Search the web
Sign In
New User? Sign Up
safepipelines · A pipeline safety discussion list to all
? Already a member? Sign in to Yahoo!

Yahoo! Groups Tips

Did you know...
Want to share photos of your group with the world? Add a group photo to Flickr.

Best of Y! Groups

   Check them out and nominate your group.
Having problems with message search? Fill out this form to ensure your group is one of the first to be migrated to the new message search system.

Messages

  Messages Help
Advanced
Re: Keystone Pipeline   Message List  
Reply | Forward Message #14224 of 14709 |
RE: Keystone Pipeline

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
 
 


Fri Jul 3, 2009 7:17 pm

acaldicott2001
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email

Forward
Message #14224 of 14709 |
Expand Messages Author Sort by Date

Can someone expand on this excerpt from the article? "Pipeline safety regulations require that the wall thickness be 0.748 inches. The Keystone pipeline...
Arthur Caldicott
acaldicott2001
Offline Send Email
Jun 30, 2009
5:09 pm

There isn't any single "thickness" required by the pipeline safety regulations, and it is misleading to state that the "regulations require XX thickness"...
William R Byrd
wrbyrdatrcp
Offline Send Email
Jun 30, 2009
6:30 pm

The U.S. Department of Transportation Pipeline and Hazardous Safety Administration granted a special permit that allows Keystone to design, construct and...
rcr4307@...
glenn_archam...
Offline Send Email
Jun 30, 2009
7:12 pm

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...
Arthur Caldicott
acaldicott2001
Offline Send Email
Jul 3, 2009
7:17 pm
Advanced

Copyright © 2009 Yahoo! Inc. All rights reserved.
Privacy Policy - Terms of Service - Guidelines - Help