When Oil Pipelines Leak

[Quintessence]

I hadn't ever seen a picture of what the land looks like when those ill-concieved oil pipelines inevitably crack a leak, so I thought I would share as I found it fascinating (in a morbid sort of way):

​

This is an image from South Dakota, some of the best farmland in the world, now ruined for at least an entire growing season because of this spill that happened earlier this month. There are a few outlets that are covering this story, but as is the norm, environmental news tends to get buried and lost in the noise. Here are a few articles that provide some more coverage:

• Keystone pipeline spill pushes oil higher, fuels TransCanada opponents
• Crews respond to 210,000-gallon oil spill from Keystone pipeline in South Dakota
• Keystone Pipeline Leaks 210,000 Gallons of Oil in South Dakota

Perhaps I'm something of an anomaly, but I have difficulty understanding why things like this get built at all. It was obvious several decades ago that the creation of new energy infrastructure needed to shift away from toxic products like oil and towards more renewable and sustainable alternatives. These alternatives also come with environmental costs, but they're significantly more manageable and controllable than these disasters. It's easy to become disassociated with the costs of building oil pipelines. Maybe the visuals will help change a few minds when it comes to constructing new ones?

Nah, of course it won't. Who cares about the environment when it's all about the worship of money and profit at someone else's expense?

 

[Revoltingest]

While pipelines have their risks & costs, so
do the alternatives, eg, supertanker, truck, rail.
I don't oppose pipelines.
But I do oppose governmental policies which disincentivize green energy.
Using less fossil fuel is the optimum solution.

 

[metis]

Oh ya, what would those Indians know about leaking pipelines anyway, and maybe they should just have minded their own business? [/sarcasm]

 

[Quetzal]

As long as politicians are in the pockets to fossil fuel industries, this will never go away.

 

[Subduction Zone]

As one poster noted, all versions of transport of oil have their risks. On a per barrel basis I do believe that pipelines are the safest form of transport. For example there is this article from Scientific American:

https://blogs.scientificamerican.co...elines-safer-than-railroads-for-carrying-oil/

And another:

Pipelines: The Worst Way to Move Oil, Except For All the Rest

Essentially over land one has two options, pipelines or rail. Rail is measurably more dangerous. No method of transport is perfect.

And with global warming and other problems the correct and ideal solution is to develop them as rapidly as possible. Something that sadly will not happen with the current administration. Pipelines are not perfect. They do leak at times. But the leaks tend to be much less harmful than when rail cars crash. Until oil is a thing of the past pipelines appear to be the best solution.

 

[BSM1]

I hadn't ever seen a picture of what the land looks like when those ill-concieved oil pipelines inevitably crack a leak, so I thought I would share as I found it fascinating (in a morbid sort of way):

​

This is an image from South Dakota, some of the best farmland in the world, now ruined for at least an entire growing season because of this spill that happened earlier this month. There are a few outlets that are covering this story, but as is the norm, environmental news tends to get buried and lost in the noise. Here are a few articles that provide some more coverage:

• Keystone pipeline spill pushes oil higher, fuels TransCanada opponents
• Crews respond to 210,000-gallon oil spill from Keystone pipeline in South Dakota
• Keystone Pipeline Leaks 210,000 Gallons of Oil in South Dakota

Perhaps I'm something of an anomaly, but I have difficulty understanding why things like this get built at all. It was obvious several decades ago that the creation of new energy infrastructure needed to shift away from toxic products like oil and towards more renewable and sustainable alternatives. These alternatives also come with environmental costs, but they're significantly more manageable and controllable than these disasters. It's easy to become disassociated with the costs of building oil pipelines. Maybe the visuals will help change a few minds when it comes to constructing new ones?

Nah, of course it won't. Who cares about the environment when it's all about the worship of money and profit at someone else's expense?

That's it? A couple of acres? Now compare this to multiple train tank cars derailing and spilling crude in all directions.

 

[suncowiam]

While pipelines have their risks & costs, so
do the alternatives, eg, supertanker, truck, rail.
I don't oppose pipelines.
But I do oppose governmental policies which disincentivize green energy.
Using less fossil fuel is the optimum solution.

Yes, less fossil fuel and definitely less coal.

 

[Quintessence]

It's certainly true there are many factors to weigh and consider. Come to think of it, it's unfortunate that the spectacles draw attention while the little things go unnoticed. While an image of a big leak like this makes a visual impact on a human viewer, there are also lots of leaks we don't see. Slow leeching into the soil, and the groundwater, that goes unnoticed. Many of the more serious environmental issues come from unnoticed impacts accumulating over periods of time.

All change has cost, yeah?

 

[Subduction Zone]

It's certainly true there are many factors to weigh and consider. Come to think of it, it's unfortunate that the spectacles draw attention while the little things go unnoticed. While an image of a big leak like this makes a visual impact on a human viewer, there are also lots of leaks we don't see. Slow leeching into the soil, and the groundwater, that goes unnoticed. Many of the more serious environmental issues come from unnoticed impacts accumulating over periods of time.

All change has cost, yeah?

The end of the fossil fuel era is coming. Tesla has shown that it is possible to make electric cars that are reliable, fast, actually Daaammm fast:

Tesla Model S breaks acceleration record with Ludicrous Mode

And soon HOLY CRAP!! fast:

Tesla’s new second-generation Roadster will be the quickest production car ever made

Now the Model S with Ludicrous Mode is a bit expensive. But it is far less expensive than gasoline cars that approach its performance. And the Roadster is going to be even more expensive, but still far far less than gasoline cars than cannot even come close to its acceleration.

Meanwhile we see more and more affordable electric cars every year. My state is already talking about changing from a gas tax to a mileage tax, though I think they need both. Electric car owners will need to pay for their use of the road too, but I see nothing wrong with a tax on gasoline that helps to help convince people to switch. Right now even the "affordable" electric cars start at $30,000, but new technology always starts expensive and becomes both cheaper and more reliable as time goes by. I would be willing to bet that within ten years the majority of cars will be electric.

 

[Quintessence]

I wish I could be that optimistic. I had told myself the first car I would buy would be full electric. That was a bit over ten years ago, and around ten years ago, I figured the majority of cars would be electric too. It didn't happen. I have little reason to be optimistic about this now.

 

[Brickjectivity]

Its the result of providing lawsuit protection for share holders. If they had some skin in the game they wouldn't let their companies do this.

 

[Mindmaster]

I hadn't ever seen a picture of what the land looks like when those ill-concieved oil pipelines inevitably crack a leak, so I thought I would share as I found it fascinating (in a morbid sort of way):

Certainly not as bad as when a nuclear power plant breaks, or they just dump a swimming pool of heavy metal toxins into the ground making solar panels. At least oil is "organic", it came from the earth and any damage is a local problem. The only clean power is wind, or geothermal. After that, everything comes with its problems.

Oil pipelines are drastically safer than moving it by train or truck, so if you ask me it's a necessary evil. We should prefer this method which can move millions of gallons of oil safely verses other methods which are riskier, or cause even more emissions themselves.

 

[David T]

I hadn't ever seen a picture of what the land looks like when those ill-concieved oil pipelines inevitably crack a leak, so I thought I would share as I found it fascinating (in a morbid sort of way):

​

This is an image from South Dakota, some of the best farmland in the world, now ruined for at least an entire growing season because of this spill that happened earlier this month. There are a few outlets that are covering this story, but as is the norm, environmental news tends to get buried and lost in the noise. Here are a few articles that provide some more coverage:

• Keystone pipeline spill pushes oil higher, fuels TransCanada opponents
• Crews respond to 210,000-gallon oil spill from Keystone pipeline in South Dakota
• Keystone Pipeline Leaks 210,000 Gallons of Oil in South Dakota

Perhaps I'm something of an anomaly, but I have difficulty understanding why things like this get built at all. It was obvious several decades ago that the creation of new energy infrastructure needed to shift away from toxic products like oil and towards more renewable and sustainable alternatives. These alternatives also come with environmental costs, but they're significantly more manageable and controllable than these disasters. It's easy to become disassociated with the costs of building oil pipelines. Maybe the visuals will help change a few minds when it comes to constructing new ones?

Nah, of course it won't. Who cares about the environment when it's all about the worship of money and profit at someone else's expense?

This concerns me emensely. In fact the only reason I am even on RF is to work a bit at trying to understand the silliness of why this is so difficult. Ecopsychology, spiritual ecology, deep ecology, are all facetes that are exploring this issue in a variety of ways. They all sense a spiritual crisis at work but how to approach it comes from many different angles. It all is eventually brought back into balance with us or without us. We are at a very interesting imbalance in our relationship to the enviroment that will not be repaired by simply recycling and better science. We need a radical shift but I don't see that happening till the pain gets much much worse.,

 

[Twilight Hue]

The end of the fossil fuel era is coming. Tesla has shown that it is possible to make electric cars that are reliable, fast, actually Daaammm fast:

Tesla Model S breaks acceleration record with Ludicrous Mode

And soon HOLY CRAP!! fast:

Tesla’s new second-generation Roadster will be the quickest production car ever made

Now the Model S with Ludicrous Mode is a bit expensive. But it is far less expensive than gasoline cars that approach its performance. And the Roadster is going to be even more expensive, but still far far less than gasoline cars than cannot even come close to its acceleration.

Meanwhile we see more and more affordable electric cars every year. My state is already talking about changing from a gas tax to a mileage tax, though I think they need both. Electric car owners will need to pay for their use of the road too, but I see nothing wrong with a tax on gasoline that helps to help convince people to switch. Right now even the "affordable" electric cars start at $30,000, but new technology always starts expensive and becomes both cheaper and more reliable as time goes by. I would be willing to bet that within ten years the majority of cars will be electric.

And what about the massive quantities of chemicals for the batteries going to come from? Where are the resources going to be extracted from and to what extent?

What kind of energy is going to be used to manufacture those batteries and how do you dispose of these batteries once they are no good?

Also electric cars while not producing emissions from the tailpipes do produce quantities of ozone that are potentially hazardous to humans. A massive quantity of vehicles producing ozone seems to be just a trade off of one category of pollutant for another.

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

I feel it's worth mentioning that I've read from SD residents near the spill, it's from the old pipeline.

 

[Subduction Zone]

And what about the massive quantities of chemicals for the batteries going to come from? Where are the resources going to be extracted from and to what extent?

What kind of energy is going to be used to manufacture those batteries and how do you dispose of these batteries once they are no good?

Also electric cars while not producing emissions from the tailpipes do produce quantities of ozone that are potentially hazardous to humans. A massive quantity of vehicles producing ozone seems to be just a trade off of one category of pollutant for another.

I never claimed that electricity has no problems. But the problems from electricity appear to be much smaller than the problems from fossil fuels.

Quite a bit of the car will be recyclable. It should be much easier to recover the lithium from the batteries through reprocessing than to mine new lithium. The same applies to quite a bit of the rest of the cars. Fossil fuels produce CO2 that could take many generations to clean from the atmosphere.