Oil pipelines - unsafe at any speed

[redhen]

How safe are oil pipelines? We've seen leaks caused by human error, corrosion and there's always the risk of eco-terrorists. But now we have to worry about something as banal as rain.

The same rain that flooded Calgary may also have been responsible for a pipeline spill in Alberta.

"Enbridge said recent heavy rains in the region may have resulted in ground movements that affected the pipeline"

The slogan in the my title may be unknown to many people, it's the title of a Ralph Nader book and I use it as a descriptive term for any cost-benefit approach to public safety.

[Ashotep]

So many things could cause a pipeline to rupture but one of the biggest problems is lack of maintenance. Sometimes I wonder if they ever check on them periodically. We are always getting letters asking us to call them if we notice a leak.

Any ground movement may cause one to rupture so it doesn't surprise me that rain could do this as well as a earthquake.

[The Silver Thong]

How safe are oil pipelines? We've seen leaks caused by human error, corrosion and there's always the risk of eco-terrorists. But now we have to worry about something as banal as rain.

The same rain that flooded Calgary may also have been responsible for a pipeline spill in Alberta.

"Enbridge said recent heavy rains in the region may have resulted in ground movements that affected the pipeline"

The slogan in the my title may be unknown to many people, it's the title of a Ralph Nader book and I use it as a descriptive term for any cost-benefit approach to public safety.

Pipelines are far safer than rail or truck. If one looks at the thousands of km Canada has in pipe lines you will see they are pretty safe. Nothing is 100% but pipeline is the safest.

[Rafterman]

Pipelines are far safer than rail or truck. If one looks at the thousands of km Canada has in pipe lines you will see they are pretty safe. Nothing is 100% but pipeline is the safest.

Exactly - and as to the question of 'are they inspected' - yes, constantly.

This is nothing more than the latest enviro talking point.

[Insanity]

I have to agree on 'if properly inspected, maintained and operated' any method can be safe.

Here is a case of it not being so, was lost in the media at the time as it occurred less the two weeks of the Deep Horizon oil spill being capped, but not yet sealed.

http://en.wikipedia....mazoo_oil_spill

I saw this on the Daily Show with Jon Stewart, the gent being interviewed said it was the largest oil spill no one has heard about.

Short quote from the article, "The investigators found that the operating firm, which had received an automated signal from the pipeline that a breach had occurred, misunderstood or did not believe the signal and attempted to continue to pump dilbit oil through the pipeline for 17 hours after the breach."

Hence about a million gallons dilbit crude dumped into the Kalamazoo River.

[jugoso]

Exactly - and as to the question of 'are they inspected' - yes, constantly.

Actually, that is not true. They were fined in 2011 for failing to correctly inspect part of the Pegasus pipeline.

Other short-comings with Pegasus piepline according to PHMSA

• Exxon’s system for responding to alarms along its pipeline network “was not specific enough to ensure all appropriate personnel understand the difference between the following terms: notification, alert, CSE – Critical Safety Equipment, SSCR, tags, OIMS [the company's formalized safety program], PV Filtering, inaccurate, false, stale data (noted as old data or white data), utilize, inhibit, and other utilized abbreviations.”
  
• “Loss Prevention observations were not included in the Alarm Management Plan.” Loss prevention refers to the broad goal of stopping materials loss in any complex processing industry.
  
• “Leak Detection elements were not connected to the Alarm Management Plan.”
  
• Alarm management “was not fully developed” and “did not adequately define which alarms are safety related alarms.”
  
• Exxon “did not include a detailed process for conducting their monthly alarm review process.”
  

http://elanaschor.com/2013/03/31/exxon/

http://www.eenews.net/stories/1059983546

http://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/comm/reports/enforce/documents/520125017M/520125017M_Notice%20of%20Amendment_10102012.pdf

They have already proven to be negligent with their inspections and are fighting tooth-and-nail to keep the results of inspections secret. Do you really believe Exxon deserves to be trusted?

Edited July 3, 2013 by jugoso