Home | About | Donate

"No Safe Pipelines": TransCanada Admits KXL Spill Bigger than First Claimed


#1


#2

And this is a new, no doubt "state-of-the-art", pipeline.


#3
  1. They can't tell from sensors immediately when the pipeline is leaking?
  2. We depend on the the oil companies to tell us how much leaked?
    Doesn't sound like a very good system...

#4

This "revelation" is highly relevant to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) approving the "AIM" 42" high pressure fracked-gas pipeline based on incomplete, false, and omitted safety data! The Aim gas pipeline, running thru the Indian Point nuclear plant facility about 100 feet from control infrastructure is a potentially catastrophic "accident" waiting to happen! Hey, what could go wrong?!
It's NOT an "accident" when dangers to the public are known and safety misrepresented, it's criminal negligence!


#5

Some day in the future the engineers of a proposed pipeline project or nuclear plant will be telling us "that's the old out of date technology that causes problems and results in accidents. The new stuff is virtually foolproof." And then they'll be telling us the same thing about that current generation of foolproof new technology when the next batch of new shit that comes along. All the old dangerous stuff was new technology at one time and they were telling us it was safe. When are we going to stop believing them? And don't these spills ALWAYS turn out to be bigger -- much bigger -- than originally estimated. Why don't they overestimate to begin with so we can be relieved that the catastrophe isn't as bad as first thought for once.


#8

Here's another alert. Vermonters (and others) need to be aware and fight operator plans to stick taxpayers with clean-up costs. Entergy and other operators are using the NRC approved "SafStor" scheme to shut plants down but put-off dismantling, clean-up and restoration to pre-industrial condition for 60 years!!
http://www.reformer.com/localnews/ci_26750541/entergy-chooses-safstor-yankee-decommissioning

ALL nuke plants must be immediately dismantled and cleaned-up after decommissioning! SafStor is a scam by nuke operators and their agent NRC!

60 years into the future is a hell of a long time and Entergy has already said they will not guarantee clean-up costs after that time.


#9

Yay! As long as I can fill my "mini"van's tank.

On another note: As a p/t climate activist, I see how the industry operates and baby, they are remorseless and relentless. Hey, they've got competitors so you gotta be lean and mean.


#10

Well if they now admit the spill 100 times greater , given how these guys operate that likely being understated as well.


#11

A 'keystone', as I understand it, is an indispensable, specially shaped solid form to hold a planned architectural construction of an arch intended to provide ingress and egress for that structure.

The 'overarching' architecture of acquisition and degradation of [many indigenous] lands, mining, refining and export of tar sands is designed according to the institutionalization of an overwhelming presence of voids/null sets/negations more than tangible elements in every step of its implementation. In other words, it is from the get-go, designed for long term failure at catastrophic scale. So far the PR and political machinery has managed to 'silo' each element - but the overall truth can no longer be denied. Remember, it provides lots of jobs.


#12

No, it was not an "oil spill". The product was a Dilbit blend called, "Surmont Heavy Blend (SHB)".

Dilbit, "Diluted Bitumen" takes the washed raw tar sands bitumen, and adds light hydrocarbons ("Natural Gas Liquids" or "condensate") as a solvent to lower the viscosity so it can flow in a pipeline.
Sometimes they "upgrade" some of the bitumen and create the diluents from the bitumen itself. This is called Synbit, or Syncrude.

For 250 years, "Crude Oil" has referred to a natural product. Where as Dilbit has MANY differences over Crude Oil.

  • Dilbit is new. Invented in 1995
  • Dilbit is mined differently
  • Dilbit is refined differently
  • Dilbit has different corrosivity
  • Dilbit has a very low net energy returned for energy invested (EROEI)
  • Dilbit is regulated and taxed differently than Crude Oil.

I make the analogy to someone who has never seen a horse before, and calls it a Donkey. That's OK! You use the word you know. But then someone explains the dozen ways they are different. Do you keep calling it a donkey?

Dilbit is the same way. OK, it superficially resembles Crude Oil. The industry calls it "Crude Oil", but can we really trust them?

If we use the correct term, DILBIT, people my say, "what the heck is that?", and do some research, and learn about Tar Sands, the Boreal Forest, the Athabasca River, and the MOUNTAIN of sulfur at the Suncor Upgrader in Ft. McMurray AB. However, if we incorrectly call it "crude oil", people might not raise an eyebrow.

Please use the correct terminology. DILBIT IS NOT OIL!!!


#13

Notice that a passerbyer discovered the leak, not the high-tech computer controlled new age sensors that are touted as sure safeguards to leak prevention. Oil companies must be removed from reporting and regulation because we want democracy now.
PS What will happen to that section of the farmer's land that is now toxified for ages?


#14

Where oh where are some actual goll-dang photos???

State of the art sensing devises ? Where?
and who in the hell pays for the clean up?