sakawea pipeline?

[Trip McNeely]

Just saw on the news the PSC is taking comments on a proposed pipeline to cross sak somewhere around keene back east. wasn't paying full attention but sounds like theres a meeting in Stanley?

What is everyones thoughts on this new proposed pipeline crossing a major drinking source for 1/2 the state?

I realize there are already pipelines under Sak but my first gut reaction was that I don't feel very comfortable with a major pipeline crossing one of our most precious sources of drinking water and a multi-million dollar tourist and recreation industry for the state. . . one bad leak and it would literally ruin it forever. . . . I'm not even close to a tree hugger as I benefit from the oil industry, just my gut feeling.

 

[WormWiggler]

Is it going to replace an older pipeline? That would seem good. Literally ruined forever? May want to look into the facts of the matter before you do a public freak out dance.

 

[Vollmer]

Would it be under ground below the lake? Yeah idk ... I work in oilfield and spills happen.

 

[NodakBuckeye]

Yeah, I work the oilfield and doodoo occurs. I know there are countless pipelines across the country over rivers and lakes, not sure what to think.

 

[Trip McNeely]

Is it going to replace an older pipeline? That would seem good. Literally ruined forever? May want to look into the facts of the matter before you do a public freak out dance.

I'm not freaking out over anything. . . . . not sure if you read what I wrote or didn't consider what I was saying. . . I didn't catch all the details on the news, nor did they have any. I'm just stating what my initial gut feeling is and was asking for anybody else's opinion on the matter and trying to get a discussion going on what should/could be a major deal to many North Dakotans. Maybe there is somebody in the know that has more details than I can provide. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out just how important this river system and lake are to our economy and well being in ND. Why screw with it if we can figure an alternative route/alternative method of delivering the product.

and yes, one major spill and it would never be the same. . . ..

 

[NodakBuckeye]

Yeah, I work the oilfield and doodoo occurs. I know there are countless pipelines across the country over rivers and lakes, not sure what to think.

I don't know that I would say forever changed. Important issue? No doubt about it. In my mind there has already been a major spill- at least 3 on the lake or river, one oil and 2 prodution water and I am still enjoying the fishing and eating. There can always be a bigger spill. Personally I would worry more about all the locations right on the lake or river than a pipleline. At least the pipeline has a single owner and is easier to watch than how many producers and locations? Either way, it csn be done in a safe and responsible manner but there is always going to be the what ifs.

 

[Trip McNeely]

All of those spills occurred on tributaries or in upstream areas where containment was a lot more feasible. From my understanding this pipe would cut across the heart of the big lake. I'm not a hydrologist or an oil tycoon but I would think containment and clean-up would be quite a bit tougher in areas with deeper water. . . . . How long did the crestwood? pipeline leak? were they not equipped with the latest sensors? A spill over dry land or on a small tributary would be a lot easier to detect sooner even with the failure of the many safeguards put in place. I guess my point is I realize that the majority of pipelines in ND are incredibly safe, but are we willing to hedge our water and a ginormous source of revenue and Nodakers recreational opportunity without first asking a ton of questions? Do you think the people around Devils lake would be willing to lay an oil pipe-line across the bottom of D.L.?

 

[johnr]

maybe we need more rail roads?

 

[Trip McNeely]

I don't think more railcars would be a solution either. I guess I'm more on the lines of thinking isn't there an alternative route that would have less potential of a major spill event that would affect hundreds of thousands of people? or would it be feasible to instead of laying the thing on the bottom of the lake maybe keep the section that crosses the lake above the water? theres been chatter of building another bridge further south for years? maybe a dual purpose bridge. I cant imagine maintenance on a pipeline 60ft underwater would be an easy or cheap task? why couldn't the pipeline cross south of the dam? or cross closer to Williston over the river?. then if there was an event at least the millions of acre feet of water would be above the damn wouldn't be affected and containment may be easier in a river-type setting? I'm not on one side or the other here. I'm just asking the questions as I know there is plenty of knowledge as pertains to this subject floating around this forum.

 

[WormWiggler]

I wonder if it would be sitting on the bottom or under the lake bed? or maybe suspended. No matter where it is, there will be risks. A pipeline in conjunction with a bridge would be neat, especially if the pipeline owner paid for the bridge, but a leak there would be the same as in the water, or under the bed. a 16" 3 mile pipeline, assuming 16" is ID is 3939 bbls. my calculator can't convert the lake to barrel but if yours can take 23,800,000 acre feet of water and multiply by 10344.4898 bbls per acre feet. Uff da too much math, not enough brewskis

 

[Petras]

One of the things that i would push for on this is stringent metering standards..... say a metering station with ESD style valves on both sides of the lake. set it up so that any variation say 20 gpm (or whatever number would be more fitting) between the two metering stations trips the esd valves shut in case there is a leak. you should always have the same flow going into a bore as you do coming out of a bore. Require WEEKLY calibration and testing of the flow meters at both ends of the bore. If this is not done then the ESD valves get shut until calibration paperwork has been submitted to the state to show that it has been completed. Also, hire an engineering firm to determine the proper pipewall thickness for the bore and the proper pipewall protective coating thickness and then double them just to be safe.

 

[Trip McNeely]

yea I started doing some math on this and I got a brain cramp pretty quickly. lol. the only difference I see in having an above water pipe is if there ever were a leak it may be detectable sooner and maintenance and repair would most-likely be quicker and easier to perform. I'm sure the down side to this is from a building/cost standpoint. . . . but we the people of the state would like another bridge. they the mover of the oil would like a new pipeline. . . . . maybe we can all win. . . . . before I get too jacked up off this idea is it even feasible to do this? any engineers out there?

 

[eyexer]

any oil that leaks into the lake will rise to the surface immediately. the only issue would be during the ice period. hard to detect then. but metering devices now days are excellent and should detect a leak within seconds. There are literally thousands of miles of pipeline buried beneath the gulf of mexico. I do not recall a single incident on one of those. And you can bet they have the best metering devices available. The problem you'll have here is that the state will rubber stamp it and not require a damn thing to protect the lake. At least that's been their track record to date.

 

[guywhofishes]

eyexer... Your claims are so wrong I don't know where to start. So I won't. Carry on.

 

[WormWiggler]

Oh come on oldguywhogripeses, lets discuss the errors before they become compounded

- - - Updated - - -

One of the things that i would push for on this is stringent metering standards..... say a metering station with ESD style valves on both sides of the lake. set it up so that any variation say 20 gpm (or whatever number would be more fitting) between the two metering stations trips the esd valves shut in case there is a leak. you should always have the same flow going into a bore as you do coming out of a bore. Require WEEKLY calibration and testing of the flow meters at both ends of the bore. If this is not done then the ESD valves get shut until calibration paperwork has been submitted to the state to show that it has been completed. Also, hire an engineering firm to determine the proper pipewall thickness for the bore and the proper pipewall protective coating thickness and then double them just to be safe.

I would be willing to bet it all, that a pipeline of this size and high profile would have all the bells and whistles. The oil is very valuable to the pipeline company, remember the oil company no longer owns the oil once it is past the LACT unit or loaded out from the tank battery. Now the saltwater lines are a different can of worms and there are plenty of jackwagons that will do all sorts of nefarious BS with SW, local jakcwagons are worse than the newcomers, they know all the tricks.