Pulitzer winning climate news.
facebook twitter subscribe
view counter

EagleFordProjectPreviewBlock

BloombergLegacyPreviewBlock

BusinessDeveloperAd



CleanBreakAdAmazon

Donate to InsideClimate News through our secure page on Network for Good.

Narrow and Flawed, Federal Pipeline Safety Study Fails to Settle Controversy

Tar sands oil poses no greater risk to pipelines, study says, but is mum on question of its relative danger to humans and the environment when spilled.

Jun 26, 2013
Spilled oil in a creek in Mayflower, Ark.

Diluted bitumen, a controversial form of heavy Canadian oil, poses no more risks to pipelines than conventional oil, according to a long-awaited report released Tuesday by the National Academy of Sciences.

But environmentalists and pipeline watchdogs said the study's scope was so narrow and its methodology so flawed that it does little to settle the controversy over whether diluted bitumen, or dilbit, is more dangerous to humans and the environment than the light, conventional crude oil that most U.S. pipelines were built to handle.

The report examined the potential for pipeline leaks but did not address the consequences of a spill, the key concern for environmentalists and people who live near pipelines. And the conclusions were based not on new research but primarily on self-reported industry data, scientific research that was funded or conducted by the oil industry, and government databases that even federal regulators admit are incomplete and sometimes inaccurate.

Supporters of the proposed Keystone XL pipeline—which would carry up to 830,000 barrels of dilbit per day from Canada's oil sands to Gulf Coast refineries—welcomed the study's results.

"Oil sands-derived crude is safe for delivery—this confirmation is good news for pipelines, the environment and American consumers," Andy Black, president of the Association of Oil Pipe Lines, said in a news release.

Some of the challenges the academy faced in preparing the report are mentioned in the body of the report. But the study's executive summary, where the authors presented their main findings, reflects none of the uncertainties behind the data.

"The committee does not find any causes of pipeline failure unique to the transportation of diluted bitumen," says the first sentence in the section of the executive summary labeled "results."

Carl Weimer, executive director of the nonprofit, nonpartisan Pipeline Safety Trust, said the report's conclusions aren't surprising, given its narrow scope.

The report "only tells us that the probability of a failure of a pipeline carrying dilbit is no different than the probability of the failure of an oil pipeline carrying other types of heavy oils," Weimer said in a statement. Regulators have "so far failed to analyze whether the consequences of dilbit pipeline failures are greater than those of conventional oil spills."

The study was commissioned by the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), the federal agency that regulates interstate pipelines,  after Congress passed a pipeline safety law in 2011 that asked for a "comprehensive review of hazardous liquid pipeline facility regulations" to determine if they're "sufficient" to regulate pipelines that transport dilbit.

PHMSA hired the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) to conduct the study. But it specifically limited the scope of the report to an examination of whether pipelines carrying dilbit are more likely to leak than pipelines carrying conventional crude oil.

Mark Barteau, chair of the 12-member NAS committee that conducted the study, told reporters during a Tuesday press call that the committee did not consider the consequences of a spill—and that the committee members didn't have the expertise to discuss that issue.

Barteau is a chemical engineering professor at the University of Michigan. The other committee members have similar expertise in pipeline engineering and metallurgy.

Committee member George Tenley, Jr., a former president of the industry group Pipeline Research Council International, said during the call that the committee was told to review existing pipeline regulations only if it found that dilbit was more likely to cause a pipeline spill. Because the committee did not reach that conclusion, it didn't examine whether current regulations are adequate.

InsideClimate called PHMSA to ask when the agency intends to commission a separate report on the impacts of dilbit spills, but PHMSA did not respond before deadline.

The issue is important because dilbit behaves differently from conventional crude oil when it spills into water. A 2010 dilbit spill in Michigan's Kalamazoo River is still being cleaned up nearly three years later. Unlike conventional oil, which usually floats on water, dilbit is composed of bitumen—a heavy crude oil—and light hydrocarbons used to thin the bitumen so it can flow through pipelines. During the Kalamazoo spill, the light chemicals gradually evaporated, leaving the bitumen to sink into the riverbed.

Despite the rapid growth of the oil sands industry, and plans to build or expand more than 10,000 miles of pipelines in the next few years, federal pipeline regulations don’t distinguish between dilbit and conventional crude oil.

Comment space is provided for respectful discourse. Please consult our comment policies for more information. We welcome your participation in civil and constructive discussions.