Talk:Environmental risks of the Keystone XL pipeline

Keystone XL Pipeline (Risk to Ogallala Aquifer)

AJ- interesting article with good graphics. Is there any way to update the census data to at least 2000? Also by "precipitation event" do you mean rainfall? Carol570cjk (talk) 02:15, 18 November 2011 (UTC) I would suggest removing the Introduction section and making it the opening segment, i.e., what appears above the table of contents. Thus the meat of the article would start with Hazard ID. -Vic 570vca (talk) 17:15, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Good call, this seems to be the standard format (570ajk (talk) 00:24, 8 November 2011 (UTC))

AJ-For your consideration, to add impact, I added numbers for the potentially impacted population and crops supplied by the aquifer. 570mpp (talk) 18:22, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

This puts the issue into better perspective, thanks (570ajk (talk) 00:24, 8 November 2011 (UTC))

Are there alternatives to running the pipe over the Ogalala? If there are alternatives, I'd suggest they are mentioned...guessing there are not? Nice article!! (570wac) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 570wac (talk • contribs) 22:54, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

An alternative route is what many Nebraskans are arguing for, the only feedback I've found so far is that the proposed route is the best one they came up with... (570ajk (talk) 00:24, 8 November 2011 (UTC))

Under exposure, I am unclear as to what is the threshold for detection of a leak. Is a pinhole leak <21,000 gallons (i.e., the limit of detection)? I think your sentence, " A so-called pinhole leak ..." needs to be revised. Under benzene fate and transport I am unclear about the estimate of exposure ("A conservative estimate of ...") 184 days of potential exposure over what timeframe? 570jdw (talk) 14:16, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

I believe I addressed your concerns and presented the information more clearly. (570ajk (talk) 18:19, 10 November 2011 (UTC))

AJ --do you want to elaborate on the effects of benzene exposure. Acute effects: vomiting, dizziness, convulsions and long term - bone marrow suppression, anemia , immunosuppression. Just a thought otherwise I thought it was very interesting570nlh (talk) 21:18, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Good idea, I added a header link to 'health problems' caused by benzene. (570ajk (talk) 00:01, 11 November 2011 (UTC))

AJ - Thanks for this article on such a timely topic. I just thought of the Keystone project as an infrastructure issue...shows how I haven't been following the debate. It was helpful to include the significance of the aquifer to agriculture. Ceci570csc (talk) 03:06, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

AJ- nice article on a very interesting topic. For your consideration, I threw in a quick statement about animal exposure to benzene. Since this pipeline runs through areas of the country where livestock outnumber people, I thought it might be appropriate. I;ve included the link in the reference section as the article i got the information from was very useful in terms of exposure to livestock. - Dan (570ddt (talk) 20:31, 13 November 2011 (UTC))

Looks good and sounds good to me. Are there any other examples you came across where this type of exposure occurred possibly on a different pipeline? I wonder if this has happened before any follow-up research maybe useful as an example of the risk? Also, just to be clear, the only route of exposure worth consideration is inhalation of benzene, correct? --Joe (570jby (talk) 13:20, 14 November 2011 (UTC))

other aquifers?

AJ - I found this link to info on another vulnerable aquifer in Texas. Perhaps it is beyond the scope of your article. I wasn't sure if you wanted to focus on the Ogallala or not. Nice work! -Claire 570ceh (talk) 17:30, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

You may wish to close the first paragraph with a statement regarding the current situation regarding the Keystone Project, something like "As of xx Nov 2011 the Keystone Project approval has been delayed in part to address concerns regarding the sensitive Nebraska Sand Hills ..." with a cite. This provides context for your article.570jdw (talk) 18:28, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: has been moved already Kotniski (talk) 11:20, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

---

Keystone XL Pipeline (Risk to Ogallala Aquifer) → Keystone XL project's risks to Ogallala Aquifer – Relisted. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:26, 29 November 2011 (UTC) The current title is not in line with WP:TITLE. It is confusing and not the best title for search. I think that Keystone XL project's risks to Ogallala Aquifer is better title. However, I open for alternative proposals. Beagel (talk) 19:15, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

• Support per nom. 70.24.248.23 (talk) 07:39, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with changing the title if it is more in line with WP title guidelines. I think most people will simply search 'keystone xl' or 'keystone xl pipeline' which is why I set up a link to this page from there. (570ajk (talk) 15:20, 23 November 2011 (UTC))

• Rename to Environmental risks of the Keystone XL pipeline. The article is about environmental risks so that should be the main part of the name. If the article is expanded to cover other pipelines in the area, then the back end of the name can be changed. However another approach is to rewrite this article to cover pipeline oil spills in general with a section on the Keystone XL line specifics. In that case, a rename to Environmental risks of petroleum pipelines would probably be a good name. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:26, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
• Combine with Keystone Pipeline. Due to the brevity of both articles and the obvious relationship between them, it is unclear to me why this article is separate. Tryanmax (talk) 16:29, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Keystone pipeline

The article doesn't seem to cover that the Keystone Pipeline already runs through the Ogallala Aquifier, which is should since this is an increase in risk from preexisting risk. 70.24.248.23 (talk) 07:39, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

True, although I don't know that the risk is comparable since the original Keystone Pipeline travels along the edge of the aquifer- which is not as 'risky' because the sandhills with permeable soils and shallow groundwater are the most vulnerable and has the thickest aquifer. I will try and find a place to add this piece of information though.(570ajk (talk) 15:14, 23 November 2011 (UTC))

Spill frequency-volume

The term conservative, in the context of risk assessment, refers to erring on the side of caution by using safe estimates (worst case). http://www.psandman.com/col/riskword.htm — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.186.252.155 (talk • contribs) 19:25, 27 February 2013

NYT resource, with internal links

In Internal Canadian Documents, a Warning on Oil Sands by Ian Austen December 22, 2011, 4:27 PM; excerpt ...

Internal government documents show that Canada’s scientific and environmental bureaucracy does not share the Conservative government’s view that oil sands projects in Alberta have relatively little negative impact on the environment. Postmedia News, a publisher that owns several major Canadian newspapers including The National Post in Toronto, obtained the previously confidential material through Canada’s access-to-information laws. ...

internal links

• ‘Secret’ Environment Canada study warns of oil sands’ impact on habitat, Postmedia News Dec 22, 2011 – 1:52 PM ET

and

• 'powerpoint presentation'

99.190.85.17 (talk) 06:35, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Not directly relevant. Probably not reliable.—Arthur Rubin (talk) 04:36, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

This link spamming by IP user is not in line with the WP policies. Talk page is a space to discuss how to improve the article and not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. Adding links and citations of news sources without explaining how it could be used for improvement of the article is spamming which is going on already quite a long time.. If the link is relevant, please find time to add this information to the article yourself. If it is not relevant, it is not relevant also for the talk page. Beagel (talk) 09:09, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Art, it states Environment Canada, a Canadian federal environmental agency, said that contamination of the Athabasca River, which flows north from the oils sands, is “a high-profile concern” and that that there are “questions about possible effects on health of wildlife and downstream communities.” and that the increase in greenhouse gas emissions related to the oil sands would equal the increase in emissions from all other sources in Canada by 2020, also the presentation raised concerns about other forms of air pollution from the projects.

99.190.86.5 (talk) 04:48, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

So go ahead and add this information to the article if this is relevant, but please do not spam at the talk page. However, this article is about the pipeline, not about oil sands or Athabasca River, so I have doubts if this is relevant in this article. For oil sands we already have a separate article. Beagel (talk) 09:52, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Edit request

I came here for background on environmental risks. Currently the article has this: "To properly assess the risk of contamination to the Ogallala Aquifer, a step-wise process following hazard identification, exposure assessment, and uncertainty is outlined." It's my understanding that WP standards would call for a footnote. I personally find "is outlined" confusing. If we're talking about an accepted methodology, we should have a reference. If not, the sentence should be removed as WP:OR. -- Jo3sampl (talk) 21:12, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Merge discussion

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived: Merger completed. Beagel (talk) 13:36, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

---

I propose to split-off 'Hazard identification' and 'Exposure' sections into the Pipeline transport article and merge rest of the article into the Keystone Pipeline article. The reason is that above-mentioned two sections are not specifically about the Keystone XL but describes issues common to all oil pipelines. As an alternative, these sections could be used for creation a specific article, e.g. Safety of oil pipelines or Environmental risks of petroleum pipelines as was proposed during the previous name discussion. Rest of the article which is about the Keystone XL is actually repeats what is already said in the Keystone Pipeline article and not enough to justify a separate article. There is also a risk of WP:POVFORK. This was also proposed a year ago when there was discussion about the title of this article, so probably it is a time to go forward with this. Beagel (talk) 09:59, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

That seems like a well thought out and positive proposal. I agree. Capitalismojo (talk) 13:19, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Strong support. The proposed arrangement would help readers find the content they want much more easily. Andrew³²⁷ 15:35, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

As there was no opposition I completed the merger. Beagel (talk) 13:36, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Loss of Clarity

This article is slowly losing it's conciseness. Hazard ID refers to the hazard of the material and has nothing to do with pipeline breaching (Patronanejo) - that is specifically covered in exposure...because it relates to exposure.The first sentence in Hazard ID is written poorly and will likely confuse readers. Also, under the Exposure subheading there is now mention of "Previous dilbit spill remediation difficulties" - this has nothing to do with exposure. I suppose this is the beauty and the beast of Wikipedia.... decimation of structure for the voice of anyone and everyone. Apologies for not citing the cumbersome WP:xx rules that are established. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.186.252.155 (talk • contribs) 19:25, 27 February 2013

I agree. I'm working on the problem now through copy editing. I'm concerned that the article was trying to take the tone of a formal risk assessment or environmental impact statement, when it should read like an encyclopedia article. But that's the way it's currently structured, so we'll see what I can do without having to rewrite the whole thing. --BDD (talk) 05:28, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

After further review, I don't think the sections besides the lede needed any copy editing. I do think they're overly technical, however, and I've tagged the article as such. A rewrite or the merge, which is currently unopposed, could help. --BDD (talk) 18:01, 12 March 2013 (UTC)