Politicised pipelines

I keep an eye on pipeline news in the general media around the world (which means about 90% North American news) and it is remarkable how two proposed pipelines in particular have become mainstream political issues in the last 6 months.  Both are planned to carry diluted bitumen from the Athabasca tar sands deposits in northern Alberta:

  • The Keystone XL pipeline expands the existing Keystone Pipeline system with 2200 km of DN 900 line heading generally south and slightly east towards the central and southern United States, ending at the Gulf coast of Texas; the oil is intended for US consumption
  • The Northern Gateway pipeline, also DN 900, heading directly west for 1770 km from near Edmonton to Kitimat on the coast of British Columbia well north of Vancouver Island from where the oil will be exported to China (this has a parallel DN 500 line that will convey natural gas condensate in the opposite direction, to be used as diluent for the bitumen)

The objections to these pipelines are multifaceted.  The most common themes seem to be firstly a general objection to the production and use of tar sands bitumen, on the grounds that it is a particularly high CO2 source, and secondly a belief that “all pipelines leak” and the resulting inevitable environmental damage will be intolerable.  The Keystone XL pipeline runs over part of the vast Ogallala Aquifer which is a highly valued groundwater resource.  There is a high level of concern about contamination if the pipeline leaks.  The Northern Gateway runs through relatively pristine mountain terrain and lots of indigenous land, and there are also concerns about marine effects of a spill from the Kitimat terminal or a ship. (This is a superficial overview of a complex series of issues.)

These are really hot topics in the US.  Last year 1200 people protesting against the Keystone XL pipeline were arrested outside the White House.  Just today there was a report of an online petition against the same line gathering 500 000 signatures in 7 hours.

Partly because I don’t follow these debates very closely and partly because I have a pipeline focus I naturally thought at first that all these protests were about the pipelines themselves, but lately it has become clearer that the pipelines are proxies for bigger matters, mainly the CO2 issue.  I confess to some sympathy for that view, but nevertheless it grates to have the “all pipelines leak” view presented so often that it just seems to be accepted as fact by the US and Canadian public.

Having said that, the North American record of pipeline failures would not be helping the proponents of these new pipelines.  Just today there was a rupture of a DN 750 gas line in Louisiana, fortunately in a forest and with no ignition.  This was a bigger incident than usual, but there are reports of some sort of pipeline failure every week, and even if many of them are distribution or production lines the general public would not make the distinction between those and transmission.

We can only be grateful that pipelines in Australia  (1) have a vastly better safety record and (2) have not yet become politicised (apart from a little spin-off from opposition to coal seam methane projects).  We should hope that it stays that way.

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Incidents, Risk assessment. Bookmark the permalink.

4 Responses to Politicised pipelines

  1. Mark Coates says:

    Always interesting to see arguments against pipelines – especially where the environment and/or community is involved.

    History shows that, in the 1980’s, a proposed oil pipeline to run from Alaska to the US was defeated on environmental grounds, with the environmental lobbyists at the time claiming a major victory. Without a pipeline, the operator used oil tankers to ship the oil.

    The Company – Exxon. The vessel – The Exxon Valdez. most of us would remember what happened in 1989. Was this really a victory for the environment and people’s (or animal’s) safety?

    It’s always important to think the ramifications through before doing a project and/or opposing a project.

  2. I have got wind, only last week, of an issue that may cause future pipelines to become politicised.
    The comment has come to me second hand via a proponent for a new pipeline where one of the land valuers involved has made the comment that pipelines are now subject to a “100m exclusion zone” each side of the pipeline.
    I am aware of the APIA sub-committee’s deliberations on encroachments and we have already voiced our significant concerns about what is being proposed.
    We are concerned that if this issue gains any traction then the likelyhood of there being any new transmission pipelines is NSW will either be close to zero or that the proponents will be confronted with the costs associated compensation for 200m wide easements.
    I have already communicated my concerns, arising from this intelligence, to Steve Dobbie.

    • petertuft says:

      The industry needs to manage its information, which is easier said than done. Of course the “100 m exclusion zone” is a myth – the APIA Corridor Committee wish-list includes neither an exclusion zone nor any specific distance, but you highlight the danger of misunderstanding spreading in the community. What is a worry is that a land valuer, who should be up to speed on the current legal situation, should believe such things.

  3. Peter Owbridge says:

    Exon CEO seems to share the view of working together with Regulators etc and that they can achieve better things if … “Regulations should provide a clear efficient roadmap for how to get things done, not a complex tangle of rules that are used to stop things from getting things done.”
    The link to the article is:
    http://www.energynewspremium.net/storyview.asp?storyid=8684727&sectionsource=s0

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s