Trains Or Pipeline, Which Is Best To Move Oil?

[OldCoyote]

Another train wreck involving oil rail cars, Or do we build a pipeline?

How about we just don't transport oil period. See how well that works for you.

www.aol.com/article/2015/02/16/west-virginia-train-derailment-sends-oil-tanker-into-river/21143251/?icid=maing-grid7%7Cmaing10%7Cdl3%7Csec1_lnk2%26pLid%3D614136

[mroped]

(Sh)It happens! 
Not even gonna read the article. It hapened so many times before, it will happen again; is like a guarantee of sorts.

In the case of oil, a pipeline is definetly better: is safer, collisions are out of question(or derailments) like a tap can be stoped if needed and turned back on when needed.

But as we anything else that involves going through vast distances and swats of land, studies need to be done, approvals from the owners of the land are needed, safety measures need to be put in place.
Moreover, in a case such as this when we talk about building one of the size of the KXL one wonders "what do we use it for?"
Fortunately, the answer is easy: transit heavy crude from Canada to US, refine it and than sell the finished product to somebody else not the US consumers.
That is the trick/catch: somebody else not US!

If there was any guarantee that this line would be built and maintained properly and all safety checks and standards would be in place than I'd agree with it. But there is no such certainty given the pipelines past and the records of those that are using and maintaining them

On the other hand, I'd say "build the damned thing!" But when it starts leaking and polluting just bring those that pushed the issue so hard for it, make them live arround the spill site with their families and say "I told you so!"

[fairlycrazy23]

Pipeline is superior in most ways.

[Tennesseer]

Icebergs will move them in in the equatorial regions of our oceans.  

[djAdvocate]

pipeline, provided that we have rigorous inspection criteria.

we don't.

[jkapp]

Feb 17, 2015 11:03:49 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

pipeline, provided that we have rigorous inspection criteria.

we don't.

At least the pipeline would be new, and not 200 years old like our rail lines...and there's really no chance of some idiot driving onto the pipeline and causing an accident.

[Tiny]

I'd vote for a pipe line. It's not the same but natural gas is distributed via pipeline to millions of houses and it seems to be relatively reliable.

I'm biased though - I live in a 'rail road' corridor and while I've watched oil tankers (or maybe liquefied petroleum gas tankers) go thru for years and years without incident - I'm still alittle concerned. there's plenty of other chemicals they ship via tanker too.

There are miles and miles of track thru heavily populated areas like at the back of people's yards or just across the street.

I have to admit when I was house hunting I nixed houses within 2 blocks of the tracks - yeah, that's probably not far enough away if there's an accident but it does provide some relief from the noise (and engine fumes).

[djAdvocate]

Feb 17, 2015 19:02:33 GMT -5 jkapp said:

Feb 17, 2015 11:03:49 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

pipeline, provided that we have rigorous inspection criteria.

we don't.

At least the pipeline would be new, and not 200 years old like our rail lines...and there's really no chance of some idiot driving onto the pipeline and causing an accident.

and yet, recently, a pipeline installed only TWO YEARS AGO burst in North Dakota. 

[wyouser]

Somewhere I have read (I don't have a source so don't come unglued) that of the methods of moving oil the most damaging to the environment is, and has been.......by ship. The second most damaging is ...by rail. The least, is by pipeline. The ranking was by the amount of oil spilled or released into the environment. This came from one of the news outlets.

[Tennesseer]

Just one of a number of notable oil pipeline leaks or lawsuits/fines since January, 2000:

On January 13, 2000 Koch Industries agreed to pay a $35 million fine, due to a series of oil pipeline leaks in six states — Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, Alabama, Louisiana and Missouri — including 300 leaks from 1990 to 1997. One of the allegations was the leaks were from a lack of maintenance of the pipelines. The EPA said it was the biggest civil fine levied under the Clean Water Act. The settlement resolved two lawsuits charging that for years Koch's pipeline subsidiary had left thousands of miles of pipeline in disrepair.[2]


List of pipeline accidents in the United States in the 21st century

[EVT1]

Free market solution- find a path where everyone will sell you their property without using eminent domain, and agree to pay all costs for cleanup when it leaks and damages other folks' property or public property including the poisoning of wells, waterways, etc.  Do that and have at it.  I think a pipeline is the best way.  Proper inspections, proper regulation, etc. no problems- and none of this fuck up the environment and declare bankruptcy either- they have to be insured for the potential damage- even if a terrorist blows it up.  If they are going to install the risk, they are on the hook if it goes bad.

[wyouser]

Feb 18, 2015 20:05:04 GMT -5 EVT1 said:

Free market solution- find a path where everyone will sell you their property without using eminent domain, and agree to pay all costs for cleanup when it leaks and damages other folks' property or public property including the poisoning of wells, waterways, etc.  Do that and have at it.  I think a pipeline is the best way.  Proper inspections, proper regulation, etc. no problems- and none of this fuck up the environment and declare bankruptcy either- they have to be insured for the potential damage- even if a terrorist blows it up.  If they are going to install the risk, they are on the hook if it goes bad.

If they have insurance, they have terrorism coverage. That has been a requirement on all commercial insurance policies after laws enacted following 911. The rub is that there is a small flat fee added to the policy BUT the cost to clean it up is carried by the taxpayer. The policyholder Can elect to opt out of this coverage currently.

[djAdvocate]

Feb 18, 2015 18:55:48 GMT -5 Tennesseer said:

Just one of a number of notable oil pipeline leaks or lawsuits/fines since January, 2000:

On January 13, 2000 Koch Industries agreed to pay a $35 million fine, due to a series of oil pipeline leaks in six states — Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, Alabama, Louisiana and Missouri — including 300 leaks from 1990 to 1997. One of the allegations was the leaks were from a lack of maintenance of the pipelines. The EPA said it was the biggest civil fine levied under the Clean Water Act. The settlement resolved two lawsuits charging that for years Koch's pipeline subsidiary had left thousands of miles of pipeline in disrepair.[2]


List of pipeline accidents in the United States in the 21st century

OMG!!! $35 MILLION!!!!!??  THAT SET THEM BACK ABOUT....0.1% of their personal fortune!!!!!!  WHATEVER SHALL BE DONE

[weltschmerz]

Feb 17, 2015 19:02:33 GMT -5 jkapp said:

Feb 17, 2015 11:03:49 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

pipeline, provided that we have rigorous inspection criteria.

we don't.

At least the pipeline would be new, and not 200 years old like our rail lines...and there's really no chance of some idiot driving onto the pipeline and causing an accident.

The first Keystone tar sands pipeline, constructed less than a year ago, has sprung its twelfth leak, spilling up to 2,100 gallons of raw tar sands crude oil in Kansas on May 29th when a pipeline fitting around a pressure transmitter failed. This comes just three weeks after a broken pipe fitting on Keystone resulted in a 60’ geyser of tar sands crude, spewing 21,000 gallons in North Dakota. Surely this appalling record of spills should send a message to the State Department as it goes through the permitting process for a second tar sands pipeline – Keystone XL – by the same company that we need better pipeline safety assessments and regulations in place before building another tar sands pipeline through sensitive U.S. lands and waters.

 

switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/aswift/the_first_keystone_tar_sands_p.html

That's right. 12 leaks in its first year.

[djAdvocate]

Feb 23, 2015 13:46:58 GMT -5 weltschmerz said:

Feb 17, 2015 19:02:33 GMT -5 jkapp said:

At least the pipeline would be new, and not 200 years old like our rail lines...and there's really no chance of some idiot driving onto the pipeline and causing an accident.

The first Keystone tar sands pipeline, constructed less than a year ago, has sprung its twelfth leak, spilling up to 2,100 gallons of raw tar sands crude oil in Kansas on May 29th when a pipeline fitting around a pressure transmitter failed. This comes just three weeks after a broken pipe fitting on Keystone resulted in a 60’ geyser of tar sands crude, spewing 21,000 gallons in North Dakota. Surely this appalling record of spills should send a message to the State Department as it goes through the permitting process for a second tar sands pipeline – Keystone XL – by the same company that we need better pipeline safety assessments and regulations in place before building another tar sands pipeline through sensitive U.S. lands and waters.

 

switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/aswift/the_first_keystone_tar_sands_p.html

That's right. 12 leaks in its first year.

must be a Koch project. 

[b2r]

Feb 23, 2015 22:37:29 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Feb 23, 2015 13:46:58 GMT -5 weltschmerz said:

The first Keystone tar sands pipeline, constructed less than a year ago, has sprung its twelfth leak, spilling up to 2,100 gallons of raw tar sands crude oil in Kansas on May 29th when a pipeline fitting around a pressure transmitter failed. This comes just three weeks after a broken pipe fitting on Keystone resulted in a 60’ geyser of tar sands crude, spewing 21,000 gallons in North Dakota. Surely this appalling record of spills should send a message to the State Department as it goes through the permitting process for a second tar sands pipeline – Keystone XL – by the same company that we need better pipeline safety assessments and regulations in place before building another tar sands pipeline through sensitive U.S. lands and waters.

 

switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/aswift/the_first_keystone_tar_sands_p.html

That's right. 12 leaks in its first year.

must be a Koch project. 

     Unions...Probably got the maintenance contract as well. 

   The President would have signed the bill had the jobs been guaranteed to go to those poor misguided ISIS boys.

[OldCoyote]

How many gallons or barrels of oil is transported everyday?

how many gallons or barrels of oil are spilled everyday?

How much of the oil is spilled,  never cleaned up?

I remember an interview with the CEO of Exxon, he was asked a question about alternative fuels.

He said, we produce( I don't remember if this was just Exxon or the industry)  333 million gallons of fuel a day, thats almost a billion gallons every three days.

What alternative fuel are you going to use to replace this in the short term?

Good question!

[973beachbum]

I am not really anti pipeline or rail but I have a question about the keystone pipeline proposed.

I understand that the oil is from Canada and won't/can't be sold in the America's.  It would have to be sold in China.  I am actually okay with that.  Chinese people need to heat their homes too. 

But why the heck is it our responsibility to move Canadian oil, for a Canadian oil company, so it can be sold to China??

IMO if Canada wants to move the oil so it can sell it to China then put the pipeline through Canada.  Why is it our responsibility to take all the risk with none of the benefit?

[djAdvocate]

Feb 26, 2015 3:35:24 GMT -5 b2r said:

Feb 23, 2015 22:37:29 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

must be a Koch project. 

     Unions...Probably got the maintenance contract as well. 

  

in North Dakota?  highly doubtful.

[djAdvocate]

Feb 26, 2015 6:05:28 GMT -5 OldCoyote said:

How many gallons or barrels of oil is transported everyday?

how many gallons or barrels of oil are spilled everyday?

How much of the oil is spilled,  never cleaned up?

I remember an interview with the CEO of Exxon, he was asked a question about alternative fuels.

He said, we produce( I don't remember if this was just Exxon or the industry)  333 million gallons of fuel a day, thats almost a billion gallons every three days.

What alternative fuel are you going to use to replace this in the short term?

Good question!

you are missing the point.

how many gallons are sufficient to destroy a water supply?

and how are the costs of cleanup socialized?

[fairlycrazy23]

Feb 26, 2015 7:24:45 GMT -5 973beachbum said:

I am not really anti pipeline or rail but I have a question about the keystone pipeline proposed.

I understand that the oil is from Canada and won't/can't be sold in the America's.  It would have to be sold in China.  I am actually okay with that.  Chinese people need to heat their homes too. 

But why the heck is it our responsibility to move Canadian oil, for a Canadian oil company, so it can be sold to China??

IMO if Canada wants to move the oil so it can sell it to China then put the pipeline through Canada.  Why is it our responsibility to take all the risk with none of the benefit?

It would be transported to refiners in on the coasts and possibly midwest. So it will be sold in America. Some of the refined product will be exported.

[djAdvocate]

Feb 26, 2015 20:20:47 GMT -5 fairlycrazy23 said:

Feb 26, 2015 7:24:45 GMT -5 973beachbum said:

I am not really anti pipeline or rail but I have a question about the keystone pipeline proposed.

I understand that the oil is from Canada and won't/can't be sold in the America's.  It would have to be sold in China.  I am actually okay with that.  Chinese people need to heat their homes too. 

But why the heck is it our responsibility to move Canadian oil, for a Canadian oil company, so it can be sold to China??

IMO if Canada wants to move the oil so it can sell it to China then put the pipeline through Canada.  Why is it our responsibility to take all the risk with none of the benefit?

It would be transported to refiners in on the coasts and possibly midwest. So it will be sold in America. Some of the refined product will be exported.

not at $50/bbl it won't.  it won't even be drilled.

[EVT1]

Don't worry-all of us will pay for the externalities as that is what we always do. 

[fairlycrazy23]

Feb 26, 2015 20:38:37 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Feb 26, 2015 20:20:47 GMT -5 fairlycrazy23 said:

It would be transported to refiners in on the coasts and possibly midwest. So it will be sold in America. Some of the refined product will be exported.

not at $50/bbl it won't.  it won't even be drilled.

True, no new tar sands fields will be developed, but existing development will probably continue to be worked and there are other conventional oil that will be using the pipeline.
I think it would be better to transport oil from Canada via pipeline to US refineries, than the alternative to using rail. And the price will rise again.

[happyhoix]

I think rail transit is more dangerous in that a train derailment can trigger a fire, and with bad luck, that fire can be near an inhabited area.  There are more factors you can't control, such as idiots trying to beat the train causing train wrecks.

However, I think pipelines are more dangerous due to the sheer quantity that can be released, because, without proper alarm systems, leaks can happen for quite a long time before they're noticed. We had one near here where a pipeline leaked an enormous amount into an underground limestone cave system - and they never found the spilled product. It's sitting somewhere under the Appalacians.

I'm not familiar with the pipeline construction requirements - if they have to use double walled pipes, with spill detection linked to an alarm system that automatically shuts off the flow of product when a leak is detected, and frequent maintenance inspections along the length to monitor for breeches, pipelines could be safer than rail. However, industry doesn't use the best available technology unless they have to. That big Alaskan oil spill years ago was from a single hulled ship. Double hulled ships existed, but not mandated, so Exxon went with a cheaper single hulled ship.

[fairlycrazy23]

I think the new pipeline will be state of the art, with advanced leak detection and shut off valves, so if it can replace not only rail, but other aging pipelines it seems like it would be positive thing

[b2r]

 Warren Buffett prefers you use his railway. 

[djAdvocate]

Feb 27, 2015 0:23:38 GMT -5 EVT1 said:

Don't worry-all of us will pay for the externalities as that is what we always do. 

precisely.  how DARE we, as users of those "externalaties" CHARGE the abusers of them for their abuse!!!! 

[djAdvocate]

Feb 27, 2015 13:24:41 GMT -5 fairlycrazy23 said:

I think the new pipeline will be state of the art, with advanced leak detection and shut off valves, so if it can replace not only rail, but other aging pipelines it seems like it would be positive thing

the latest rupture happened in a pipe that was less than 2 years old.

forgive me for not assuming that "state of the art" is good enough.

[djAdvocate]

Feb 27, 2015 10:31:42 GMT -5 fairlycrazy23 said:

Feb 26, 2015 20:38:37 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

not at $50/bbl it won't.  it won't even be drilled.

True, no new tar sands fields will be developed, but existing development will probably continue to be worked and there are other conventional oil that will be using the pipeline.
I think it would be better to transport oil from Canada via pipeline to US refineries, than the alternative to using rail. And the price will rise again.

i think it would be better to move refineries to the border.