by Anthony Swift, via NRDC’s Switchboard
An investigation of pipeline accident reports from the last ten years has revealed that the much touted leak detection systems employed by pipeline companies only catch one out of twenty spills.
The article, by Lisa Song of InsideClimate News, illustrates an alarming disconnect between industry rhetoric and reality when it comes to detecting leaks on pipelines. Not only do pipeline leak detection systems miss nineteen out of twenty spills, they miss four out of five spills larger than 42,000 gallons. Understanding the limits of current leak detection technology has never been more important. As companies like Enbridge and TransCanada propose pipelines moving large volumes of tar sands across sparely populated areas, through rivers and aquifers, it’s critical that the public consider what’s at stake with open eyes. Particularly after learning from Enbridge’s Kalamazoo tar sands pipeline spill how much more damaging tar sands can be.
What does that mean for tar sands pipelines like Keystone XL and Northern Gateway?
TransCanada has told regulators that its leak detection system has a threshold of between 1.5% and 2%. Given that Keystone XL has a maximum capacity of 830,000 barrels of tar sands per day, TransCanada is saying that Keystone XL’s leak detection system can only reliably identify leaks if they’re spilling more than 500,000 to 700,000 gallons of tar sands a day. When put in that context, the reason folks don’t want Keystone XL built through their rivers and groundwater become clear.
Of course, TransCanada has told federal regulators that “computer based, non real-time, accumulated gain/loss volume trending would assist in identifying seepage releases below the 1.5 to 2 percent” threshold. In plain English, that means that given enough time, if TransCanada put a certain amount of tar sands in one end of Keystone XL, and gets less oil out of another, eventually they’ll determine they have a leak. But when?
Few would take heart upon learning the answer to that question. One of the “57 special conditions” that Keystone XL proponents claim will make the pipeline safer lays out the requirements its “non real time” leak detection system. Condition 31 says that Keystone XL’s leak detection system must be prepared using guidance provided in the Canadian Standards Association (CSA). And what does the CSA say?
To comply with this “special condition,” TransCanada’s non-real time leak detection system must be able to detect spills of 4.9 million gallons within a week (or 2% of its capacity). Leaks larger than 350,000 gallons a day, or 1% of its capacity, must be identified within a month – allowing a leak to generate a spill of over 10 million gallons over the course of a month before discovery. And there is no guidance for leaks less than one percent – on Keystone XL, a leak less than 350,000 gallons a day. When looking into it at way, the condition doesn’t seem that special.
These issues are also at play with Enbridge’s Northern Gateway project, a pipeline to move tar sands across the mountains and rivers of British Columbia. As we noted in our report, that 525,000 bpd tar sands pipeline could also leak millions of gallons of tar sands in highly remote regions without its leak detection system identifying a problem.
While Enbridge is now well known for its “Keystone Kop” performance during devastating Kalamazoo tar sands spill in Michigan, a smaller spill on another Enbridge pipeline demonstrates an entirely category of risk. In June of 2011, a landowner discovered a 63,000 gallon spill from a leak the size of a pin-hole. No one is clear how long the leak had been ongoing, but one thing is clear – if a landowner had not happened upon the spill, in all probability the pipeline would still be leaking.
Operators can feel pressured to “tell people things they shouldn’t tell them because it’s not true” Richard Kuprewicz, President of Accufacts, Sept. 19, 2012
This is quite different from the picture painted by pipeline company representatives. In one public panel, TransCanada representatives simply denied that spills smaller than 2% could not be reliably detected by Keystone XL’s real time leak detection system. Simply stated, it’s hard to have an honest public discussion about the risks of projects like Keystone XL when the company sponsoring the project isn’t honest to the public about those risks.
Anthony Swift is an attorney with the international program at the Natural Resources Defense Council. This piece was originally published at NRDC’s Switchboard and was reprinted with permission.
Previous in TP Climate Progress
Language Intelligence: Lessons on persuasion from Jesus, Shakespeare, Lincoln, and Lady Gaga
Somebody has to proofread these things, and I guess it’s going to be me.
“the reason folks don’t want Keystone XL built through their rivers and groundwater become clear.” -> becomes
“a smaller spill on another Enbridge pipeline demonstrates an entirely category of risk.” Entirely category? I’m guessing “different” was intended.
We haven’t received a firm commitment that border crossing of XL is closed. The southern leg is being constructed.
Given that the Keystone XL is projected to carry 500,000 barrels a day, a claimed detection threshold of 1.5% to 2% leak optimally means the pipeline operators themselves don’t expect to catch a leak until the loss rate from a section of pipe reaches 37 gallons to 49 gallons per second.
A loss rate of a even 1 gallon per second could do a lot of damage, even if your cell phone has the hazmat team on speed dial.
I Googled “oil pipeline leak detection” and looked through the most relevant hits. A number of companies claim to provide continuous real-time leak detection. Actual numbers were sparse, however. One company did claim the ability to detect 0.0021 percent of pipeline volume per hour.
Thus, if applied to the Keystone XL pipeline, this system should detect a leak of 0.4 bbl/hour.
It seems that somebody is producing “inoperative statements.”
Something didn’t feel right so I went though the arithmetic and I need to post a correction about the 1.5 to 2% threshold. I’d have to correct my ‘inoperative comment.’
It’s closer to 3.64 gallons a second at 1.5% detection threshold, and 4.86 gallons a second at 2% threshold, for a 500,000 bbl/day pipe at full capacity.
Even so, to use your unit of barrels/hour, that would be 312.5 to 412.6 bbl/hour.
For context, New York State environmental law on petroleum spills..
All petroleum spills that occur within New York State (NYS) must be reported to the NYS Spill Hotline (1-800-457-7362) within 2 hours of discovery, except spills which meet all of the following criteria:
The quantity is known to be less than 5 gallons; and
The spill is contained and under the control of the spiller; and
The spill has not and will not reach the State’s water or any land; and
The spill is cleaned up within 2 hours of discovery.
A spill is considered to have not impacted land if it occurs on a paved surface such as asphalt or concrete. A spill in a dirt or gravel parking lot is considered to have impacted land and is reportable.
Pipeline safety is AN issue. It’s not THE issue. Let’s not forget James Hansen’s “game over” scenario is the real reason for opposing pipelines that carry Canadian Tar Sands goo. Right now, only 10% (about 40 GtC) can be commercially developed at 2006 market prices and technology. But, if prices increase and technologies improve, we’re screwed (to use the technical term for it).
As the Carbon Tracker Initiative points out, if governments around the world listen to their best scientists, we can only safely burn a fraction (20-50%?) of our “known reserves” of conventional fuel. So, the insanity of developing “unconventional” sources like the tar sands is self-evident.
I share a concern that the MSM continues to perpetuate a “false balance” in reporting the science of global warming. But, the climate and environmental media need to think about whether their reporting of the pipeline safety issue doesn’t create a “false security” that all will be well if we just solve the safety problems.
If we want opinion leaders in the MSM and Washington to get it right, we have to do a better job of treating pipeline safety as a small part of a much larger problem with the tar sands.
James Hansen’s powerful “game over” message was a game changer in the KXL protests. Let’s not lose sight of it.