Oil Slick Stuff

Sort by newest Sort by date
Jim..Settle down and come to your senses..you are trying to drum up Political rhetoric again on this topic and product.

You would be living in a tent if it wasn't for oil... here we all know you like ethanoil instead...Go back and revisit your own thread and slander oil production there if it gives you a woody so much, please.

Oh and here...Have a good read about your precious Ethanoil.. http://www.mass.gov/eopss/docs/dfs/...s/ethanol-spill-impacts-and-response-7-11.pdf
 
Thanks for the link, Buster. That report says most ethanol leaks result in little or no long-term environmental damage. As the report stated on page 7- "In general, ethanol in the environment degrades rapidly. Biodegradation is rapid in soil, groundwater and surface water, with predicted half lives ranging from 0.1 to 10 days. Ethanol will completely dissolve in water, and once in solution, volatilization and adsorption are not likely to be significant transport pathways in soil/groundwater or surface water. "


On the other hand- tar sands oil, in someone' s back yard, may hang around a bit longer.

yard.jpg
This is a backyard picture of the Mayflower, AR oil spill on that Exxon pipeline. The local authorities have denied the press access to these areas so few have actually seen the extent of the spill. This picture was taken by someone who lives next door to this house.
Here is a shot in that neighborhood.
[video=youtube;u30m8U6VP3E]http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=u30m8U6VP3E[/video]
 
One thing that this leak has in common with the Enbridge Michigan blowout a couple years back-- In both cases, the pipeline was carrying Canadian tar sands crude, which apparently has far more caustic properties that previous crude oils did.

In this case, they reversed the flow of the pipeline, and loaded it up with tar-sands oil under full pressure. There were known cracks- but they hadn't estimated the size of the cracks properly. Maybe it was under higher-pressure or something. It will be interesting to see what the new report will say for this Arkansas accident- it sounds already a lot like the Michigan pipeline accident.

Bottom line is...we have to be very careful about using old pipelines to carry new oil. Sort of like using old wineskins for new wine, isn't it?


Here is the report from the Endbridge Michigan 2010 Pipeline accident - citing them for multiple failures. I am sure there are lessons that can be incorporated in other Pipeline companies.

Read pipeline accident reports here:
Accident Investigations - NTSB - National Transportation Safety Board

Pipeline Accident Report
Enbridge Incorporated Hazardous Liquid Pipeline Rupture and Release
Marshall, Michigan
July 25, 2010
NTSB Number: PAR-12-01
NTIS Number: PB2012-916501
Adopted: July 10, 2012

Executive Summary

On Sunday, July 25, 2010, at 5:58 p.m., eastern daylight time, a segment of a 30-inch-diameter pipeline (Line 6B), owned and operated by Enbridge Incorporated (Enbridge) ruptured in a wetland in Marshall, Michigan. The rupture occurred during the last stages of a planned shutdown and was not discovered or addressed for over 17 hours. During the time lapse, Enbridge twice pumped additional oil (81 percent of the total release) into Line 6B during two startups; the total release was estimated to be 843,444 gallons of crude oil. The oil saturated the surrounding wetlands and flowed into the Talmadge Creek and the Kalamazoo River. Local residents self-evacuated from their houses, and the environment was negatively affected. Cleanup efforts continue as of the adoption date of this report, with continuing costs exceeding $767 million. About 320 people reported symptoms consistent with crude oil exposure. No fatalities were reported.

Probable Cause

The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) determines that the probable cause of the pipeline rupture was corrosion fatigue cracks that grew and coalesced from crack and corrosion defects under disbonded polyethylene tape coating, producing a substantial crude oil release that went undetected by the control center for over 17 hours. The rupture and prolonged release were made possible by pervasive organizational failures at Enbridge Incorporated (Enbridge) that included the following:

Deficient integrity management procedures, which allowed well-documented crack defects in corroded areas to propagate until the pipeline failed.

Inadequate training of control center personnel, which allowed the rupture to remain undetected for 17 hours and through two startups of the pipeline.

Insufficient public awareness and education, which allowed the release to continue for nearly 14 hours after the first notification of an odor to local emergency response agencies.

Contributing to the accident was the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration's (PHMSA) weak regulation for assessing and repairing crack indications, as well as PHMSA's ineffective oversight of pipeline integrity management programs, control center procedures, and public awareness.

Contributing to the severity of the environmental consequences were (1) Enbridge's failure to identify and ensure the availability of well-trained emergency responders with sufficient response resources, (2) PHMSA's lack of regulatory guidance for pipeline facility response planning, and (3) PHMSA's limited oversight of pipeline emergency preparedness that led to the approval of a deficient facility response plan.

Safety issues identified during this accident investigation include the following:
The inadequacy of Enbridge's integrity management program to accurately assess and remediate crack defects. Enbridge's crack management program relied on a single in-line inspection technology to identify and estimate crack sizes. Enbridge used the resulting inspection reports to perform engineering assessments without accounting for uncertainties associated with the data, tool, or interactions between cracks and corrosion. A 2005 Enbridge engineering assessment and the company's criteria for excavation and repair showed that six crack-like defects ranging in length from 9.3 to 51.6 inches were left in the pipeline, unrepaired, until the July 2010 rupture.

The failure of Enbridge's control center staff to recognize abnormal conditions related to ruptures. Enbridge's leak detection and supervisory control and data acquisition systems generated alarms consistent with a ruptured pipeline on July 25 and July 26, 2010; however, the control center staff failed to recognize that the pipeline had ruptured until notified by an outside caller more than 17 hours later. During the July 25 shutdown, the control center staff attributed the alarms to the shutdown and interpreted them as indications of an incompletely filled pipeline (known as column separation). On July 26, the control center staff pumped additional oil into the rupture pipeline for about 1.5 hours during two startups. The control center staff received many more leak detection alarms and noted large differences between the amount of oil being pumped into the pipeline and the amount being delivered, but the staff continued to attribute these conditions to column separation. An Enbridge supervisor had granted the control center staff permission to start up the pipeline for a third time just before they were notified about the release.

The inadequacy of Enbridge's facility response plan to ensure adequate training of the first responders and sufficient emergency response resources allocated to respond to a worst-case release. The first responders to the oil spill were four Enbridge employees from a local pipeline maintenance shop in Marshall, Michigan.

Their efforts were focused downstream along the Talmadge Creek rather than near the immediate area of the rupture. The first responders neglected to use the culverts along the Talmadge Creek as underflow dams to minimize the spread of oil, and they deployed booms unsuitable for the fast-flowing waters. Further, the oil spill response contractors, identified in Enbridge's facility response plan, were unable to immediately deploy to the rupture site and were over 10 hours away.
Inadequate regulatory requirements and oversight of crack defects in pipelines. Title 49 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 195.452(h) fails to provide clear requirements for performing an engineering assessment and remediation of crack-like defects on a pipeline. In the absence of prescriptive regulatory requirements, Enbridge applied its own methodology and margins of safety. Enbridge chose to use a lower margin of safety for cracks than for corrosion when assessing crack defects. PHMSA expects pipeline operators to excavate all crack features; however, PHMSA did not issue any findings about the methods used by Enbridge in previous inspections.

(more: Accident Investigations - NTSB - National Transportation Safety Board )
Click to expand...
 
Some more pics of that Arkansas pipeline burst:

https://www.facebook.com/MayflowerArkansasOilSpill

Some of the residents say they didn't even know that the pipeline was on their property. It dates back to the 1940s. The houses were built right on top and around some sections of the pipeline. Bad news- it's flowing into the lake. EPA now calling it a major spill.

More:
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/04/01/us-exxon-pipeline-spill-idUSBRE92U00220130401

Meanwhile, Exxon_Mobil shares are trading today at $90.87, up 76 cents from Thursday's close.
 
So this is ancient pipe, I thought this was new pipe, at least the pics were of new pipe. These things need to be inspected periodically or they are subject to failure, they are only steel and it doesn't last forever. And yes they can inspect them for corrosion, erosion, cracking, pitting etc. from the inside using robots if they are underground. Has anyone asked for the inspection results?
It appears it had been inspected but someone ignored the results, bet they won't do that again!
 
Some aerial shots of the Arkansas pipeline leak

I'm just trying to show factual updated data-

*caution- there are some anti-pipeline comments on this video.

 
Lesson, never build your home over an Oil or Natural Gas pipeline that's been in the ground for over 60 years. Clean up seems to be well on it's way.
 
Oh, THIS is interesting. Now Exxon is off the hook for paying to clean up- based on a technicality. Turns out tar-sands oil isn't classified as oil, so Exxon doesn't have to pay for the cleanup.

Exxon has confirmed that the pipeline was carrying “low-quality Wabasca Heavy crude oil from Alberta.” This oil comes from the region of Alberta where the controversial tar sands are located. Heavy crude is strip mined or boiled loose from dense underground formations that often contain a large amount of bitumen. This oil is very thick and needs to be diluted with lighter fluids in order to flow through pipelines. Reports have stated that at least 12,000 barrels of oil and water spilled into the town.

A 1980 law ensures that diluted bitumen is not classified as oil, and companies transporting it in pipelines do not have to pay into the federal Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund. Other conventional crude producers pay 8 cents a barrel to ensure the fund has resources to help clean up some of the 54,000 barrels of pipeline oil that spilled 364 times last year.

As Oil Change International said in a statement today:
“The great irony of this tragic spill in Arkansas is that the transport of tar sands oil through pipelines in the US is exempt from payments into the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund. Exxon, like all companies shipping toxic tar sands, doesn’t have to pay into the fund that will cover most of the clean up costs for the pipeline’s inevitable spills.”

​
Whatever you call it, as Judge Dodson says, “Crude oil is crude oil. None of it is real good to touch.”
Click to expand...

What do you think of that!

Exxon's Duck-Killing Pipeline Won't Pay Taxes To Oil Spill Cleanup Fund | ThinkProgress
 
A few questions:
If they don't pay into the federal Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund, is that like not buying insurance? Who pays if you don't have insurance?
Why would they think that no company is responsible for the clean up, the owner of the product or the owner of the pipeline or both will be responsible no matter what is being pumped through that pipe, even if they didn't pay into the fund, it's not oil so why should they pay into an oil spill liability fund?
What if it was soap, would they have to pay?
How much product was spilled, they called it 12,000 barrels of oil and water ?
What if Uncle Sam owns the pipeline, is the government responsible for the violations of inspection criteria and upkeep of a pipeline that should have been replaced 30 years ago?
Does the government regulate issue and inforce the requirements of inspection and upkeep?
Who is responsible, EPA?
liability Lawyers will eat them alive if they don't pay, along with the Greenies on that web site.
 
[TABLE="class: tablewrapper"]
[TR]
[TD="class: econo-reportname, colspan: 2"]EIA Petroleum Status Report
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="colspan: 2"]

[TABLE="class: actual_consensus_box"]
[TR="class: actual_consensus_toprow"]
[TD]		Prior
Actual
Crude oil inventories (weekly change)
Gasoline (weekly change)
Distillates (weekly change)

[TD="class: econo-releaseinfo"] Released On 4/3/2013 10:30:00 AM For wk3/29, 2013
[/TD]

[TD="class: actual_consensus_box_numbers"]3.3 M barrels
[/TD]
[TD="class: actual_consensus_box_numbers"] 2.7 M barrels
[/TD]

[TD="class: actual_consensus_box_numbers"]-1.6 M barrels
[/TD]
[TD="class: actual_consensus_box_numbers"] -0.6 M barrels
[/TD]

[TD="class: actual_consensus_box_numbers"]-4.5 M barrels
[/TD]
[TD="class: actual_consensus_box_numbers"] -2.3 M barrels
[/TD]
[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
Economic Calendar - Bloomberg I'm outa here!:toung:
[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top