Recommended Free Tools
Yes. A pipeline rupture can threaten a western water source if released oil or another hazardous liquid reaches a river, reservoir, tributary or groundwater area connected to a drinking-water intake. Federal records document two crude-oil pipeline releases into Montana’s Yellowstone River, in 2011 and 2015. The first prompted extensive sampling without petroleum hydrocarbons above drinking-water levels at the sampled locations and time; the second produced hydrocarbon detections in Glendive’s drinking-water system, a fuel odor complaint and a do-not-use notice. Those cases prove a contamination pathway, but they do not establish one probability for all pipelines or all water sources in the West.
What it means for a pipeline to “threaten” water
Water-source risk and finished drinking-water contamination are related but different questions. A release may enter a river yet be diluted, contained or intercepted before reaching an intake. Conversely, a release upstream of a municipal intake can create an urgent public-health response even when later tests of treated water find no contamination.
The sequence matters:
- Source-water exposure: oil or another product reaches a river, reservoir, tributary or groundwater setting used by a water system.
- Detection in a water system: sampling finds hydrocarbons in raw water or somewhere in the distribution or treatment system.
- Treated-water result: laboratory testing determines whether contaminants remain after treatment.
- Public instruction: the water utility or response agencies tell residents whether to avoid drinking, cooking, bathing or using the water.
These outcomes should not be collapsed into a single statement such as “the spill contaminated the city’s tap water.” The Yellowstone incidents show why incident-specific records and sampling locations must be named.
The Yellowstone River cases show a real pathway
2011: the Silvertip rupture near Billings
In July 2011, a 12-inch ExxonMobil pipeline ruptured near or beneath the Yellowstone River upstream of Billings, Montana. An EPA response update reported the company’s estimate that approximately 1,000 barrels of crude oil entered the river before the line was shut off (EPA July 2011 update).
A separate EPA incident profile gives an estimated range of 750 to 1,000 barrels, equivalent to 31,500 to 42,000 gallons (EPA response profile). The two figures describe the same event but come from different EPA records: one repeats the company estimate, while the profile presents a range. They should not be presented as a single independently measured volume.
During the response, EPA reported water sampling between Laurel and Miles City. At that point in the response, the samples found no petroleum hydrocarbons above drinking-water levels, and ongoing monitoring indicated that municipal supplies remained safe (EPA sampling update). That finding applies to the places and dates sampled. It does not show that a pipeline release cannot affect a river or that conditions at another intake would be identical.
2015: the Bridger release upstream of Glendive
In January 2015, a Bridger Pipeline rupture released oil into the Yellowstone River upstream of Glendive, Montana. A 2021 EPA report describes the quantity as approximately 40,000 gallons and identifies the river as Glendive’s drinking-water source (EPA source-water report).
The incident record says sampling detected hydrocarbons in the city drinking-water system. The same body of federal documentation says treated-water tests showed no contamination, while residents reported fuel odors and the system issued a do-not-use notice (EPA Bridger response record; EPA source-water report).
Quick wins for a faster PC:
Clear out junk files and repair common Windows errorsFree Scan →Fix the driver behind crashes, sound loss and screen glitchesFind Drivers →That combination is not contradictory. A precautionary order can remain in effect while agencies determine where a product was detected, verify treatment performance and repeat sampling. The record demonstrates that a release can reach a source and trigger action even when treated-water testing later reports no contamination.
Rank #2
- 2024 OSHA Construction Safety Book is the seventh edition with the new OSHA HazCom final rule on 5/20/24. While the rule takes effect 7/19/24, the compliance dates don’t begin until 1/19/26 per 29 CFR 1910.1200(j).
- Construction Site Book offers quick access to essential OSHA regulations, jobsite hazards, and practical safety tips. It also helps employees identify hazards and prevent injuries and illnesses.
- Features easy-to-read format, full-color images, chapter quizzes with answer key, and comes in a compact size making it a convenient reference for employees.
- Critical topics include Confined Space Entry; Cranes & Derricks; Electrical Safety; Emergency Response; Ergonomics & Back Safety; Excavations; Fall Protection; First Aid & Bloodborne Pathogens; HazCom; Health & Wellness; Jobsite Exposures; Lockout/Tagout; Ladders & Stairways; Materials Handling/Storage; Motor Vehicles; PPE; Scaffolds; Site Safety & Security; Slips, Trips & Falls; Tool Safety; Welding, Cutting & Brazing; and Work Zone Safety.
- Specifications: 5 1/4” x 7 1/4", English, Soft bound. 7th Edition. Copyright 2024.
What the two cases establish—and what they do not
| Event | Release information | Water findings and public response |
|---|---|---|
| Silvertip, July 2011 | 12-inch pipeline near or beneath the Yellowstone River upstream of Billings; approximately 1,000 barrels in the company estimate; EPA profile range of 750–1,000 barrels (31,500–42,000 gallons) | EPA sampling between Laurel and Miles City found no petroleum hydrocarbons above drinking-water levels at that point in the response; municipal supplies were reported safe under ongoing monitoring |
| Bridger, January 2015 | Ruptured oil pipeline upstream of Glendive; approximately 40,000 gallons in the EPA report | Hydrocarbons were detected in the city drinking-water system; treated-water tests in the EPA source-water report showed no contamination; residents reported fuel odors and a do-not-use notice was issued |
These incidents establish that a pipeline release can reach a river used for drinking water and that the result can differ from one event to another. They do not provide a west-wide contamination rate. Two historical events cannot supply the denominator needed to estimate the chance that any particular pipeline, river crossing or intake will be affected.
How to read pipeline incident data from PHMSA
The Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) publishes operator-submitted incident records that can include location, commodity and reported cause. Its datasets and trend views are available by state and by pipeline system type (PHMSA incident data).
PHMSA warns that reporting rules and incident-report formats have changed over time. A raw count from one period may therefore reflect both actual events and changes in what operators had to report. Before comparing states or years, define the system, commodity, period, event category and denominator.
| PHMSA category | Meaning in the agency’s trend definitions | Why the label matters |
|---|---|---|
| Serious incidents | Incidents involving a fatality or an injury requiring inpatient hospitalization | A narrow severity measure, not a count of every leak or water-related event |
| Significant incidents | Includes the serious-incident threshold, specified cost or release thresholds for hazardous liquids, or a liquid release causing an unintentional fire or explosion | Combines several severity and consequence tests; the definition must accompany the number |
| All reported incidents | All reports submitted under the applicable rules | Useful for seeing reported events, but especially sensitive to changes in reporting requirements |
PHMSA’s public accident-mapping material describes a National Pipeline Mapping System viewer that lets users query basic accident, operator and commodity information. Its heat maps show incident density for hazardous-liquid accidents and gas-transmission incidents (PHMSA accident maps). A dense map area identifies reported events; it does not calculate the probability that a specific drinking-water intake will be contaminated.
Questions to ask when comparing western pipelines
What kind of pipeline and product are involved?
Separate hazardous-liquid pipelines from gas-transmission, gathering and distribution systems. A crude-oil release has a different pathway and response problem from a natural-gas release. PHMSA reports performance by system type and, for hazardous liquids, by commodity (PHMSA national pipeline performance measures).
Rank #3
Where is the line relative to water?
Identify river crossings, tributaries, reservoirs, flood-prone channels, groundwater settings and downstream drinking-water intakes. Distance alone is not enough: the direction of flow, the time between release and intake, access for responders and whether a utility can isolate an intake all affect the practical response question.
What exactly is being counted?
A comparison should state whether it uses all operator reports or PHMSA’s serious or significant categories, which years are included and whether the unit is incidents, miles of pipeline, barrels released or another measure. Because reporting rules changed, trend lines need the agency’s definitions alongside the values (PHMSA trend methodology).
Outdated Drivers Are Slowing You Down
One free scan finds every outdated or missing driver and matches the right update for your exact hardware.Free scan · exact hardware matchPC Slower Than It Used to Be?
A free scan shows the junk files, broken settings and background clutter dragging Windows down - then fixes them in one click.Free scan · Windows 10 & 11What was the water result?
Look for separate statements about source-water samples, detections in a drinking-water system, treated-water laboratory results and public advisories. The 2015 Glendive record contains all four kinds of information, and they do not say the same thing.
Independent reader supportYour contribution helps us test, update, and keep practical guides available for everyone.Why an incident total is not a contamination probability
To estimate a probability, analysts would need a defined western region, a defined population of pipelines, a consistent incident period and classification, information on which lines cross or drain toward water sources, the location and timing of intakes, and a denominator such as pipeline miles or operating years. The available federal pages do not provide one consistent west-wide calculation.
For example, a state with many reported hazardous-liquid incidents may also have more pipeline miles, more intensive reporting or more mapped facilities. A state with fewer reports may have fewer miles, different commodities or a different reporting history. Neither raw total answers the question “What is the chance that this intake will be affected?”
Rank #4
- Updated Compliance: While the new rule takes effect on 7/19/2024, training and compliance dates don’t start until 1/19/2026, giving your team ample time to prepare with this thorough guide to OSHA regulations (29 CFR 1910.1200(j)).
- Comprehensive Safety Training Handbook: Prepares your employees for 25 of OSHA’s hottest safety topics, from Confined Space Entry to Workplace Violence, ensuring they are equipped with vital safety knowledge for a safer work environment.
- In-Depth, Easy-to-Understand Content: Each chapter tackles key workplace hazards like Electrical Safety, Lockout/Tagout, Respiratory Protection, and more, helping to prevent injuries and illnesses while promoting safe practices.
- Interactive Learning with Quizzes: Engaging chapter review quizzes reinforce safety concepts, making it easier for employees to retain and apply the knowledge, with downloadable answer keys for easy tracking.
- Specifications: English, Softbound, full-color pages (272 pages) offer clear, visually appealing safety information for a diverse workforce, with home safety details included throughout.
For a documentary, map or news report, the defensible wording is that PHMSA data describe reported events and trends under stated definitions. The data can help locate cases for investigation, but a separate exposure analysis is needed to connect those cases to drinking-water risk.
Do not substitute well-spill statistics for pipeline statistics
A 2017 U.S. Geological Survey study examined unconventional-well spills in Colorado, New Mexico, North Dakota and Pennsylvania from 2005 through 2014. It covered 21,300 unconventional wells and 6,622 reported spills (USGS study).
The study also reported average distances from the studied well spills to the nearest stream: 1,379 meters in New Mexico, 747 meters in Colorado, 598 meters in North Dakota and 268 meters in Pennsylvania. Those are results for the study’s unconventional-well sample. They are not pipeline setback distances, pipeline-release measurements or evidence of a pipeline-contamination rate.
Well sites and pipelines have different locations, construction, operating conditions and failure modes. Using the USGS counts to characterize pipeline safety would mix unlike datasets and produce a misleading comparison.
What residents should do after a suspected release
- Follow the public water system and response agencies. Check official alerts, notices and instructions for the affected intake or service area. The Yellowstone responses show agencies sampling, notifying systems and changing precautions as conditions were assessed.
- Honor a do-not-use or other advisory exactly. Do not assume that clear-looking water is safe or that a notice applies only to drinking unless the issuing authority says so.
- Do not use a consumer test kit as a substitute for the response investigation. The documented Yellowstone determinations relied on agency sampling and laboratory analysis; the records do not establish household kits as a reliable way to decide whether water is safe.
- Keep the incident details together. Note the location, time, product if known, agency announcement, sampling point and the date of each result. A result from one river reach or one day does not automatically describe another intake or a later condition.
How to evaluate a documentary or public claim
- Does it identify the pipeline system, product, rupture date and water body?
- Does it distinguish a company volume estimate from an EPA response estimate or report summary?
- Does it name the sampling location and date rather than generalizing a single test to an entire river?
- Does it separate hydrocarbons detected in a water system from contamination found in treated water?
- When it cites a trend, does it state PHMSA’s incident category, reporting period and system type?
- Does it avoid presenting unconventional-well spill research as pipeline evidence?
Bottom line
Pipelines in the West can threaten water sources when a release reaches a river or other water body connected to a drinking-water system. The 2011 and 2015 Yellowstone River incidents provide documented examples, with different sampling results and public responses. They justify careful source-water planning and incident-specific monitoring, but they do not support a single probability for the entire West. The most accurate assessment combines the pipeline’s commodity and system type, its relationship to water and intakes, clearly defined PHMSA incident data, and the actual sampling and advisories issued for the event.
Do these 3 things before closing this tab:
1Clear out junk files and repair common Windows errors2Fix the driver behind crashes, sound loss and screen glitches3Repair Windows errors before they cause bigger problemsQuick Recap
Product prices and availability are accurate as of the date/time indicated and are subject to change. Any price and availability information displayed on Amazon at the time of purchase will apply.
Say something about this film