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

Estimate grows by 90x. Not surprised but it's a bit difficult to accept how a leak can be investigated and a 16,000 gallon plus leak gets reported as less then 200.

The leak was discovered on Saturday and forced a key section of the controversial pipeline to be shut down. TransCanada (TRP) initially told regulators the spill totaled about 187 gallons of oil.

TransCanada now believes the Keystone pipeline has leaked about 16,800 gallons in South Dakota, a dramatic increase from initial estimates.

Link

I thought it would take longer before a sizable leak occurred. Guess not.

"There is no significant environmental impact observed," TransCanada said.

Other than 16,700 gallons of oil on the ground.

a reply to: roadgravel

It is probably domestic terrorism that caused the leak. Too many people want to see this pipeline fail at any cost. If it was an actual leak that isn't very much oil. I am surprised it is that small.

a reply to: Metallicus

I have no idea what caused it, but as you noted, it isn't that big of a spill -- only about 400 barrels of crude oil.

Time to upgrade the infrastructure !!!

And as such is still a better alternative than shipping the oil on tank cars via the railroad. A typical railroad tanker holds 23,000 gallons, and when they mess up it usually involves more than one and they spread it over a wider area. And it usually ignites.


The keystone pipeline is more environmentally friendly and more efficient overall than rail shipments.

Thankyou OP for bringing this to light to show the advantages!

a reply to: roadgravel

That company has a horrible record of oils spill/leaks with their pipe lines which is a big reason why they aren't allowed to build more pipelines in Canada. The proposed Keystone is because Canada will not let them build one to their coast.

Every time there is a big fiasco spill they promise they will do better then it happens again and they promise again. That company wants to run a huge pipeline directly through the midwest fresh water aquifers.

They promise it is safe and they are full of sh!t.

a reply to: Grimpachi

Rail transfer of crude is more safe?

www.youtube.com...


Leave it... in the ground

originally posted by: lordcomac
www.youtube.com...


Leave it... in the ground

But, maybe he shouldn't have put it there? or maybe made it more environmentally friendly?

Hmm. It comes out of the ground, and it's bad for the Earth. Strange.

Well, ultimately it may be bad for us, but the Earth could care less. It will all even out in the end. With or without us.

originally posted by: caterpillage
a reply to: Grimpachi

Rail transfer of crude is more safe?

Yes much safer than dealing wth TransCanada, That company has a horrible record and some of their spills are much larger than any train spill and more frequent. Any company that has 12 huge reported spills in a year shouldn't be allowed to build more pipelines. They can't successfully manage the ones they already have.

a reply to: caterpillage


I think a rail car is closer to 30k gallons but you are right in saying that the keystone is safer.

originally posted by: Bluntone22
a reply to: caterpillage


I think a rail car is closer to 30k gallons but you are right in saying that the keystone is safer.

Average would be 23,200 ish. Source, I'm a yard master who deals with oil tankers.

At least in the cars I have seen, could be I get fed smaller ones. In that case It strengthens my argument. Time to start digging up some data..

originally posted by: xuenchen
Time to upgrade the infrastructure !!!

Better yet build a great wall around it and make Canada pay for it.

a reply to: caterpillage


That's a pretty solid source....lol

originally posted by: lordcomac
www.youtube.com...


Leave it... in the ground

It would eventually come out on its own, might as well take advantage of it.

originally posted by: Bluntone22
a reply to: caterpillage


That's a pretty solid source....lol

I updated my post, it does seem that 30,000 gallonish cars are out there, I haven't seen any to date though.

a reply to: caterpillage


Well that proves it...
I'm not totally nuts, just mostly nuts.

I can't imagine how anybody thinks putting oil on rails is safer than pushing it in pipes. The stuff is going to be moved so we might as well do it the most efficient way possible.

originally posted by: Grimpachi

originally posted by: caterpillage
a reply to: Grimpachi

Rail transfer of crude is more safe?

Yes much safer than dealing wth TransCanada, That company has a horrible record and some of their spills are much larger than any train spill and more frequent. Any company that has 12 huge reported spills in a year shouldn't be allowed to build more pipelines. They can't successfully manage the ones they already have.

So you would say, by the amount of oil moved the pipeline is more dangerous due to spillage than moving the same amount of crude via rail?

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!

originally posted by: Bluntone22
a reply to: caterpillage


Well that proves it...
I'm not totally nuts, just mostly nuts.

I can't imagine how anybody thinks putting oil on rails is safer than pushing it in pipes. The stuff is going to be moved so we might as well do it the most efficient way possible.

Yeah, I work with rail, and I know how screwed up it is lol.