'There’s
no way to get around the fact that oil and gas pipelines are dangerous
and have exacted a devastating toll on people and wildlife,' attorney
says
A close-up of a leaking pipeline, stuffed with a tree to stem the oil flow. (Photo: newmy51/cc/flickr)
Released
one day before the U.S. Senate votes on the Keystone XL pipeline, a new
analysis of federal records shows that in just the past year and four
months, there have been 372 oil and gas pipeline leaks, spills, and
other incidents, leading to 20 deaths, 117 injuries, and more than $256
million in damages.
The Center for Biological Diversity analysis
is based on decades of records from the federal Pipeline and Hazardous
Materials Safety Administration, which maintains a database of all U.S.
pipeline incidents that are classified as "significant"—those resulting
in death or injury, damages more than $50,000, more than 5 barrels of
highly volatile substances or 50 barrels of other liquid released, or
where the liquid exploded or burned.
In total there have been more than 8,700 significant incidents with
U.S. pipelines involving death, injury, and economic and environmental
damage since 1986, the Center reports—more than 300 per year.
"There’s no way to get around the fact that oil and gas pipelines are
dangerous and have exacted a devastating toll on people and wildlife.
It’s appalling to see Congress seriously considering giving the green
light to Keystone XL," said Bill Snape, senior counsel with the Center
for Biological Diversity. "The Obama administration’s own analysis says
Keystone XL will spill oil, so it’s really troubling to see politicians
wanting to add to this dangerous legacy of failed pipelines."
The time-lapse video
below includes every "significant pipeline" incident in the continental
United States—along with their human and financial costs—from 1986 to
Oct. 1, 2014. On average one significant pipeline incident occurs in the
country every 30 hours, according to the data.
Alberta, Canada is basically a petro state. Oil and gas production
rule everything and it's happening everywhere in the north of the
province. Pipelines criss cross most of Alberta. As a result, leaks of
wells, facilities and pipelines are a constant thing all over the
province.
But we Canadians almost never hear about them. Our main media, CBC,
does not provide any coverage of the many, many spills and gas releases
that happen every month, nor the efforts to clean up the messes. They're
simply not considered news...at least not on the scale of disasters
like some attention grabber showing up at the War Memorial on
Remembrance day in uniform and bedecked with medals..none of which
(uniform included) belonged to him. The guy is under arrest for
impersonating an officer.
But back to the non news. It seems someone is taking notice. West Coast Native News (WCNN) has been quietly keeping tabs on all the spills and leaks. What they have found is shocking!!
More past the toxic orange spill...careful you don't get any on your shoes!!
The WCNN is reporting on all the spills and natural gas releases and
have kindly provided the incidence reports to back up their claims
Over the past year WCNN has reported on many Crude oil and
Toxic produced water spills all over Alberta, in fact we have reported
over 600,000 Litres of toxic crap that has been spilled just last month
and yet not one mainstream media outlet has picked up the incidents. So
lets take a look back at just the last month (October) and see just what
the mainstream is not telling you.
Oct 3, 2014 – Canadian Natural Resources Limited – 11Km East of Delia – 10,000 litres of Crude oil
Oct 5, 2014 – Nexen Energy ULC – 2.5Km SouthWest of Kinosis – 5,800 litres of Toxic water
Oct 5, 2014 – Cenovus Energy Inc – 56Km East of Brooks – 9,800 litres of Toxic water
Oct 5, 2014 – Nexen Energy ULC – 41Km SouthEast of Ft. McMurray – 13,000 litres of Condensate
Oct 10, 2014 – Husky Oil – 30Km SouthEast of Vermilion – 50,000 litres of Crude oil and 25,000 litres of toxic water
Oct 13, 2014 – Arc Resources – 5Km North of Redwater – 150,000 litres of Toxic water
Oct 11, 2014 – TAQA North Ltd – 44Km SouthWest of Spirit River – 24,000 litres of Crude oil
Oct 14, 2014 – Whitecap Resources Inc – 37Km NorthWest of Sexsmith – 10,000 litres of Toxic water
Oct 15, 2014 – Penn West Petroleum Ltd -14Km SouthEast of Slave Lake – 52,000 litres Crude oil
Oct 14, 2014 – Zargon Oil & Gas Ltd – 26Km NorthWest of Vauxhall – 8,000 litres of Toxic water
Oct 17, 2014 – TAQA North Ltd – 32Km NorthWest of Rocky Mountain House – 18,000 litres of Toxic water
Oct 21, 2014 – Harvest Operations Corp – 20Km East of Galahad – 200,000 litres of Toxic water
Oct 26, 2014 – Apache Canada Ltd -9Km East of Zama City – 50,000 litres of Toxic water
Total = Over 625,000 Litres of toxic crap spilled in Alberta for just
the month of October and not one Mainstream media reports about it.
Curious, I went back to July, August and September of this year, and
found that October's incidents weren't unusual at all!! In July, 27
incidents were reported --16 of which involved pipelines spilling either
crude oil or gas production. August saw 39 spills or releases happen,
28 of which involved pipelines. September--26, of which 22 were pipeline
spills or releases. October-- 41 total incidents ( 24 pipeline
incidents).
The grand total for four months....133 incidents of which 90 involved pipeline spills....68%!!!!
What is produced water that is mentioned in the incident reports? OilfieldWiki
states that it is either water mixed with the oil as it comes up from
the ground and from two sources: with the oil, or separate from
it...OR..it's injected fluid.
Sources of this water may include flow from above or below
the hydrocarbon zone, flow from within the hydrocarbon zone, or flow
from injected fluids and additives resulting from production activities.
This water is frequently referred to as “connate water” or “formation
water” and becomes produced water when the reservoir is produced and
these fluids are brought to the surface. Produced water is any water
that is present in a reservoir with the hydrocarbon resource and is
produced to the surface with the crude oil or natural gas.
I regret to say that due to my non-existent maths skills, I can't
calculate the volume of the spills into liters for you all. Perhaps
someone else can do the maths for me.
I have provided an interactive map of Alberta here so that anyone interested in seeing exactly where the spills have happened can do so.
I noticed that in the report of an incident document, every single
report mentions that no effects to wildlife or waterways occurred...
WHAT?? How can spilling even a small amount of oil not affect the soil
and water, and in turn affect the wildlife. Even the removal of the
contaminated soil will have an effect. This is the kind of glossing over
important facts that happen when there is only self-reporting done.
No-one follows up or studies the results. And no-one calls them on their
shoddy reporting.
It shouldn't need to be said, but those who think that putting a pipeline that carries oil, dilbit, or natural gas over any
agricultural, environmentally sensitive or heavily populated areas
should have their little heads examined. Pipelines are neither safe nor
infallible. I see the US House of Representatives have passed a bill to allow the Keystone XL to be built and used...folly...sheer idiocy!
As the country gears up for the midterm elections this
November, Sen. Majority Leader Harry Reid and the Democratic leadership
have made the Koch Brothers Public Enemy Number One. So why did 11
Democrats just sign onto a bill supporting the Keystone XL pipeline, a project that would add billions to the brothers’ coffers?
Democratic hostility toward the Kochs is well-known and oft proclaimed. On Wednesday, Sen. Reid called the Koch brothers “one of the main causes” of global warming. That’s building on a couple weeks ago, when Reid accused the Kochs and other moneyed interests of “influencing
the politics in a way not seen for generations.” Reid went on to call
their vision of America “radical” and “dystopian.” The Kochs responded that they were “disappointed” Reid was “attacking private citizens.”
As it turns out, Keystone XL is right at the center of the Kochs’ vision of a brave new world. According to a report by the liberal International Forum on Globalization (IFG),
the 800,000 barrel-a-day pipeline would lower the costs of transporting
tar sands, driving up profit margins and making other reserves more
economically viable. More importantly, it would help unlock the Canadian
tar sands, where a Koch brothers-owned subsidiary is the largest non-Canadian leaseholder. When the Pulitzer Prize-winning SolveClimate News conducted an analysis of the Koch’s holdings, they concluded the brothers were positioned to be “big winners” if Keystone XL is approved.
How big? As much as $100 billion, according to the IFG report,
although the number is being disputed by … well, the Koch brothers. But
even if the total benefit was just 10% of that sum, that’s another $10
billion for the Kochs to spend attacking workers’ rights, dismantling
environmental protections, eviscerating health care and electing climate
deniers.
How Fort McMurray became an energy industry gold mine
Even if President Obama blocks the Keystone XL pipeline, the blow
would barely dent U.S. reliance on Alberta's rapidly expanding tar sands
operation.
No surprise then that the brothers and their Big Oil buddies
have been spending big to try and get Keystone XL approved. According to
new numbers
from Oil Change International, the oil industry has now given over $20
million in donations to pro-Keystone XL members of Congress. Senators
that support Keystone have received an average of five times as much oil
industry money as senators that oppose the project. And the vast
majority of the money has gone to Republicans.
So why are 11 Democrats supporting Keystone XL? For some of them, like Louisiana Sen. Mary Landrieu, you just need to follow the money.
Sen. Landrieu gets so much cash from the fossil fuel industry that she
could be the Koch Sister. It’s no surprise she’s looking to pay back her
wealthy donors.
Other Democrats, like Sens. John Walsh, Mark Warner and Kay
Hagan, are no doubt worried about their reelection bids this November.
They’ve seen some polls saying the majority of the American public supports Keystone XL and they’re running scared.
But they’re running in the wrong direction. Midterm elections
aren’t determined by candidates’ positions on far off infrastructure
projects, they’re determined by turnout, which in turn is supported by
voter intensity. And all of the intensity is on the side of pipeline
opponents – when was the last time 50,000 people rallied in Washington,
D.C. to support Keystone XL?
That intensity was on display last week, when pipeline activists turned out across the country
to keep other on-the-fence Democrats from supporting Keystone XL. The
pressure worked: Despite all of Big Oil’s spending, Republicans have
been unable to muster the 60 votes they need to pass a bill supporting Keystone XL. As Bold Nebraska Director Jane Kleeb said on the Ed Show Wednesday
night, “$21 million couldn’t buy Big Oil this vote. Intensity is on our
side. We will never have the amount of money they have. But they will
never have the kind of heart and soul we have fighting this pipeline.”
The 11 Democrats supporting Keystone XL want to have their
climate action and eat their tar sands, too. But while an “all of the
above” approach might sound nice on paper, the actual planet doesn’t
work that way. Physics and chemistry don’t negotiate. You’re either
building more massive carbon polluting infrastructure or you’re not. The
Democratic party can’t continue to say it wants to kick the fossil fuel
habit when its own lawmakers are voting for Big Oil. Eventually, the
mixed-messaging is going to catch up with them.
Which is all the more reason for the president to deny the
permit for Keystone XL. By saying no to the pipeline, Obama would send a
clear signal that he’s serious about tackling the climate crisis. He’ll
also help the country, and the Democratic party, begin the fossil fuel
detox that our top scientists have ordered.
That would be bad news for the Koch brothers – and great news for the rest of us.
Jamie Henn is the communications director for 350 Action, a nonprofit environmental organization, and co-founder of 350.org.
"We must focus on sustainable practices that preserve our clean air and clean water."
- Andrea Germanos, staff writer
Photo: Vertigogen/cc/flickrA swelling grassroots coalition is hoping they can stop their county from becoming another landscape "scarred" by fracking.
The Santa Barbara County Water Guardians gathered roughly 16,000 signatures — 3,000 more than required — to put a measure to ban the controversial extraction technique on the November ballot.
Their proposal goes Tuesday before the Board of Supervisors, who can put the measure on the Nov. ballot, or can choose to vote the initiative directly into law.
"This is the result of hundreds of volunteers working tirelessly to qualify this initiative for the ballot," stated Corrie Ellis of Water Guardians. "This represents more than 3,000 hours of volunteer effort in just three weeks, which shows the strength of community support for this initiative."
In addition to banning fracking, their proposal seeks to ban two other "extreme extraction techniques" — acidizing and steam injection.
"Santa Barbara County is under threat of a massive increase in oil production made possible through dangerous and polluting 'enhanced' extraction techniques," Water Guardians states on their website.
"Oil companies have identified thousands upon thousands of potential drill locations across our region — from Santa Maria to Carpinteria."
"We must protect our County by placing a ban on these extreme extraction techniques," the group writes.
Among those in favor of the fracking ban is local farmer Tom Shepherd, who said, "The oil companies are pushing hard to create a short-term fracking bubble that will leave our landscapes scarred and our resources damaged."
"If we want our children and grandchildren to thrive in this region, we must focus on sustainable practices that preserve our clean air and clean water. A ban on fracking in this region can't come soon enough, and that is why I am a proud proponent of this initiative," Shepherd stated.
_______________________________
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License.
When the hydraulic fracturing measure passed the Los Angeles City
Council today, several tweeters posted photos of this meeting (source of
the above: Walker Foley on twitter).
The City Council of Los Angeles, second-most populous metro in the United States, voted 10-0 today to prohibit hydraulic fracturing
(“fracking”) and other “unconventional” deep-underground drilling
methods to produce petroleum until the practices can be proven to be
safe. L.A. is the largest metropolis in the United States to do so.
According to Jeff Spross, a reporter at ThinkProgress.org and former intern at The Guardian:
“Today’s vote was prompted by the city’s Planning and
Land Use Management Committee, which decided on Tuesday to bring the
matter up for a vote. Four towns in Colorado instituted similar bans
back in November of 2013, and Mora County in New Mexico became the first
full county to impose a ban in May. California lawmakers are also
pushing for [a] state-wide ban, based on concerns that the large amounts
of freshwater [consumed by] fracking will further stress the state’s
already drought-wracked drinking supplies.”
The L.A. decision affects much more than one huge city and its
environs. By passing it, the council has officially recognized that
hydraulic fracturing has not yet been proven safe or healthy. The
decision will likely resound through the nation, raising a yellow
“caution” flag within all areas where fracking and disposal of fracking
waste fluids are under debate.
Fracking’s safety
has been maintained, with varying degrees of success, by drillers in
fracking states such as Texas (Barnett Shale) and Pennsylvania, New
York, and Ohio (Marcellus Shale) and by Energy Tomorrow–the
American Petroleum Institute, national trade association for all the
“people of America’s oil and natural gas industry” who tout “clean”
natural gas and “safe” drilling practices.
Those in the energy industry have long contended that hydraulic
fracturing is safe. That’s the thrust of the API’s pricey and
long-running evening news television ads.
When the hydraulic fracturing measure passed the Los Angeles City
Council today, several tweeters posted photos of this meeting (source of
the above: Walker Foley on twitter).
The City Council of Los Angeles, second-most populous metro in the United States, voted 10-0 today to prohibit hydraulic fracturing
(“fracking”) and other “unconventional” deep-underground drilling
methods to produce petroleum until the practices can be proven to be
safe. L.A. is the largest metropolis in the United States to do so.
According to Jeff Spross, a reporter at ThinkProgress.org and former intern at The Guardian:
“Today’s vote was prompted by the city’s Planning and
Land Use Management Committee, which decided on Tuesday to bring the
matter up for a vote. Four towns in Colorado instituted similar bans
back in November of 2013, and Mora County in New Mexico became the first
full county to impose a ban in May. California lawmakers are also
pushing for [a] state-wide ban, based on concerns that the large amounts
of freshwater [consumed by] fracking will further stress the state’s
already drought-wracked drinking supplies.”
The L.A. decision affects much more than one huge city and its
environs. By passing it, the council has officially recognized that
hydraulic fracturing has not yet been proven safe or healthy. The
decision will likely resound through the nation, raising a yellow
“caution” flag within all areas where fracking and disposal of fracking
waste fluids are under debate.
Fracking’s safety
has been maintained, with varying degrees of success, by drillers in
fracking states such as Texas (Barnett Shale) and Pennsylvania, New
York, and Ohio (Marcellus Shale) and by Energy Tomorrow–the
American Petroleum Institute, national trade association for all the
“people of America’s oil and natural gas industry” who tout “clean”
natural gas and “safe” drilling practices.
Those in the energy industry have long contended that hydraulic
fracturing is safe. That’s the thrust of the API’s pricey and
long-running evening news television ads.
Read more at http://planetsave.com/2014/03/01/los-angeles-council-unanimously-approves-fracking-delay/#9GKBTSQs8xlbEtEP.99
When the hydraulic fracturing measure passed the Los Angeles City
Council today, several tweeters posted photos of this meeting (source of
the above: Walker Foley on twitter).
The City Council of Los Angeles, second-most populous metro in the United States, voted 10-0 today to prohibit hydraulic fracturing
(“fracking”) and other “unconventional” deep-underground drilling
methods to produce petroleum until the practices can be proven to be
safe. L.A. is the largest metropolis in the United States to do so.
According to Jeff Spross, a reporter at ThinkProgress.org and former intern at The Guardian:
“Today’s vote was prompted by the city’s Planning and
Land Use Management Committee, which decided on Tuesday to bring the
matter up for a vote. Four towns in Colorado instituted similar bans
back in November of 2013, and Mora County in New Mexico became the first
full county to impose a ban in May. California lawmakers are also
pushing for [a] state-wide ban, based on concerns that the large amounts
of freshwater [consumed by] fracking will further stress the state’s
already drought-wracked drinking supplies.”
The L.A. decision affects much more than one huge city and its
environs. By passing it, the council has officially recognized that
hydraulic fracturing has not yet been proven safe or healthy. The
decision will likely resound through the nation, raising a yellow
“caution” flag within all areas where fracking and disposal of fracking
waste fluids are under debate.
Fracking’s safety
has been maintained, with varying degrees of success, by drillers in
fracking states such as Texas (Barnett Shale) and Pennsylvania, New
York, and Ohio (Marcellus Shale) and by Energy Tomorrow–the
American Petroleum Institute, national trade association for all the
“people of America’s oil and natural gas industry” who tout “clean”
natural gas and “safe” drilling practices.
Those in the energy industry have long contended that hydraulic
fracturing is safe. That’s the thrust of the API’s pricey and
long-running evening news television ads.
Read more at http://planetsave.com/2014/03/01/los-angeles-council-unanimously-approves-fracking-delay/#9GKBTSQs8xlbEtEP.99
Energy Tomorrow claims that “Unlike many countries, our Congress puts
much of [the deep shale petroleum resources] off-limits. A majority of
Americans say that should change. Today’s technology [hydraulic
fracturing] allows us to tap these resources and protect the
environment. So let’s put America’s oil and natural gas to work for
Americans.”
Those in the industry, political office, and the population who oppose fracking cite many scientists who have said that fracking can contaminate groundwater,
which comes from wells and is used for drinking, farming, and many
other purposes. A study published in December in the journal Endocrinology linked surface and ground water samples in Garfield County, Colorado, to elevated levels of endocrine-disrupting chemicals,
which have been linked to infertility, birth defects, and cancer. Water
samples from the Colorado River, which drains this region, also
manifested fracking chemicals. Water from the Colorado powers 3 million
homes, nourishes 15% of our crops, and provides drinking water for one
in 12 Americans.
Californians against fracking also point out that the mining practice
might cause further earthquakes in a region that is already seismically active.
The San Andreas Fault, which runs about 35 miles northeast of Los
Angeles, produces a huge (magnitude 6) earthquake approximately once
every 22 years. A March 2006 study by Yuri Fialko of the Scripps
Institution of Oceanography in the respected journal Nature found that “observed strain rates confirm that the SAF is approaching the end of its interseismic recurrence.”
In other words, the next earthquake in California above magnitude 6 is
expected to occur in the southern part of the state at some time within
the near future.
As we reported a few weeks ago in PlanetSave, in 2011 scientists first conclusively linked hydraulic fracturing to earthquakes in Ohio and Texas. The Republican governor of Kansas
has just convened a task force that will develop a plan for increased
earthquake activity “possibly related to Kansas oil and gas activities,”
and the Hawaii Senate is beginning hearings on a bill that would ban the mining technique throughout the state. Vermont already has such a ban. Texas is also investigating the link. Communities in Texas, New Mexico, Colorado, Illinois, Pennsylvania, and New York have initiated or established local fracking bans. Connecticut is considering outlawing disposal of used fracking liquids in the state.
Further complicating the issue is the longstanding, now critical drought in the states west of the Rockies. A recent report by the sustainability nonprofit Ceres found that 96% of fracking wells in California
adjoin areas struggling with drought and stressed water resources. The
terrible irony of fracking is that it uses enormous amounts of fresh
water, thus destroying the natural resource we need–and the industry
needs–most. Nearly half (47%) of recently fracked oil and gas wells in
the U.S. are in regions with high or extremely high water stress (see
map above from Ceres study).
In these regions, more than 80% of the available water has already
been allocated this year to municipal, industrial, and agricultural use.
Reportedly, fracking there has already started to degrade the local
ecosystems, viability of communities, and health of people living
nearby. Last fall, the California Assembly required drillers to disclose
the chemicals they use in the process of hydraulic fracturing. Governor
Brown signed Senate Bill 4 in September to establish “strong
environmental protections and transparency requirements” on the mining
technique.
At today’s meeting, Council members Mike Bonin and Paul Koretz
introduced the fracking delay proposal. After its unanimous approval,
the Council directed City Attorney Mike Feuer to draft a zoning
ordinance that would impose the moratorium at oil/gas wells and fields
within city limits. When Feuer’s office drafts the bill, the Council
will vote again to finalize the legislation.
We’ll leave the last word to the Los Angeles Times editorial board, which commented on the matter back last May, even before many of these studies came out:
“It’s worth waiting… for better information before
allowing significant increases in fracking. The oil will still be there,
as will the demand for it. For the long term, it’s worth noting that
although the Monterey Shale [which underlies California] is believed to
be by far the nation’s largest source of recoverable oil, all 15 billion barrels would fulfill the nation’s energy needs for only three years.”
LA Councilmember: 'Until chemicals are
disclosed and problems are honestly reported, until we're safe from
earthquakes, until our atmosphere is safe from methane leaks, we need a
fracking moratorium.'
- Lauren McCauley, staff writer
An oil rig in Los Angeles, Calif. (Photo: Erick Gustafson/ Creative Commons/ Flickr)
Los
Angeles is primed to become the first oil-producing city in California
and the largest city in the United States to place a moratorium on
fracking.
The Los Angeles city council unanimously voted Friday on
a draft ordinance that prohibits "well stimulation" by hydraulic
fracturing, acidizing and other controversial oil and gas drilling
methods.
"Until these radical methods of oil and gas extraction are at the
very least covered by the Safe Drinking Water Act, until chemicals are
disclosed and problems are honestly reported, until we're safe from
earthquakes, until our atmosphere is safe from methane leaks, we need a
fracking moratorium," Councilman Paul Koretz, who introduced the motion
along with Councilmember Mike Bonin, told a cheering crowd before the meeting.
As is the case all over the United States, drilling in Los Angeles
largely affects minority populations since most extraction occurs in
Latino- and African American-dominated neighborhoods
“Today is the beginning of justice for all Los Angeles communities facing these wells,” said
Monic Uriarte, a resident of the Esperanza Community Housing
Corporation—whose campaign People Not Pozos bussed 50 residents to City
Hall for the vote.
“For years, the University Park neighborhood has been assaulted by
Allenco Energy Corporation’s toxic emissions from their oil extraction
activities. We were getting sick from the emissions, with health
symptoms including spontaneous nose bleeding, headaches, asthma, and
much more. No one should live in the shadow of an oil well,” Uriarte
continued.
The moratorium motion now goes before the city attorney’s office to
be written as a zoning ordinance and will then return to council for a
final vote.
_____________________
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License.
