Rodney the Old Pipeliner on TransCanada's Thinner Pipes
As I’ve noted here before, my father Rodney spent over 40 years in the petroleum pipeline business, working his way up from a terminal operate to electrician to middle management in the head office.
So, as both a pipeliner and a former South Dakotan, he’s been following the TransCanada project with some interest. As recently reported—read the Yankton P & D’s TransCanada Pipeline: Waiver Granted For Proposed Oil Pipeline —TransCanada has made the decision to use thinner pipe in rural areas—like South Dakota. And apparently the regulator are ok with that.
I asked my dad if it was that big of a deal. His answer?
“They’ll save a lot, I mean a lot of money on pipe. Pipe is sold by the ton.”
Apparently to TransCanada, the bad press and bad taste that their decision leaves in peoples’ mouths—read SD Moderate’s Oh This Is A Good Idea—is worth it in terms of cost savings.
I don’t know, I think I would have stuck with the thicker pipe and the better public relations that brings.
Todd Epp
1 Comment
View Printer Friendly Version
Email Article to Friend
Reader Comments (1)
It would seem that the PUC should not have made a general rule in regard to pipe thickness, etc. but rather taken into consideration the damage possible at any point and dragged that into the calculations of risk. Fifty miles from a river or lake or major aquifer supplying water to a city is one thing. Crossing and area adjacent to any of those would seem to almost suggest a double wall pipe.
Or, does the system have measuring systems that nearly instantly detect a loss of flow downstream and shut down pumps nearly instantly?
If something like 400,000 40 gallon barrels of oil move everyday, that is a lot of gallons every second.