Pipeline leak FACTS:worst leak was 761 barrels...

[healthmyths]

per hour.
BUT...
Before the Alyeska pipeline Alaska's 14.5% had highest personal income tax in the U.S.A.
Now 30 years after the pipeline began operating,
the state has no personal income tax,
and Alaskans earned $25 billion in personal income.
Alaska moved from the most heavily taxed state to the most tax-free state.

The difference was the Trans Alaska Pipeline System and the taxes and revenue it brought to Alaska.

The Alyeska 700,000 barrels per day pipeline's worst and longest spill leaked 16,000 barrels in 21 hours or 761 barrels per hour.

Cause: man made explosion blew hole.
The largest oil spill involving the main pipeline took place on February 15, 1978, when an unknown individual blew a 1-inch (2.54-centimeter) hole in it at Steele Creek, just east of Fairbanks.[157] Approximately 16,000 barrels (2,500 m3) of oil leaked out of the hole before the pipeline was shut down.[152] After more than 21 hours, it was restarted.[158]

Cause: gunshot.
The steel pipe is resistant to gunshots and has resisted them on several occasions, but on October 4, 2001, a drunken gunman named Daniel Carson Lewis shot a hole into a weld near Livengood, causing the second-largest mainline oil spill in pipeline history. Approximately 6,144 barrels (976.8 m3) leaked from the pipeline; 4,238 barrels (673.8 m3) were recovered and reinjected into the pipeline.
Nearly 2 acres (8,100 m2) of tundra were soiled and were removed in the cleanup.

The pipeline was repaired and was restarted more than 60 hours later.
Lewis was found guilty in December 2002 of criminal mischief, assault, drunken driving, oil pollution, and misconduct.
He was sentenced to 16 years in jail and ordered to repay the $17 million cleanup costs.
Trans-Alaska Pipeline System - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[healthmyths]

So if the WORST leak was 31,962 gallons in one hour in the LARGEST pipeline that was built to handle 1.2 million barrels a day...
EXCUSE ME!!! But what is the concern???

 

[Navy1960]

Protecting drinking water makes good environmental sense. In the past, people thought that if we buried chemicals in the ground they would disappear. This is now a proven fallacy that has resulted in dire consequences for our environment. Everything we put into the environment accumulates. If one person pours diesel fuel on an ant bed, he or she may feel that no harm is being done to the environment. However, if everyone pours diesel fuel on their ant beds, we have a large scale problem. One gallon of used oil can contaminate one million gallons of water. Contamination can take years to clean up and not all ground water contamination can be treated successfully with current technology. This is why pollution prevention is crucial
Why protect drinking water?

The Ogallala Aquifer, also known as the High Plains Aquifer, is a vast yet shallow underground water table aquifer located beneath the Great Plains in the United States. One of the world's largest aquifers, it covers an area of approximately 174,000 mi² (450,000 km²) in portions of the eight states of South Dakota, Nebraska, Wyoming, Colorado, Kansas, Oklahoma, New Mexico, and Texas. It was named in 1898 by N.H. Darton from its type locality near the town of Ogallala, Nebraska.[1]
Ogallala Aquifer - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

While no doubt a pipeline for Alaska has meant a better economic environment , it would appear that TransCanada would be better served to move the pipeline on a route that did not impact The Ogallala Aquifer. You can devise as many safety measures as you wish but it only takes one event to defeat those safety measures. So it would seem to me that the best safety measure would be to reroute the pipeline so that if this were to happen then even if a small spill were to occur then it's impact would not be so great.

 

[healthmyths]

Protecting drinking water makes good environmental sense. In the past, people thought that if we buried chemicals in the ground they would disappear. This is now a proven fallacy that has resulted in dire consequences for our environment. Everything we put into the environment accumulates. If one person pours diesel fuel on an ant bed, he or she may feel that no harm is being done to the environment. However, if everyone pours diesel fuel on their ant beds, we have a large scale problem. One gallon of used oil can contaminate one million gallons of water. Contamination can take years to clean up and not all ground water contamination can be treated successfully with current technology. This is why pollution prevention is crucial
Why protect drinking water?

The Ogallala Aquifer, also known as the High Plains Aquifer, is a vast yet shallow underground water table aquifer located beneath the Great Plains in the United States. One of the world's largest aquifers, it covers an area of approximately 174,000 mi² (450,000 km²) in portions of the eight states of South Dakota, Nebraska, Wyoming, Colorado, Kansas, Oklahoma, New Mexico, and Texas. It was named in 1898 by N.H. Darton from its type locality near the town of Ogallala, Nebraska.[1]
Ogallala Aquifer - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

While no doubt a pipeline for Alaska has meant a better economic environment , it would appear that TransCanada would be better served to move the pipeline on a route that did not impact The Ogallala Aquifer. You can devise as many safety measures as you wish but it only takes one event to defeat those safety measures. So it would seem to me that the best safety measure would be to reroute the pipeline so that if this were to happen then even if a small spill were to occur then it's impact would not be so great.

I did a search on "One gallon of used oil can contaminate one million gallons of water." and all the quotes said the same thing...

"CAN" didn't SAY would or ALWAYS will so what do you mean by "CAN"??

Then the word "CONTAMINATE"... what does that mean?
Contaminate can be immediately lethal. Is this the case one gallon of oil can cause immediate death of anything in 1 million gallons?

Or maybe "contaminate" meaning spoiling the use for ever of anything that is in 1 million gallons of water?

More importantly..
do you know that the AVERAGE vehicle leaks about a quart a month. With 255 million vehicles leaking a quart a month over 152,332 barrels of oil dripping on sidewalks, going into air and using your ratio that contaminates:
6.3 trillion gallons of WATER EACH AND EVERY MONTH!!!

WOW let's stop DRIVING RIGHT NOW!!!

Remember again... what does it mean "CAN and what is contaminate"???

Let's just give up!!! BUT remember ONE point in your defense of killing Keystone... 700,000 barrels a day equals ONE supertanker a day leaving Canada for China! One CHANCE a day the tanker will repeat Exxon Valdez!

Versus the worst KNOWN pipleline loss of 761 barrels!!!

 

[Navy1960]

Ground-water contamination by crude oil, and other petroleum-
based liquids, is a widespread problem. An average of 83
crude-oil spills occurred per year during 1994-96 in the United
States, each spilling about 50,000 barrels of crude oil (U.S.
Office of Pipeline Safety, electronic commun., 1997). An understanding
of the fate of organic contaminants (such as oil and
gasoline) in the subsurface is needed to design innovative and
cost-effective remedial solutions at contaminated sites.
http://mn.water.usgs.gov/projects/bemidji/results/fact-sheet.pdf

Let me rephrase my post , first, no where in my posting did you see me advocate for killing the Keystone pipeline. What I did suggest was that companies like TransCanada and any company can not only make a great contribution to the economy, but they can also do it as good stewards of the environment. Of course it would mean a delay for Keystone to reroute , however if rerouting will kill the entire project , then I suggest Keystone has even bigger problems than just this. Any project of this size has issues of land acquisition, site modification, and routing, so to simply suggest that rerouting the pipeline around a large fresh water source would kill it would mean TransCanada did not plan this very well. I am led to believe that they have already put into place measures to do just that.

Used engine oil can end up in waterways. An average oil change uses five quarts; one change can contaminate a million gallons of fresh water. Much oil in runoff from land and municipal and industrial wastes ends up in the oceans. 363 million gallons
Ocean Planet: Oil Pollution

I do not advocate simply giving up on energy production based on these facts nor do I advocate giving up on driving as you say. However I tend to think we as a nation are much smarter than this, and have the ability to not only make our economy strong, but we are smart enough to develop technologies that harness energy in better ways that we did in the past, as well as develop and build transportation to do the same thing. I am of the belief that this will always have a positive effect on this nation in terms of the economy. I do believe we can be good stewards of the environment as well as develop our internal sources of energy and end our dependence on Middle Eastern sources of energy.

 

[healthmyths]

Ground-water contamination by crude oil, and other petroleum-
based liquids, is a widespread problem. An average of 83
crude-oil spills occurred per year during 1994-96 in the United
States, each spilling about 50,000 barrels of crude oil (U.S.
Office of Pipeline Safety, electronic commun., 1997). An understanding
of the fate of organic contaminants (such as oil and
gasoline) in the subsurface is needed to design innovative and
cost-effective remedial solutions at contaminated sites.
http://mn.water.usgs.gov/projects/bemidji/results/fact-sheet.pdf

Let me rephrase my post , first, no where in my posting did you see me advocate for killing the Keystone pipeline. What I did suggest was that companies like TransCanada and any company can not only make a great contribution to the economy, but they can also do it as good stewards of the environment. Of course it would mean a delay for Keystone to reroute , however if rerouting will kill the entire project , then I suggest Keystone has even bigger problems than just this. Any project of this size has issues of land acquisition, site modification, and routing, so to simply suggest that rerouting the pipeline around a large fresh water source would kill it would mean TransCanada did not plan this very well. I am led to believe that they have already put into place measures to do just that.

Used engine oil can end up in waterways. An average oil change uses five quarts; one change can contaminate a million gallons of fresh water. Much oil in runoff from land and municipal and industrial wastes ends up in the oceans. 363 million gallons
Ocean Planet: Oil Pollution

I do not advocate simply giving up on energy production based on these facts nor do I advocate giving up on driving as you say. However I tend to think we as a nation are much smarter than this, and have the ability to not only make our economy strong, but we are smart enough to develop technologies that harness energy in better ways that we did in the past, as well as develop and build transportation to do the same thing. I am of the belief that this will always have a positive effect on this nation in terms of the economy. I do believe we can be good stewards of the environment as well as develop our internal sources of energy and end our dependence on Middle Eastern sources of energy.

And you think like most people AGAINST Keystone that it's just another evil oil company out to screw the ordinary person!

See I have a personal acquaintance who works for an Oil pipeline company (not the one for Keystone..) and if YOU KNEW the hoops and rules and regulations that have to be followed you may not be so naive in your environmental "concerns"!

Seriously it is people exactly like you though that naively perpetuate the impressions I have assumed above...
I do believe you are in favor BUT in your attempts to be "impartial.."
you do nothing but perpetuate the myths,etc. of the MSM/Democrat/Liberal progressive MEME!!... I.e. Capitalism/big oil/ BAD for environment!
Do you know that since 1995 oil exploration has technologically advanced to the point what use to take 65 acres per drill site to today less then 8 acres!

 

[Navy1960]

Ground-water contamination by crude oil, and other petroleum-
based liquids, is a widespread problem. An average of 83
crude-oil spills occurred per year during 1994-96 in the United
States, each spilling about 50,000 barrels of crude oil (U.S.
Office of Pipeline Safety, electronic commun., 1997). An understanding
of the fate of organic contaminants (such as oil and
gasoline) in the subsurface is needed to design innovative and
cost-effective remedial solutions at contaminated sites.
http://mn.water.usgs.gov/projects/bemidji/results/fact-sheet.pdf

Let me rephrase my post , first, no where in my posting did you see me advocate for killing the Keystone pipeline. What I did suggest was that companies like TransCanada and any company can not only make a great contribution to the economy, but they can also do it as good stewards of the environment. Of course it would mean a delay for Keystone to reroute , however if rerouting will kill the entire project , then I suggest Keystone has even bigger problems than just this. Any project of this size has issues of land acquisition, site modification, and routing, so to simply suggest that rerouting the pipeline around a large fresh water source would kill it would mean TransCanada did not plan this very well. I am led to believe that they have already put into place measures to do just that.

Used engine oil can end up in waterways. An average oil change uses five quarts; one change can contaminate a million gallons of fresh water. Much oil in runoff from land and municipal and industrial wastes ends up in the oceans. 363 million gallons
Ocean Planet: Oil Pollution

I do not advocate simply giving up on energy production based on these facts nor do I advocate giving up on driving as you say. However I tend to think we as a nation are much smarter than this, and have the ability to not only make our economy strong, but we are smart enough to develop technologies that harness energy in better ways that we did in the past, as well as develop and build transportation to do the same thing. I am of the belief that this will always have a positive effect on this nation in terms of the economy. I do believe we can be good stewards of the environment as well as develop our internal sources of energy and end our dependence on Middle Eastern sources of energy.

And you think like most people AGAINST Keystone that it's just another evil oil company out to screw the ordinary person!

See I have a personal acquaintance who works for an Oil pipeline company (not the one for Keystone..) and if YOU KNEW the hoops and rules and regulations that have to be followed you may not be so naive in your environmental "concerns"!

Seriously it is people exactly like you though that naively perpetuate the impressions I have assumed above...
I do believe you are in favor BUT in your attempts to be "impartial.."
you do nothing but perpetuate the myths,etc. of the MSM/Democrat/Liberal progressive MEME!!... I.e. Capitalism/big oil/ BAD for environment!
Do you know that since 1995 oil exploration has technologically advanced to the point what use to take 65 acres per drill site to today less then 8 acres!

First you presume to think that I am am anti-oil company simply because I present you with scientific fact when it comes to how oil reacts with fresh water. If you do not believe me or NASA, or for that matter MIT, then take a can of motor oil and pour 5 teaspoons of it into a 5 gallon can of fresh water and see if it is drinkable? I am very well aware of how far the oil industry has come in the last several years with such things as 3d modeling, carbon capture, etc. You assume my position very incorrectly, in that everything I posted is not a myth it is fact, I did not make up the fact that Keystone XL would have gone over The Ogallala Aquifer nor the fact that they have decided to reroute it. Your conclusion could not be anymore wrong, let me explain why, I am very much in favor of ANY and ALL companies that wish to make this nation strong economically including oil companies, where I differ from people some is that I believe that all companies be they oil companies, etc. can not only make this nation strong economically but also when they do, they can be aware of the environments in which they operate and act accordingly and still further, develop technolgies that are not stagnent but help propel this nation to an end point where we are not sending our resources to people who do not like us very much. Those in my humble opinion who believe you just need to get out of the way and let companies do as they please without any awareness of the environment in which they operate are stuck in the past and are destined to stay there eventually. While I appreciate the fact your friend is in the industry and respect them very much, my position is in fact very pro energy as I believe that engery production CAN exist with an awareness of the environment and that includes, oil, natural gas, nuclear, solar, wind, you name it.

As for the rules that your friend has to jump through, while many of those rules I will admit are not needed because I am of the opinion that often they are duplicated to keep people employed, some are there to protect those citizens who do not work for the very company your friend works for. So perhaps if people on both sides of the issue were not so quick to jump to conclusions, then maybe we could all understand that we all benefit when we do both, and no one benefits when we do none and I suppose if you really want to know where I stand on the issue that is it, I believe we can not only produce energy but can also be a good steward of the environment.