http://www.cnbc.com/2016/12/12/pipe...50-miles-from-dakota-access-protest-camp.html
I remember a couple GAFers talking about in one of the DAPL threads about how the concerns of oil leaks over DAPL were moot because the pipeline would be newer and therefore less leak prone than older, less sophisticated pipelines.
North Dakota officials estimate more than 176,000 gallons of crude oil leaked from the Belle Fourche Pipeline into the Ash Coulee Creek. State environmental scientist Bill Suess says a landowner discovered the spill on Dec. 5 near the city of Belfield, which is roughly 150 miles from the epicenter of the Dakota Access pipeline protest camps.
The leak was contained within hours of the its discovery, Wendy Owen, a spokeswoman for Casper, Wyoming-based True Cos., which operates the Belle Fourche pipeline, told CNBC.
It's not yet clear why electronic monitoring equipment didn't detect the leak, Owen told the Asssociated Press.
Last week, the Army Corp of Engineers said it would deny Dallas-based Energy Transfer Partners the easement it needs to complete the final stretch of the $3.7 billion Dakota Access pipeline. United States Assistant Secretary of the Army Jo-Ellen Darcy said the best path forward was to explore alternative routes for the pipeline, something Energy Transfer Partners says it will not do.
Energy Transfer Partners says the Dakota Access pipeline would include safeguards such as leak detection equipment and that workers monitoring the pipeline remotely in Texas could close valves within three minutes if a breach is detected.
I remember a couple GAFers talking about in one of the DAPL threads about how the concerns of oil leaks over DAPL were moot because the pipeline would be newer and therefore less leak prone than older, less sophisticated pipelines.