Keystone pipeline leak estimate grows to 16,800 gallons of oil

a reply to: Grimpachi


A million gallons is five or six rail cars. Trains can run a mile long.
I'll stick with the pipeline.

Wait, bad math....
Fifty cars..

a reply to: Bluntone22

The pipeline they want to run will go directly across the midwest fresh water aquifers which I have already said. If those are ruined because of ONE company's interests then the entire midwest agriculture will be devastated and that wall that people want to put up between us and Mexico will probably work against us because they would be larger producers of produce than us.

Think about that.

originally posted by: Grimpachi
At least with trains if there is a spill they know when and where it happens unlike pipelines. The Kalamazoo spill was 1,100,000 US gallons they knew there was a problem, but thought it was an air bubble so they increased pressure. Brilliant!

Well, now you're talkin' some product lol. And yeah, they know where the railway accidents are, they are usually the huge fireballs.

Mismanaged, I guess in the end a pipeline would win in overall spillage, in good management and just leaving things to overall accident potential though rail has far more chances to cause problems. Tough, mismanaged rail can have some serious effects as well.

If it's the management of the technology that is the serious problem, maybe that should be the focus to find the best overall solution to move the stuff?

do we put it in a container and send it rockin down the rails at 60 miles an hour plus, or move it in static, easily inspected pipes?

a reply to: caterpillage

Our rail system needs an overhaul. We are far behind other countries in many aspects with rail, but I would support making it better.

I don't support the interests of one company when it endangers our nation so I don't support the Keystone Pipeline.

originally posted by: Grimpachi
a reply to: caterpillage

Our rail system needs an overhaul. We are far behind other countries in many aspects with rail, but I would support making it better.

I don't support the interests of one company when it endangers our nation so I don't support the Keystone Pipeline.

Either way, it's one company. BNSF, or the other.

a reply to: caterpillage

I am pretty sure a rail system transports more than just oil and benefit more than one company.

a reply to: roadgravel

Look man. That sounds like a lot, but for #s sake.

Lakeview Gusher on the Midway-Sunset Oil Field in Kern County, California of 1910 is believed to be the largest-ever U.S. gusher. At its peak, more than 100,000 barrels (16,000 m3) of oil per day flowed out, reaching as high as 200 feet (60 m) in the air. It remained uncapped for 18 months, spilling over 9 million barrels (1,400,000 m3) of oil, less than half of which was recovered.[2]

en.m.wikipedia.org...(well_drilling)


That's 378,000,000 (yes 378 million) gallons. Less than half recovered, meaning at least 188,983,300 more gallons than what you are talking about were just left there for "Mother Nature" to take care of.

Now, have you ever been to Kern River Valley. I have spent countless hours hiking and camping there. It's incredibly beautiful and vibrant with a multitude of wildlife. Not a #ing single sign of oil.

originally posted by: Grimpachi
a reply to: caterpillage

I am pretty sure a rail system transports more than just oil and benefit more than one company.

True, though BNSF is the main carrier for oil sands crude down from Canada. they have as many as 220,000 cars. I have no idea how many of those are hauling crude, but I suspect many are. Warren Buffet as the owner of BNSF, is very vocal about and spends a large amount of money trashing the pipeline, as it would cost him serious money. Now, some would say that's because he is so environmentally conscious. Though that could also be just to preserve his interests. I don't know.

I do know tanker cars, and the accidents that have happened in the last few years. And in that regard I would say, by rail is a bad news way to transport crude. In my opinion a pipeline is far more inspectable, and far less likely to cause widespread damage.

a reply to: caterpillage

In my opinion a pipeline is far more inspectable, and far less likely to cause widespread damage.

That I have to disagree with you on.

Sure you can inspect the outside of a pipe, but the inside is an entirely different matter. They would have to be depressurized to inspect the inside and mantanence to keep them in top condition would be time consuming and costly which with Trans Canadas record I think it is likely they would wait to the last minute or simpley be negligent on.

And the aquifers they want to run through. As far as wide spread damage aside from a nuke I can't see how trains would come close.

a reply to: Grimpachi

Wouldn't the oil and water of the aquifer remain separated and not mix? Wouldn't oil sit on top of the water making the water perfectly safe underneath the oil? I am pretty sure I remember that from school.

originally posted by: Grimpachi
a reply to: caterpillage

In my opinion a pipeline is far more inspectable, and far less likely to cause widespread damage.

That I have to disagree with you on.

Sure you can inspect the outside of a pipe, but the inside is an entirely different matter. They would have to be depressurized to inspect the inside and mantanence to keep them in top condition would be time consuming and costly which with Trans Canadas record I think it is likely they would wait to the last minute or simpley be negligent on.

And the aquifers they want to run through. As far as wide spread damage aside from a nuke I can't see how trains would come close.

I'm not sure how damage from a nuke came in here, I guess I can agree with ya that a nuke would seriously mess up a pipeline?? Probably even a nuke situation could affect a pipeline more than a train ultimately. I'll give ya that.

Otherwise I gotta think a well designed pipeline beats rail transport anyday dude. Maybe trans canada needs to go out of business??? We should get a good company in charge of it I guess.

originally posted by: Metallicus
a reply to: Grimpachi

Wouldn't the oil and water of the aquifer remain separated and not mix? Wouldn't oil sit on top of the water making the water perfectly safe underneath the oil? I am pretty sure I remember that from school.

No. Crude oil will not simply stay on top of fresh water neither will all the other hazardous chemicals that they add to the oil in pipe lines so that it can flow easily.

a reply to: caterpillage

Maybe I wasn't clear or you misunderstood.

A pipeline spill in our fresh water aquifers would be devastating aside from a nuclear explosion I can't think of anything worse.

They are not willing to divert the pipeline around the fresh water aquifers.


There are many reasons we shouldn't let the keystone pipeline go through such as it will actually reduce permanent jobs in the US, to build it they will have to seize private lands from US citizens using imminent domain to benefit a private company. It endangers national security by endangering our water supply. It will NOT lower our fuel prices.

a reply to: Grimpachi

Wouldn't railroad present the same problems of imminent domain and possible spills into the aquifer? It seems like it really doesn't make too much difference which way we go to be honest.

a reply to: Metallicus

Are you assuming they ship the oil over rails that go across the aquifers instead of diverting around them?

As far as Imminent domain and rails compared to a pipeline there is a difference.

A rail can and is used for commerce accessible to the public the pipeline would be used specifically for one company.

A rail would be akin to a highway.

originally posted by: Grimpachi
a reply to: caterpillage

Maybe I wasn't clear or you misunderstood.

A pipeline spill in our fresh water aquifers would be devastating aside from a nuclear explosion I can't think of anything worse.

They are not willing to divert the pipeline around the fresh water aquifers.


There are many reasons we shouldn't let the keystone pipeline go through such as it will actually reduce permanent jobs in the US, to build it they will have to seize private lands from US citizens using imminent domain to benefit a private company. It endangers national security by endangering our water supply. It will NOT lower our fuel prices.

It's likely I misunderstood. I do that. I guess I'm just wrong on this whole thing. Viva La railion I guess lol, what the hell, it makes me more money lol

The pipeline is destined to leak. It isn't a matter of if but a matter of when. How much land and underground water has to be ruined before they learn anything? It was a bad decision in the first place.

a reply to: Metallicus

Freeman SD and the surrounding area is a very tight-nit community of German speaking Mennonites who would definitely notice any strangers hanging around.

They are not very welcoming to strangers except during the annual Shmeckfest, which I actually attended once thirty years ago.

I think the chances of sabatoge going by unnoticed are pretty slim.

a reply to: roadgravel

Pfff...that's nothing.

Lakeview Gusher

Yes, go to that link and realize that this was 9,400,000 barrels of crude oil that leaked out of the ground over a span of nine months. That's equivalent to 394.8 MILLION GALLONS of crude oil released on the surface of the earth.

200 gallons or 16,000 gallons--that's easily manageable and will have minimal lasting negative effects on the local environment, if any.

a reply to: Grimpachi

They can't..or they don't?

I have read that several of the top forbes billionares are pipeline owners. Pipelines make huge ongoing virtually guaranteed profits. I don't see why they should leak so much, other than pure greed and callus disregard for life.

We need to fine the hell out of them for every drip spilled. Put thier principals in jail if there is even the smallest evidence of negligence. That is the only way to stop it.

Perhaps pipelines should be upgraded to have double or tripple walls hmm? They have the money.