A few days ago Marissa posted an op-ed from Billings about Keystone and operating pressures. There were some statements in it that didn't make sense to me, and I asked if anyone on the safepipelines list could explain them to me. I suppose I could have asked the writer of the op-ed, and still may, but I now think he was writing about MOP for MEP - maximum effect on the public - and perhaps wasn't overly concerned with factual exactitude.
Some helpful replies (thank-you, all), on the list and privately, steered me to TransCanada Pipeline's application to increase Keystone's MOP to 80% of the pipe's minimum yield strength.
Indeed, the Pipeline Safety Trust's letter of comment on the application is right on the Trust's home page, and is in the main a review written by Richard Kuprewicz.
The Trust's opinion is that granting the application and attaching to it a number of conditions relating to inspection, monitoring, operation, and reporting, will make for a safer pipeline than to deny the application and not have the pipeline subject to the additional conditions of operation.
Another comment of note is from the Sierra Club, which asks that the application be denied. Its primary argument is essentially that abiding by the existing regulation will be safer, and it offers a number of detailed comments to support its request. One that I find somewhat compelling is that we don't have a long history of bitumen in pipelines so cannot speak from experience about the abrasive, corrosive and stress effects it will have on the pipe. (At present, most tar sands product is still upgraded and refined in Alberta. Keystone, Enbridge's Clipper, and other pipeline proposals, will move it as raw as possible to US refineries.
It's an interesting discussion, without a definitive "right" answer. Well-intentioned, knowledgeable people have looked closely at the application and come up with differing recommendations.
Does anyone know if or when a decision will be made on TCPL's application?
Arthur
Offline 
Send Email