So the only reason to my question thus far is an assumption that they under report leaks? I imagine reporting the quantity of a leak is an educated estimate. That said, in my little industry, if we have a spill over 20gal of a petrolium based product it must be reported within 15min to the national hotline. Then containment must be immediate. After containment, the cleanup can begin. However, the job is not finished until the proper authorities, for us EPA or DEP tests to confirm the spill has been properly cleaned and all waste has been dispossed of accordingly. The quantity really doesnt affect the testing to confirm that all steps have been completed. Wether we should spill 20 or 2000 gal of product it only affect the amount of material and cost of cleanup. The soil or water must still pass the same ppm thresholds.
I try to see both sides of the coin. I just dont see the logic in a blanket opposition. It sort of discounts the opinion to me.
I totally am for preventing leaks. Replacing old pipe seems perfectly logical to me. I am sure it has a lifespan as all structures do. Are their no regulations for replacment of pipe after x number of years?
Above ground piping wouldnt concern me as its fairly straight forward to cleanup. Oil is actually pretty easy to remidiate, as it isnt dissolved into water, at least on the surface. I dont know how it interacts with H2O underground. Maybee sleave has some knowledge of how it is remediated if leaked underground into an aquifer.
Would paying for, and building an R.O. plant for drinking water for the standing rock situation not only provide clean water but also ensure it for them if their ever were a leak? It would only cost a few million which is a small price in the scope of the project. That would seem to be a practical comprimise to me for both parties.
All that said, I clearly am not against pipelines if done correctly with proper instalation done by licensed professionals. However, I would not be thrilled about one running by my backyard. I actually worry more about groundwater contamination from the farms that used to be on the property where my home and the developments around where I live. I dont worry as much about the current farms practices, but what their practices were 20+ yrs ago. Also the fact groundwater here is about 5ft below surface means many chemicals can quickly leach into aquifers.
I try to see both sides of the coin. I just dont see the logic in a blanket opposition. It sort of discounts the opinion to me.
I totally am for preventing leaks. Replacing old pipe seems perfectly logical to me. I am sure it has a lifespan as all structures do. Are their no regulations for replacment of pipe after x number of years?
Above ground piping wouldnt concern me as its fairly straight forward to cleanup. Oil is actually pretty easy to remidiate, as it isnt dissolved into water, at least on the surface. I dont know how it interacts with H2O underground. Maybee sleave has some knowledge of how it is remediated if leaked underground into an aquifer.
Would paying for, and building an R.O. plant for drinking water for the standing rock situation not only provide clean water but also ensure it for them if their ever were a leak? It would only cost a few million which is a small price in the scope of the project. That would seem to be a practical comprimise to me for both parties.
All that said, I clearly am not against pipelines if done correctly with proper instalation done by licensed professionals. However, I would not be thrilled about one running by my backyard. I actually worry more about groundwater contamination from the farms that used to be on the property where my home and the developments around where I live. I dont worry as much about the current farms practices, but what their practices were 20+ yrs ago. Also the fact groundwater here is about 5ft below surface means many chemicals can quickly leach into aquifers.
Comment