Some thoughts for our esteemed leader and the National Energy Board as they explore the distribution of Alberta crude. Thanks Jack Humphrey, retired employee of Trans-Canada....... .................Anyway, back to Harper. He appears to know nothing about pipelines and even less about trains yet he insists that everything is in place and just fine for his pimping Alberta scheme. I beg to differ! I think we are all aware that pipelines *will* be used to transport Albertas oil but for Gods sake Harper, try to get your ducks in a row a little more responsibly. As much as I trust and admire the operations ethics of my former employer, TransCanada Pipeline, I cant help but feel their fine standing has been compromised by pressure from this Conservative government and big oil companies. My first hint was when Mr. Harper, a year ago, stated basically and rather flippantly ; Hey, no problem weve already got a pipeline running across the country we can use. When there were signs of descent Harper said; Dont worry, were going to double the pipeline inspections. What a statement! Did that comment mean he was going to: a/ Double the aerial patrols to twice a year or b/ Double the leak detection patrols to twice a year or c/ Double the cathodic protection surveys (corrosion protection) or d/ Double the ground surveillance (walking & driving) or e/ Double the number of hydrostatic tests (High pressure water to test pipe) or f/ Double the electronic pig runs (Dents, coating, corrosion, stress fractures) or g/ Double the above ground equipment tests. (automatic shutoffs etc.) or h/ Just double everything!!!! The last would be impossible as you would not have time to put your commodity through the pipe! Lets have a closer look at the use of this available pipeline; a/ We now have 2 (Two) lines supplying natural gas to the populace. (One ruptures or malfunctions we use the other) b/ If we would go to 1 (One) line supplying natural gas to the populace. (Far less secure supply, would have to reverse the flow of gas on the downstream side of the rupture in order to supply gas to people, long periods with no gas) c/ With this tar sands oil being so much more volatile and explosive (Megantic), than ordinary crude, is it safe right next to a high pressure gas line. (Also the solutions used to make it transportable through pipe are toxic.) d/ I dont imagine the criteria for the route of a natural gas pipeline was much more than simply stay away from populated areas as much as possible and have easy access to the line. If there was a rupture there was nothing toxic staying in area. Automatic shutoffs allowed the flames to extinguish. Populated areas have thicker lines and more checks. e/ I would like to believe the criteria for an oil pipeline route would be far more critical in its requirements. It would be transporting a known commodity that if the line ruptured could have huge explosion and fire results. If in a waterway, a rupture could pollute lakes, rivers, potable water, kill fish. For this reason patience, time and effort must be put into circumventing waterways, flood ways, municipal water supplies in the criteria for a proper route. Questions to be answered; a/ What is the pressure in an oil pipeline? b/ Is there an erosive component to this tar sands oil that would wear the inside of the pipeline? c/ Are the pipelines thicker or thinner than natural gas? d/ Can electronic pigs be sent through oil pipelines? e/ Are Hydrostatic tests conducted. f/ How are small leaks detected?
Posted on: Mon, 21 Oct 2013 14:08:22 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015