Keystone pipeline leaks 210,000 gallons of oil onto northeastern South Dako farm land

SDJIM

SDJIM

New member
The Keystone oil pipeline had a small malfunction yesterday to the tune of an estimated 210,000 gallons of tar sands crude oil spilled near Britton SD. Bad deal and it just got worst for the outdoor types (hunters) as it was quoted by a local area man the "it sure messed up a field that was enrolled in the CRP program" but that's ok because it didn't get into streams or ground water sources.

Clean up starts with the removal of contaminated soil from the site, repair of the pipeline and then what? :confused:
 
SDJIM said:
The Keystone oil pipeline had a small malfunction yesterday to the tune of an estimated 210,000 gallons of tar sands crude oil spilled near Britton SD. Bad deal and it just got worst for the outdoor types (hunters) as it was quoted by a local area man the "it sure messed up a field that was enrolled in the CRP program" but that's ok because it didn't get into streams or ground water sources.

Clean up starts with the removal of contaminated soil from the site, repair of the pipeline and then what? :confused:
Click to expand...

There will be an NTSB investigation. Most likely an issue with construction or unreported damage to the pipeline that caused the failure. If it's a construction issue Keystone will be fined and if the warranty is still in place (not likely) the contractor will be liable for the fine, repairs & environmental clean-up. If third party damage there will be another investigation to try and determine the cause and guilty party.

Pipelines companies are required to inspect their pipelines periodically and that is typically done with "smart" pigs on newer pipelines like this one.. Just not sure if the regs would have required Keystone to inspect this line yet since I think it was put into service around 2010. Might try to look that up.

Have hunted in that area many times and hunted it a lot the year they were building the line.
 
Last edited:
All of that is good---I just would like to know what is environmental clean-up, a term that gets used all the time--some how I don't think it is as simple as they make it seem---ya know wipe it up with a paper towel and throw that in the trash. I've seen pictures of other oil spills where they dig up all the contaminated soil and haul it off to be what---but how do they restore the land to support crops or CRP grass?
 
The spill that happened in North Dakota in 2013 took four years to clean up and the 13 acres effected will be ready to cropnext year. They had to remove soil up to 60 feet deep.

The imported soil brought back to replace the contaminated spoils is monitored closely and it will get restored well. The oversight is tremendous and the requirements of the clean up are pretty punitive financially and resource wise.

The ND spill was four times larger than what is being reported in Britton so as long as containment was handled well the clean up and impact should be quite a bit less. Would expect good response as the newer, larger interstate pipelines have very sophisticated monitoring systems & emergency response plans. It is the older, smaller "intra"state pipelines that are probably the bigger worry. Breaches there are often found by the farmer or landowner before the pipeline company even knows there is a problem.

I have been thinking for years that a good way to achieve some environmental balance with the pipeline industry would be to require them to "set aside" and protect an equal amount of land to what they have R.O.W. rights to in every County they cross. I think the original Keystone install was 2100 miles. Assume a 100' right of way and that would be roughly 254,500 acres. The protection could be as simple as the pipeline subsidizing annual CREP payments or better yet purchasing offsetting pieces of land and turning the management over to the appropriate state or federal wildlife management agency. The Oil lobby and it's Washington supporters would fight it tooth & nail but at some point those who put the land at risk or damage/alter the land need to financially contribute to the solutions instead of relying on federal goverment/taxpayers to figure out how to fund the balance.
 
Last edited:
Downtown Bang! said:
The spill that happened in North Dakota in 2013 took four years to clean up and the 13 acres effected will be ready to cropnext year. They had to remove soil up to 60 feet deep.

The imported soil brought back to replace the contaminated spoils is monitored closely and it will get restored well. The oversight is tremendous and the requirements of the clean up are pretty punitive financially and resource wise.

The ND spill was four times larger than what is being reported in Britton so as long as containment was handled well the clean up and impact should be quite a bit less. Would expect good response as the newer, larger interstate pipelines have very sophisticated monitoring systems & emergency response plans. It is the older, smaller "intra"state pipelines that are probably the bigger worry. Breaches there are often found by the farmer or landowner before the pipeline company even knows there is a problem.

I have been thinking for years that a good way to achieve some environmental balance with the pipeline industry would be to require them to "set aside" and protect an equal amount of land to what they have R.O.W. rights to in every County they cross. I think the original Keystone install was 2100 miles. Assume a 100' right of way and that would be roughly 254,500 acres. The protection could be as simple as the pipeline subsidizing annual CREP payments or better yet purchasing offsetting pieces of land and turning the management over to the appropriate state or federal wildlife management agency. The Oil lobby and it's Washington supporters would fight it tooth & nail but at some point those who put the land at risk or damage/alter the land need to financially contribute to the solutions instead of relying on federal goverment/taxpayers to figure out how to fund the balance.
Click to expand...

I love this proposal! Too bad we couldn't see something like this in the next farm bill.
 
I think we are missing that if the pipeline pays for the land around them we actually pay for it in higher fuel costs. Not sure this type of forced taxation of companies is what we really need. I'm not against more habitat just don't see forcing a non government company to provide it as a viable option.
 
Wow, neat idea. I'm all for pipelines in place of train cars and tankers, but they are not without risks. Don't want to beat the oil companies up, they are already regulated to the top, but we can't let them have free rein. With sound regulation every one can win. Most oil company employees I know want to hunt and fish in the best environment as possible and do what is right by the land..
 
Hunted Amherst area this past week. Talked to farmers and pipe guys over coffee . 30 inch pipe and 1400 psi. They used concrete saddles over pipe to keep it from floating during installation. Crack was close to saddle over 1 foot long and several inches wide. Concerns this is only first problem. Lots of security you can't get close without a red card.
 
I'm not a subject matter expert on pipeline engineering, but I am one on environmental matters (and in part do oil spill response work in my business). Life is about striking a balance and keeping things in perspective. We all benefit from oil - and it does way beyond it as an energy resource. I am also an avid outdoorsman and geologist...meaning these types of release are nothing in the grand scheme of things but they do provide many something to gripe about and profess to be informed and smart. Look at it this way in terms of this forum...mother nature does way more "damage" to the birds than a localized incidental oil release. Not even close. Petroleum is a product of mother nature.
 
hunterofbirds said:
I'm not a subject matter expert on pipeline engineering, but I am one on environmental matters (and in part do oil spill response work in my business). Life is about striking a balance and keeping things in perspective. We all benefit from oil - and it does way beyond it as an energy resource. I am also an avid outdoorsman and geologist...meaning these types of release are nothing in the grand scheme of things but they do provide many something to gripe about and profess to be informed and smart. Look at it this way in terms of this forum...mother nature does way more "damage" to the birds than a localized incidental oil release. Not even close. Petroleum is a product of mother nature.
Click to expand...

True but what happens to the small land owner who has this happen to them----one works hard for many years to make a go of land ownership and has a large (to them) oil spill on their land and have the news say ---it will have little effect as the spill was on a small amount of farm ground. It is a big deal to some of us who love the land that's been in the family for 125 plus years and as to your statement that petroleum is a product of mother nature. So are many other things that man has produced that I would not like to have dumped into my back yard as a localized incidental release.
 
RuttCrazed said:
Are you suggesting the farmer was not compensated?
Click to expand...

If you asked that question of me. Then no not at all, I was just saying if that happens then someone is injured by the incident. At least they will lose the use of that land until it is cleaned up. Some of us landowners have more than just the money end of it and may not have 2 to 5 yrs to give up to clean up of such a incident. Yikes now I'm talking like them big city boys.

It was not just an incident, it was an OIL SPILL a MESSY NASTY OIL SPILL and I feel for the guy whose land it befouled. I know it is better than a 50 tanker train that derails in a populated area. But I don't have to like it and I take offense at the attitude that it is OK because it happened to a hick in good old RURAL South Dakota--NO HARM DONE! :rolleyes:

Bottom line ---- It is in no way a good deal but this is a PHEASANT forum an I will leave it there.

JIM
 
SDJIM said:
It was not just an incident, it was an OIL SPILL a MESSY NASTY OIL SPILL and I feel for the guy whose land it befouled. I know it is better than a 50 tanker train that derails in a populated area. But I don't have to like it and I take offense at the attitude that it is OK because it happened to a hick in good old RURAL South Dakota--NO HARM DONE! :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Didn't see any post indicate anything like this sentiment at all. Oil and natural gas pipelines impact all types of landscape. There are way more rural miles than urban so there will be a higher number of incidents in those locale's. When an incident does happen in urban areas though the impacts are often catastrophic to more than just property. Look up incidents in San Bruno, CA, Moundsview, MN, Bellingham WA etc.

The DOT has made a serious effort to improve pipeline safety over the last 25 years and incidents like this aside it has been pretty damn effective. It is the pipelines installed before 1970 we should all be more concerned about and the DOT started making those segments a much bigger priority 15 years ago.

As for the idea that any sort of program that generates habitat and preservation dollars being levied on the pipelines would be unattractive because costs could be passed on to consumers? That is exactly the point. Free markets (and free energy markets) are key to our way of life but the one thing free markets don't do a good job of is capturing all the costs. In this example unaccounted for costs in the business transactions (externalities) include direct habitat impacts, fragmentation of habitat, ongoing risk of leaks, climate impacts etc. It is not unreasonable for any society to say that both the producers and the consumers of these resources need to better bear these costs. As a society we have done a much better job in the last generation making those who generate (or support by certain types of consumption) things like air pollution, acid rain, untreated sewer effluent etc accountable. Probably a good amount of catching up to do here in the fossil fuel sector.
 
Last edited:
It was my understanding that this was CRP, not crop land and it would be cleaned up within 6 months, hopefully the landowner will not be impacted beyond that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top