Skip to main content

View Diary: Is Exxon trying to limit the media's access to the tar sands spill? (37 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  They are trying to hide the fact... (12+ / 0-)

    ...that conventional welded steel pipelines are not up to the task of carrying diluted bitumen, irrespective up their age. The existing Keystone pipe is newer, and just as leaky. They don't want people to question what sort of pipeline could safely carry this crap, as it might require precisely welded stainless steel piping with an outer shell, and dozens of expensive sensors in-between to warn them of leaks.

    They also don't want you to know that they're improvising with older, existing pipelines that were designed for light, sweet crude, reversed to take the place of the as-yet-unbuilt KXL pipeline.

    Finally, this probably isn't the only old pipeline carrying this crap. They don't want the public to start questioning their desire to push existing pipelines that run under communities to carry dilbit, even that they are pumping it in those lines.

    We haven't seen the last of this.

    Float like a manhole cover, sting like a sash weight! Clean Coal Is A Clinker!

    by JeffW on Thu Apr 04, 2013 at 03:58:28 PM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  I think you nailed it Jeff. (8+ / 0-)

      Who even knew about this particular pipeline? Not the people living in that subdivision, that's for sure.
        And who knew that pipelines designed to transport domestic (light sweet crude) oil from Texas to the mid-west have been co-opted to transport tar-sands oil to Texas to be refined and then shipped out of the country?
        And who knew about the dangers involved to our environment? And do they want Americans to catch wind of this all? (no pun intended).

      "We the People of the United States...." -U.S. Constitution

      by elwior on Thu Apr 04, 2013 at 04:22:50 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Good point. I was thinking about that too. (5+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      elwior, JeffW, Creosote, kurt, Calamity Jean

      I'm not in the oil industry (even though I live in Houston, where ExxonMobil is headquartered). But I was wondering about the corrosion rates of standard pipeline carrying dilbit. And how that corrosion rate correlates with an increased flow rate of dilbit in a pipeline.

      I was also commenting in a different related diary (with my comment here) about how long it actually took to discover this rupture (starting from the time the rupture actually occurred) and how long it actually took to shut down the pipeline from the time the rupture occurred.  Summary: based on numbers from media sources, an 84000 barrel spill would have occurred over 21 hours at a minimum, from rupture to shutdown, which seems like a long time to me, and if true has not been widely mentioned. But I'd certainly appreciate comments from those who with more knowledge or experience in this field about whether this simple calculation is reasonable or if the numbers I was using were inaccurate.

      I know we have a lot of knowledgeable people here at DKos, so maybe we have some with more knowledge about pipelines, flow rates, and corrosion that do I.

      But if the cause be not good, the king himself hath a heavy reckoning to make, ... there are few die well that die in a battle; ... Now, if these men do not die well, it will be a black matter for the king that led them to it; — Shakespeare, ‘Henry V’

      by dewtx on Thu Apr 04, 2013 at 06:41:26 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site