Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
No, mishaps on pipelines could cause harm, but are very rare. RR tanker transport is much more likely to cause damage to people and environment-- many incidents, including deaths of people have occurred.
Benefits far outweigh risks.
A factor which is being overlooked here is the changing nature of rail freight operation, and its increasing suitability for bulk commodities moving in high volume.
The "ubiquitous" rail network of 1880-1945 was suited for carrying just about anything, in any quantity, from anywhere, to anywhere. Perhaps the most-noted single manifestation of its adaptability was the adaptation of narrow-gauge systems in mountainous territory -- later rendered uneconomical by factors cited below.
Because the coming of the all-weather highway and the motor carrier rendered the railroad far less-suitable for commodities which were (1) perishable, (2) of high value, (3) moved in small quantities, and/or (4) moved short distances.
And line-haul freight trains remained extremely efficient and productive -- where the volume of business justified their use. This included smaller, higher-valued merchandise -- nowhere better demonstrated than by the flood of Asian-import traffic generated in the ports of Los Angeles / Long Beach and moved eastward on what are simply called "the transcons".
The rule obviously holds as well for bulk commodities such as coal (Snowflakes, feel free to throw the obligatory tantrum ), grain, ore, lumber and, increasingly, petroleum. This natural trend was held back, to some degree, by unnecessary economic over-regulation, which was largely repealed in the early 1980's.
Around 1970, a visionary industrial engineer named John Kneiling (1920-2000) proposed a system of rail-based transport between Alaska's North Slope and refineries based mostly in the Midwest and Great Lakes. His ideas would be taken much more seriously today.
And the reorientation of the rail network toward bulk commodities has spawned its own side effects: freight trains today use crews of two persons, rather than five, can be up to two miles long, and operate less frequently. Mountain grades are increasingly shunned as a consequence of less time-sensitivity, and lower value per ton of freight moved; a grade steeper than 2.2 percent (or a rise of about 115 feet per mile) is now considered uneconomical. Entire main lines have been abandoned because of the newly-recognized differential -- aided by the mergers of about 30 major railroads into six systems between 1960 and 1995.
But the pipeline system still holds an advantage (though probably more perceived than demonstrable) where safety is concerned; So long as the pipes are already there, it's likely cheaper and safer to use 'em.
Last edited by 2nd trick op; 12-24-2018 at 05:56 AM..
But the pipeline system still holds an advantage (though probably more perceived than demonstrable) where safety is concerned; So long as the pipes are already there, it's likely cheaper and safer to use them.
Tell it to the people of Lac Mergantic or Plaster Rock, NB.
And I take note that your quick judgement takes note of the size of spills, but not the frequency.
Atlantic Canada is neither a producer, nor a particularly heavy user of petroleum; but the constantly-changing nature of the markets has occasioned new traffic moves and patterns, which in turn, are not likely to be even semi-permanent. And once built, pipelines can't be moved on a whim.
And a lot of people don't recognize that some pipelines are "common carriers" able to serve more than one customer, and to transport more than one petroleum product (kerosene is usually used as a buffer). So the network can change as demand changes, (but not to as great an extent as rail carriage, and the options dwindle, and the cost (even excluding capital) increases where the pipe ends.
The existence of the Bakken field in North Dakota, (and its greater suitability for rail, rather than pipeline movement) was noted by the local carriers as long ago as the mid-Fifties. a few pipe systems may have been built for gathering, and those intended for longer distances have been proposed (with some environmentalists who, as usual, want it both ways, squealing in protest). If the pipeline network is expanded, the need for rail transport will, of course, diminish.
Movement of larger quantities of petroleum by rail increased dramatically after 1995, but the current technology, with some refinements, dates back to the mid-1970's. To date, Lac Mergantic is the only major incident; tragic, but as with every other such incident, it was thoroughly investigated and lessons were taught, and learned.
If you want absolute security, I used to sell it on occasion. It was ten feet long. three feet wide, and six feet deep.
Last edited by 2nd trick op; 12-24-2018 at 08:02 AM..
I'm not suggesting we shouldn't ship oil by rail, but that pipelines are relatively safe. People are protesting an additional couple thousand miles of pipeline, when we already have 2.5 MILLION miles of pipes in safe operation.
The biggest spiller of oil? Easily MotherNaure. The number of gal spilled from natural seeps each year dwarfs Man's accidental spills. Ironically, the Union 76 platform accident off Santa Barbara set off the Green Movement in the 60s, but the oil they found washed up on the beach making everyone so mad was analyzed (you can "fingerprint" oil sources) and found to be from a natural seep and not the oil rig.
I don't just mean those actively destroying nature, including the false-green crowd. Crimes of apathy are committed every day, like not wanting to walk 100 feet to dump used oil in a receptacle because a storm drain is so close. Or sitting there on Facebook for 20 minutes with the engine running.
Here's irrefutable evidence of plague-like human behavior. You have to get up high to see the true scale.
Several points:
Next Great Extinction? With one million species on the planet and an average species duration of 1 million yrs, we would expect 1 extinction per. In fact, we only know of 200 extinctions in the last 4 hundred yrs-- HALF the expected rate. We're finding several new species every year. We're gaining 'em faster than we're losing 'em.
Re: Pb in gasoline-- gone for 40 yrs now-- no improvement in IQ scores. Pb in gasoline is exhausted from an ICE as a very large molecule chelated with four short chained carbon moieties-- breathed in and breathed out, too large to be absorbed, ie- causes NO lung damage. Without the lead, those short chained carbon molecules ARE potentially carcinogenic. (Adding Pb to gasoline was one of the most expensive steps in the production process. It was BigOil that led the lobbying effort to remove it.) Thanks, EPA, for protecting us so well.
Re: EPA exhaust regs--ZERO scientific evidence to support their regs. They pull the numbers out of their bureaucratic a--, um, thin air.
As an example- the head of the German Pulmonology Society says the recently increase in Diesel car restrictions are based on false data, statistical tricks and erroneous conclusions-- https://www.welt.de/politik/deutschl...nschuldig.html That's been rather obvious to me as I've read the political documents masquerading as medical research over the last 30 yrs.
Guido, I was speaking of the "6th mass extinction", which many (most?) scientists say is already underway: https://news.nationalgeographic.com/...science-world/
My own knowledge on the subject doesn't approach layman status, so I can't intelligently argue it. I had assumed it was settled science. If true, it's going to get ugly for the talking monkeys.
With respect to tetraethyl lead, my only experience was in speaking to a co-worker, who was my company's environmental manager (he had a BS in chemistry and Masters in public health, which does not make him an "expert", but puts him way above my pay grade on the subject). I happened to ask him once what he felt was the "greatest achievement" of EPA-type regulations. He didn't bat an eye, and said it was without a doubt the elimination of "Ethyl" in gasoline, he was a firm believer that urban youth was adversely affected by lead from auto exhaust. I did read an article once by Gordon Jennings, who greatly lamented switching out Ethyl for MTBE (I believe he thought that MTBE was just as bad, or maybe even worse). Thanks for the input on IQ scores, I plan to find a decent study on that and read it - if you have one, please feel free to link. Cadogan cites studies stating that VW is responsible for thousands of years of lives shortened by dieselgate, I had assumed that was settled science as well. I'm pretty sure you're swimming upstream on that one.
The world becomes a scary place for me when I have to choose which set of experts is most credible on a subject I personally know little about, especially when the subjects have world-changing ramifications (the best example probably being anthropogenic global warming). I'm too old (and too dumb) to become an expert on everything that affects me, it makes me feel very "helpless".
The world becomes a scary place for me when I have to choose which set of experts is most credible on a subject I personally know little about,...quote]
That's what "They" are counting on. Cf- Alinsky's Rules for Radicals.
Re: Pb-- Cecil's Textbook of Medicine is one of the two most read; new editions come our every 3-4 yrs. The addition ~1990 made a special point in the section on Pb Poisoning to mention that although ambient atm Pb levels had fallen to virtually zero since the mid 70s, no measurable changes in IQ nor in incidence of anemia among inner city kids could be distinguished (both easily measured in large study populations). That would mean that the previous levels of Pb did not have any appreciable affects on the population as a whole, and could not be used as a simple scapegoat to explain certain differences among certain groups-- really a much more complex problem.
Re: The Sixth Extinction-- easily debunked myth. The Sixth can't be under way-- as I pointed out, we're actually lagging behind. Only those with the Watermelon Agenda claim it's coming. Dog Bites Man is not News. BTW-- the first 5 Extinctions were caused by Global Cooling. Why should the next one be different?
I want neither a pipeline nor a railroad at my back fence.
Why not? We have lived on a hill above railroad tracks and have worked within a few feet of the tracks. The noises of life don't bother us.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
