Some cause happiness wherever they go; others whenever they go. Oscar Wilde… And so, we see a changing of President in the USA and a (hopefully) more inclusive political agenda. At least I hope so. I have found the last four years of American politics surreal, and sadly more highlighting of the failings of democracy than it’s virtues.
Newton’s 3rd Law of motion would seem as applicable in the political theatre in that for each reaction, there is an equal and opposite reaction. Couple that with the centre of balance being the mid-point of the extremes point and we can see why American politics is as it was over the last few years. It is also a lesson for managing projects in that the advantages of maintaining an inclusive, collaborative approach often bears better fruits than autocracy.
Whilst an inclusive approach may not be as efficient at getting things done; if those things aren’t of shared and mutual benefit to the balance of the stakeholders, then they often can (and often will) be readily undone as the baton passes. We see that very process happening as President Biden signs one executive order after another.
One thing I found curios with the incoming president was his haste to cancel the Keystone XL pipeline project with a pen stroke rather than debate in the house and senate. Whilst is good to see the President keen to make positive change to address Climate Change (as all leaders should), one would hope that such change is considered change that is open to debate and challenge.
I am a strong believer in the need to make urgent and substantial change to reverse (or at least slow) the pace of climate change; I’d prefer however that elected officials were guided by science and considered, rational debate rather than to make decision seemingly driven by other factors such as the weight of social media or the size of whatever mass protest gets the media attention.
I am not debating the credibility (or not) of any of that, rather advocating that listening to only one side of the debate isn’t necessarily the most balanced approach. We do however seem to live in times where “political correctness” and “weight of outrage” tends to outweigh factual correctness – and where science and rational debate can often get shouted down (or worse) by things less based in fact or science.
By way of example would be the concern often raised to the Keystone XL pipeline project in that “pipelines leak”. Having done a number of pipeline projects myself, I am not aware any of those particular projects have had any significant leaks given properly designed, properly constructed, correctly commissioned and tested, routinely inspected and maintained, and operated within the design parameters. Even given that, I couldn’t say as an absolute that they “couldn’t leak”, especially as there are quite a number of pipelines that do leak.
The Keystone Pipeline having ruptured (not for the first time) in 2019 being a casing point. Where I’d challenge “pipelines leak” as a general statement is that they shouldn’t leak, and investigating the ones that have/do often highlights that it need not be a valid reason for dismissing all future pipeline projects – especially as a great many pipelines do not leak to any significant extent.
This particular Keystone pipeline does however have an appalling history of leaking, especially if the report by Doug Hayes (senior attorney as the Sierra Club) is factually correct in that: “Keystone came online in 2010, billed as state-of-the-art technology and one of the safest pipelines ever built. It spilled 35 times in its first year alone — 14 times in the US and 21 times in Canada”. State of art perhaps. Whether the construction, commissioning and testing was also “state of the art” could be somewhat debatable.
Let’s consider the statement on the Lakota People’s website in (quote)
“While it may go drastically underreported to the American public, pipelines leak all the time. The most recent one to make major headlines was the Keystone pipeline, which ruptured in the last week of Oct., 2019, causing over 383,000 gallons of oil to contaminate surrounding wetlands.”
“It has never been ‘if' a pipeline breaks but rather ‘when,'” Joye Braun, a community organizer with Indigenous Environmental Network, explained to CNN at the time of the leak.
The same site goes on to state that: “Public concerns over dangerous pipeline leaks are far from ungrounded, as more than 1650 individual leaks have occurred in the US. Since 2010, spilling more than 11.5 million gallons of oil”.
To put that into perspective, The Exxon spilled 11 million gallons of crude oil into Alaska's Prince William Sound on March 24, 1989. 10 years of pipeline operations across the US and Canada have leaked the same amount again. That is shocking.
I would agree with Ms. Braun in relation to the Keystone pipeline given facts support that view specific to that particular pipeline – less so in extrapolating that to all other pipelines in general where it is clearly not the case. At risk of social media berating me under “Chemical Engineer denies pipeline leaks!” – or worse – I don’t dispute the Keystone leaks, just the inevitability of any particular pipeline leaking.
It shouldn’t be inevitable and it should be preventable as far as reasonably practicable. That statement doesn’t say that it can’t happen, just that it (obviously) shouldn’t. Very little in life is without risk of some sort – we simply have to manage that risk. Seemingly in the Keystone Pipeline case, they are not….as far as reasonably practicable.
Less reported was the comment by Richard Kuprewicz (president of pipeline safety consulting company Accufacts) in relation to the first spill.
“It’s a valid question, two cracks on a fairly new pipeline — geez, what’s going on?”.
It is believed that the 2017 leak was most probably caused by propagation of a crack caused by a vehicle strike during its’ construction. I couldn’t find a reference to the outcome of the investigation into the 2019 leak – it may well still be under investigation. Front and centre should be answering that very question Mr. Kuprewicz asks.
I do wonder who politicians are more guided by? Mr. Kuprewicz or Ms. Braun? I would say both; but I doubt in reality that is the case for politicians – some more than others. I noted when reading Caritas’s web site a picture of a person holding a placard with the slogan “the best people to make decisions are those most affected by them”. I don’t actually agree with that as an absolute. I wouldn’t dispute that people “most affected” should have their views considered (and should be in a position to do so)– however as with this person, and those who were intending working on the Keystone XL pipeline, there are micro and macro decisions. It would seem that the micro decisions often have greatest impact to those directly involved at the time, whereas the macro decisions can often impact the greater number of us to a lesser extent for a longer time. We really need to do better in considering both.
Pipelines shouldn’t leak, and operators don’t have a vested interest that they do. That this particular pipeline does should surely prompt the President of the US to be seeking to determine why there is such a shocking level of pipeline leaks across the US and Canada – and who is accountable? Wouldn’t that have been a more progressive executive order before outright cancelling the project? I wouldn’t want a leaky pipeline through my property either, however that’s not down to pipeline technology, rather the application of such technology. Most of us do live with pipelines in and though our properties – that’s how the gas and water get in, and the greywater out.
It may well have been the correct decision for so many reasons (leaks being one of them) – or not so for other counter-reasons; and I don’t doubt that exploitation of tar sands isn’t the “least-worst” way of extracting oil. My concern is not so much that a major pipeline project was cancelled, rather the way in which it was done.
Given President Biden was Inaugurated on January 20 had signed the executive order shortly after cancelling the permit that allowed the pipeline to cross into the USA from Canada – was this really enough time to consider ALL the facts/evidence and arguments? Did he? Could he? To be fair to Biden, Trump also progressed the same project via executive order, however one should hope that adults, more so elected officials, would and should be above tit-for-tat. Sadly, it seems not the case over the last four years and at the start of this presidency.
What does this say to companies and interest in considering major infrastructure projects? One can only guess at how much stakeholders have had invested in the Keystone XL pipeline prior to it being cancelled at the stroke of a pen. It’s hard to believe that there isn’t or couldn’t be a technical solution to resolving such a high incident (and volume!) of leaks; if indeed this was the over-arching concern that brought the project to a halt.
And what of the $1.7 billion TC Energy corp. pledged it would commit to spend on solar, wind and battery power as part of this pipeline project? Was there a point where most with a vested interest could be reasonably accommodated? Did the new government even try, or was this just another act to spite Trump (as sometimes seemed to be the focus of the House during Trump’s presidency)? I would still prefer to see a democracy seek to find common ground rather look to heighten divisions. Common ground is often the best foundation on which to build great and lasting things.
I am not advocating driving environmentally damaging projects (as most infrastructure projects are to some extent) on the basis of jobs and prosperity given all the money in the world will be of little use if we can no longer breath the planet’s air or drink its water. I am seeking to make the point of taking a collaborative and inclusive approach, in so far as reasonably practicable – as I believe we should towards most aspects of our professional engineering decisions and life in general. I would be curious to know whether the entire carbon cycle was considered in this case with the Keystone pipeline?
Such tar sands may well be exploited irrespective, rather now crude oil tankers may well move this oil from Alberta to Texas (some 3000+ km) or oil tankers sail in from the Middle East. As previously noted, oil tankers aren’t without risk either. Cancelling the Keystone pipeline may well have been on balance the correct decision – but was it the only, or best decision?
The opportunity for $1.7 billion of “green energy” investment has also been lost, as has a strategic programme to reduce pipeline leaks in the US to zero. I couldn’t say whether this incoming president took the time to consider whether a non-leaking pipeline AND $1.7 billion green energy investment was an achievable and acceptable solution?
Given President Biden’s son Hunter was a previously appointed director on the board of Burisma whilst he was Vice President (a Ukrainian-owned private energy company), perhaps he has insight into the energy industry that I am not giving him credit for? Like Mr. Kuprewicz question earlier, it would be interesting to hear what the answer is.
