas
> It has to be a combination and there will have to be painful adjustments to
> the current western lifestyle.

I feel quite confident in saying “that will never happen.”

If you want to avoid a mass revolution from the people, you can’t take away
quality of life.

~~~
tyfon
The taking of quality of life is a given anyway, there simply is not enough
stuff to satisfy everyone. There are already large parts of the population in
the US living in poverty and the middle class is being decimated.

------
londons_explore
What 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_
Usually 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
They won’t get their new pipelines at all if they keep getting spills in the
news

------
gatherhunterer
I’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.

------
lumberingjack
One 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.

------
wyxuan
This one will probably take longer to reissue because it is both underground
and in a sensitive natural area

------
SlowRobotAhead
For those interested in the math; it leaked about 1.5% of one day’s total
transfer.

~~~
dade_
The 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
It'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-
spil...](https://www.ksstradio.com/2019/10/hopkins-county-diesel-spill-in-
miller-grove-2/)

------
woodpanel
1.4M literes = 1400 m^3 = a square the length of 12 meters?

~~~
slfnflctd
I think you mean cube.

~~~
woodpanel
I think you’re right. I’m not good at math translations.

------
swampthinker
The same pipeline that the Native Americans protested, some of which are still
in prison.

~~~
mrtksn
Why they are in prison? I'm not very familiar with the US laws but I thought
that you would not get in trouble in the US for this.

~~~
SamReidHughes
For destroying infrastructure, interfering with its construction, the use of
fire in doing so, illegal possession of a firearm by a felon... It wasn’t all
speech and trespassing.

~~~
einpoklum
They're in prison for defending their ancestral land and burial grounds from
foreign colonist occupiers, which not only have taken it over but are now
destroying it and its waterways with leaky oil pipelines.

------
brian-armstrong
That's a lot of damage!

------
Donwangugi
Dfr

------
Jemm
Shocker. 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
I 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_disaste...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lac-M%C3%A9gantic_rail_disaster#The_route)
which was 7M L and dozens of deaths.

~~~
shkkmo
You 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
Should 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
I 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.

------
liotier
< Applying extreme self-control to keep myself within HN's rules by not
quoting "The Front Fell Off" >

~~~
dekken_
As long as it's taken outside the environment.

------
lazyjones
Some perspective:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_pipeline_accidents_in_...](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)

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
Because 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.

