Skip to main content

View Diary: 65% of Americans want Keystone XL pipeline even though 47% think it could harm the environment (177 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Most of your claims about 'abrasive slurry' (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    peregrine kate, peptabysmal

    'abrasive components',  'claims of 'little experience' with tar sands crude pipeline transportation' have been conclusively rebutted by none other that the United States National Research Council:

    http://www.nap.edu/...

    Diluted bitumen is not a sludge.   Sludges are primarily solid particles and not liquids.   Neither refineries nor pipeline companies want either non-hydrocarbon solids or water in crude for pipeline shipments.

    Calling synthetic crude 'toxic waste' and 'sludge' is committing environmental engineering malpractice.   While synthetic crude from tar sands clearly contains toxic substances, so do all forms of crude and produced petroleum and natural gas liquids.  Tar sands crude is not regulated as a hazardous waste.

    Synthetic crude from tarsands as diluted bitumen has similar viscosity, mass density, elemental analysis (including metals) to heavy sour crude from conventional sources.   They are pumped at similar temperatures and pressures in pipelines.

    Synthetic crude for pipeline shipment is similar to other heavy sour crude in the % solids/water content.

    However, tar sands crude is much harder to clean up when spilled because it will not float on water like most crude oil produced from conventional sources.

    •  Response to Lake Superior (0+ / 0-)

      You said, "Diluted bitumen is not a sludge."  
      And you're right:  DILUTED bitumen is not sludge after its been injected w/ light hydrocarbons and methane, to make it something a little less than a solid.  Then it still has to be heated, in order for it to flow through the pipelines.  TransCanada has already admitted that these pipelines are little different than any of their other pipelines that carry a genuine oil.  And the pipelines that are already carrying the tarsands have sprung hundreds of leaks over the last few years, not the least of which was in the Kalamazoo River and, more recently, Arkansas.  The "oil" could not be cleaned up, because it SUNK- like tar.  The bitumen, even after dilution and heating, is still not oil.  
      Why are you defending this?  It's not in America's interest.  We have almost nothing to gain from it, but environmental catastrophes are inevitable.  

      •  You said: (0+ / 0-)
        DILUTED bitumen is not sludge after its been injected w/ light hydrocarbons and methane, to make it something a little less than a solid.
        In the production process for heavy sour crude, production of bitumen requires hot water and/or steam and the form of the bitumen is a viscous liquid because it is considered as an oil.

        Methane is not used from treating or processing heavy sour crude from tar sands.

        Then it still has to be heated, in order for it to flow through the pipelines.
        While thermal processes are used for heating tar sands to release bitumen hyrocarbons, after such bitumen is produced it exists as a viscous liquid which is then blended with other light hydrocarbons produced from either tar sands, conventional oil or petroleum naphtha or natural gas liquids.   The product is a liquid and not a solid as a product of 'froth' formation from the tar sands bitumen release process.  

        No thermal process is used to heat heavy sour crude from tar sands in order to transport it through pipelines.  Tar sands crude is similar in properties to conventional heavy sour crude which is commonly transported in pipelines.

        And the pipelines that are already carrying the tarsands have sprung hundreds of leaks over the last few years, not the least of which was in the Kalamazoo River and, more recently, Arkansas.

        Tar sands crude was not the cause of the loss of pipeline integrity that caused the Kalamazoo River spill.   Tar sands crude is what was spilled, but it was not the cause of the loss of pipeline integrity, which was from external corrosion and stress cracking.   Read the National Transportation Safety Board report on the Kalamazoo River Enbridge spill.

        The bitumen, even after dilution and heating, is still not oil.  
        This statement does not have any meaning or validity as to petroleum and pipeline engineering and science-based approaches to this issue.
        Why are you defending this?  It's not in America's interest.  We have almost nothing to gain from it, but environmental catastrophes are inevitable.  
        I'm opposed to the KXL pipeline.   My comments are not a defense of the pipeline or tar sands crude oil.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site