Back in 2011, TransCanada’s Keystone pipeline had already exceeded the company’s projected spill frequency with multiple little gasket-blowings at pump stations along the tar sands oil line. TransCanada poo-pooed that reporting, saying that boo-boos at pump stations don’t count.
Two spills from the pipe itself in South Dakota—400 barrels east of Menno/south of Freeman in April 2016 and maybe 5,000 barrels southwest of Amherst this month—neutralize any weasel words from TransCanada about its lowballed spill predictions. Reuters picks up on what I noted in my initial report on the Amherst spill—the Keystone 1 pipeline has spilled far more oil than TransCanada told regulators it would:
Before constructing the pipeline, TransCanada provided a spill risk assessment to regulators that estimated the chance of a leak of more than 50 barrels to be “not more than once every seven to 11 years over the entire length of the pipeline in the United States,” according to its South Dakota operating permit.
For South Dakota alone, where the line has leaked twice, the estimate was for a “spill no more than once every 41 years” [Valerie Volcovici and Richard Valdmanis, “Keystone’s Existing Pipeline Spills Far More Than Predicted to Regulators,” Reuters via KELO Radio, 2017.11.27].
Reuters notes the similarly low spill predictions TransCanada has made for the proposed Keystone XL tar sands pipeline:
TransCanada’s spill analysis for Keystone XL, which would cross Montana, South Dakota and Nebraska, estimates 2.2 leaks per decade with half of those at volumes of 3 barrels or less. It estimated that spills exceeding 1,000 barrels would occur at a rate of once per century [Volcovici and Valdmanis, 2017.11.27].
As reported here in 2011, University of Nebraska–Lincoln engineering professor John Stansbury estimated that TransCanada underestimated Keystone XL leakage by a factor of eight.
So would giving our Public Utilities Commission incorrect risk analysis be sufficient grounds for revoking TransCanada’s pipeline permit? Gee, Commissioner Gary Hanson, maybe we should at least suspend the Keystone 1 and Keystone XL permits and offer TransCanada’s engineers the chance to return to Pierre and offer under oath some updated spill frequency data.
I think the cleanup crews were always going to be part of the BIG JOB INCREASE we were supposed to see with the advent of this pipeline! I understand that Trump, himself, will be on hand to toss out paper towels!
Big Oil will always say what it is they know we want to hear whether it is the truth or not. Somewhere in the middle of the pros and cons lies the truth. As for putting in pipelines, I don’t care how much it costs, I don’t care on the amount of time it takes, I care about the safety to our air, land, water, and life. Reasonable efforts to make safety a priority must come first. Perhaps laying 6″ thick concrete culverts prior to laying pipe would provide a protection mechanism and allow a reservoir to collect oil from leaking pipes with a monitoring system to indicate leaks. YEA! I know, they have monitoring systems, but it seems that they talk about state of the art systems then actually put in place low to mid-grade systems. If South Dakota is going to continue to allow foreign companies to come into our state to mine our resources then we must set into place very strict guidelines and requirements for them to adhere too. Also, the state legislature must stop removing protection laws (HB 158) to make the application process easier when companies can not or will not answer DNR application questions.
TransCanada already has new steel in the ground: the company says the PHMSA has approved restarting Keystone 1 at reduced pressure tomorrow.