Feeding us science fiction has been sufficient to cover up oil spill causes in our country. The Keystone spill is no different (Figure 1). The analysis presented here is a first-of-a-kind investigation, and many government conclusions are challenged, where those challenges, or falsehoods, are not all specifically listed here.
Figure 1. Keystone oil pipeline spill of 14,000 gallons. Oil flows uphill away from Mill Creek.
(Image by PHMSA) Details DMCA
Government Fiction
A government investigation incorrectly concluded that soil weight damaged the Keystone pipeline ("Failure Investigation Report TC Oil Pipeline Operations Inc, Rupture - Circumferential Girth Weld Failure.", click here). Impressive failure analyses were performed in the "Root Cause Failure Analysis for the Keystone Milepost 14 Release, RSI Pipeline Solutions." (click here) and the "Metallurgical Analysis of NPS-36 KS10 MP-14 Pipeline, Anderson & Associates, Inc." (click here). However, the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) overreached the conclusions of that report.
The RSI report provided a calculation to show that a weld may have failed, in part, due to hypothetical soil and heavy equipment weight, or soil weight alone, where the pipeline was theoretically assumed to deflect downward one foot, but when the pipeline was excavated there was no evidence of such a downward deflection (Figure 2). In other words, the RSI calculation assumed that 61,000 tons from heavy equipment had pressed down on the pipeline to permanently bend the pipe downward or excessive bending due to soil settlement, where downward bending did not happen. That is, PHMSA reached an unsupported and fundamentally flawed conclusion concerning pipeline failure and soil weight, where PHMSA falsely claimed that soil weight and soil compaction alone were at fault.
As a matter of fact, the pipeline bent upwards 30 feet downstream of the weld failure, which would have violated physics if the soil pushed the pipeline upward since gravity would have had to push upwards.
The final government report also noted that the failure happened due to repeated loads. A maximum 1-1/2 inch wide by 26-1/2 inch long crack formed in the pipeline at a defective weld, and a bulge in the pipeline formed immediately upstream of the crack (Figures 3 and 4).
A different opinion is presented here, where science rather than fiction is presented. Water hammer explains observations while soil weight does not.
Some Oil Industry Background
Water hammers are a known hazard but are improperly addressed as a hazard for oil pipelines.
An example from a graduate school water hammer course that I attended cited a water hammer from a pump house. When pumps were momentarily turned off while changing oil types in the pipeline, pictures in a building one quarter of a mile away were knocked off the walls due to a water hammer shock wave. My Leishear Stress Theory to explain water main breaks had not yet been invented.
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
Post Article Comment and Rate This Article
