HOME
        TheInfoList






Leaks and spills

In 2016, about 400 barrels were released from the original Keystone pipe network via leaks, which federal investigators said resulted from a "weld anomaly."[158]

On November 17, 2017, the pipeline leaked around 407,000 gallons[159] onto farmland near In 2016, about 400 barrels were released from the original Keystone pipe network via leaks, which federal investigators said resulted from a "weld anomaly."[158]

On November 17, 2017, the pipeline leaked around 407,000 gallons[159] onto farmland near Amherst, South Dakota. The oil leak is the largest seen from the Keystone pipeline in the state. Th

On November 17, 2017, the pipeline leaked around 407,000 gallons[159] onto farmland near Amherst, South Dakota. The oil leak is the largest seen from the Keystone pipeline in the state. The leak lasted for several minutes, with no initial reports of damage to water sources or wildlife. Although the spill did not happen on Sioux property, it was in close enough proximity to potentially contaminate the aquifer used for water.[160][161] The pipeline was immediately shut down,[162] and TransCanada began using the pipe again 12 days after the leak.[159] For much of late 2017, the Keystone pipeline operated at reduced pressure during remediation efforts. The federal Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration said that the failure "may have been caused by mechanical damage to the pipeline and coating associated with a weight installed on the pipeline in 2008." Later, the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) found that a metal tracked vehicle had run over the area, damaging the pipeline.[158][163] In April 2018, a federal investigation found that 408,000 gallons of crude had spilled at the site, almost twice what TransCanada had reported. That number made it the seventh-largest onshore oil spill since 2002.[164][165]

In April 2018, Reuters reviewed documents that showed that Keystone had "leaked substantially more oil, and more often, in the United States than the company indicated to regulators in risk assessments before operations began in 2010."[162]

On October 31, 2019, a rupture occurred near Edinburg, North Dakota, spilling an estimated 9,120 barrels[166] (383,000 gallons / 1.4 million liters) where the 45,000 gal that were not recovered from the 0.5 acre containment have spread contaminating 5 acres.[167] This occurred while the South Dakota Water Management Board was in the middle of hearings on whether or not to allow TC Energy to use millions of gallons of water to build camps to house temporary construction workers for Keystone XL construction.[168]

Pipeline construction will affect water supplies upstream of several Native American tribes' reservations, even though the pipeline does not lead through any tribal land. TC Energy is applying for permits to tap the Cheyenne River, White River (South Dakota), and Bad River (South Dakota).[168]

Increased carbon emissions

On November 16, 2011, Enbridge announced it was buying ConocoPhillips's 50% interest in the Seaway pipeline that flowed from the Gulf of Mexico to the Cushing hub. In cooperation with Enterprise Products Partners LP it is reversing the Seaway pipeline so that an oversupply of oil at Cushing can reach the Gulf.[245] This project replaced the earlier proposed alternative Wrangler pipeline project from Cushing to the Gulf Coast.[246] It began reversed operations on May 17, 2012.[247] However, according to i

On November 16, 2011, Enbridge announced it was buying ConocoPhillips's 50% interest in the Seaway pipeline that flowed from the Gulf of Mexico to the Cushing hub. In cooperation with Enterprise Products Partners LP it is reversing the Seaway pipeline so that an oversupply of oil at Cushing can reach the Gulf.[245] This project replaced the earlier proposed alternative Wrangler pipeline project from Cushing to the Gulf Coast.[246] It began reversed operations on May 17, 2012.[247] However, according to industries, the Seaway line alone is not enough for oil transportation to the Gulf Coast.[248]

On January 19, 2012, TransCanada announced it may shorten the initial path to remove the need for federal approval.[249] TransCanada said that work on that section of the pipeline could start in June 2012[249] TransCanada said that work on that section of the pipeline could start in June 2012[250] and be on-line by the middle to late 2013.[251]

In April 2013, it was learned that the government of Alberta was investigating, as an alternative to the pipeline south through the United States, a shorter all-Canadian pipeline north to the Arctic coast, from where the oil would be taken by tanker ships through the Arctic Ocean to markets in Asia and Europe[252] and in August, TransCanada announced a new proposal to create a longer all-Canada pipeline, called Energy East, that would extend as far east as the port city of Saint John, New Brunswick, at the same time providing feedstock to refineries in Montreal, Quebec City, and Saint John.[253]