Is it my imagination or have there been more oil transport fires since the keystone pipeline has been a hot topic? Just saying.
Is it my imagination or have there been more oil transport fires since the keystone pipeline has been a hot topic? Just saying.
I recently read that the number of tanker rail cars jumped from 10k to 260k in the last 10 or 15 years due to all the fracking and additional pumps. Law of averages would lead me to think you would see way more tanker fires.
the law of averages wins in this respect.. while the rest of us lose
You missed a big one - Lac-Mégantic in Quebec. Pretty much leveled the town.
http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/quebecexplosion.html
And the numbers have jumped a lot faster than you think. In Canada:
2009: 500 carloads of crude shipped by rail
2013: 160,000
2016: estimated 510,000
Of the 80,000-100,000 cars being used, 14,000 of them meet current safety standards.
Also, I have heard from several reports that, the North Dakota crude is unusually volatile. Most of that crude is being sent to East Coast refineries via rail car. The rail cars, even if they are in good condition, weren't designed for that extra volitile stuff, so when accidents happen there is a greater risk of fire and explosion.
It's a nasty volatile stuff. Not the base oil itself, the solvent used to thin it so it can be pumped into tankers and through pipelines. Plays rough in the refineries when it gets into them as well.
This stuff is so volatile some people are trying to get it reclassifed as hazardous instead of being covered by the petroleum exclusion.
And that's why I blame our president and the Dem's. They have held up the Keystone Pipeline for years. The safest way to transport liquids is via pipeline. I worked for a major oil company for 24 years so I'm not just blowing smoke.
Can pipelines have issues. Yes and but most times its not crude oil but natural gas that is the product in the line. Think some company digging up a street. You don't see anyone lobbying for the end of all natural gas lines!
The pipeline might be good for safety-per-barrel, but it could create a big disaster wherever it breaks, and it's an economic giveaway to Canada, so it's not all good from the US' perspective. All that ongoing rail business would be traded for some one-time pipeline-building.
And if it actually does make gas any cheaper for the US, that's sticking another needle in the arm rather than trying to break the addiction.
There are already oil piplines going from Canada to the coast, keystone just adds a 2nd, more direct route. I'm for it.
Train derailments are nothing new. When a coal car dumps you just have a mess. When a tanker splodes OMGWTFBBQ newsworthy.
I work with pipelines. In general, both the industry and public are careless.
Both the rail and pipeline industries have always avoided regulation by being in the back of peoples minds. It's easy to forget about the 36" diameter pipeline in backyard until there is a problem, and then everyone wants them gone. Same thing happens with rail. People think a train is cute until their property values plummet and people get killed.
IMO, larger easements, right-of-ways, and buffers would make the methods of transport safer, but also require more investment on behalf of their respective industries, and nobody likes expensive oil.
The Keystone Pipeline would have had no affect on the last fire, so moot point.
What about pipeline leaks and failures? What about eminent domain being used to take private property from US citizens so a foreign nation can make more profit? Is that where the GOP draws the line on rights and liberty, oil profits?
Sorry, not buying it.
You'll need to log in to post.
