About pipelines vs. trains

[question everything]

Last week the Strib had an editorial lamenting the decision, by the Canadian company, to suspend the Keystone project. This was before Obama's decision.

http://www.startribune.com/keystone-xl-delay-is-a-setback-for-public-safety-in-minnesota/340008051/

I admit, I have not followed this, though I would think, intuitively, that pipes would be safer than rail. We've heard talks about oil pipes rupturing. How often has this happened? Within the past 30 years, or so? Yes, I've heard of corroding fuel pipes in old marine bases but I would think that today we have a better technology and better detection and alert systems.

But there was a good letter the other day pointing that the oil is not for us. It is for Canada to reach the Gulf and to ship to China. That "It would have made more sense for the pipeline to run across Alberta and British Columbia to their West Coast. Canada has contracted to send its sludge to China, and the ports in British Columbia are much closer for that purpose than is our Gulf Coast."

Got it. But the editorial also talked about pipes in Minnesota and here I have to agree.

When we purchased our home in the suburb, more than 10 years ago, we knew that there was a train half a mile from us. All we had to consider was the whistle on occasions.

But some years ago we started to expand our walks and we realized that there are homes right below the rail. And if there is an explosion or derailment, the two intersecting streets are a mile apart. On the other side of the streets are lake front (Bass Lake) properties, with, no doubt, a high value.

I am sure that the rail was there before the houses, most of them I think are older than 30 years. But why would the city or the county issue permits to build these houses?

I would not ask these questions in public - I don't want to be blamed for the values of these houses dropping. But quietly I once asked a member of the council. A Republican, of course, first shrugged and said "buyers beware." Than added something about Congress has to vote on a pipeline. Another member, on a different occasions, said that when the houses were built they were probably told that the train passed only twice a day. This, of course, was before fracking and the North Dakota boom.

If there is an explosion, we, too would have to leave, but we have plenty of streets to choose from. There, they may or may not be able to reach the near intersection, or just jump into boats, or a park some distance away.

I think that at least at this area, the oil trains should be replaced by pipelines. Or, let the oil company purchase the homes. If the residents are interested, that is.

I kinda remember a debate in Nolan's district about pipeline. I think that if nothing has been built, they should go for a pipeline.

And only yesterday, a train derailed in Wisconsin, spilling ethanol into the Mississippi..

http://www.startribune.com/train-carrying-ethanol-derails-in-western-wisconsin-no-injuries-reported/342610132/

OK, start shooting..

[HassleCat]

1. Either one can be safe

Pipelines can be built and operated to minimize leaks. Trains can be operated so they don't derail. All it requires is spending more money, conscientious government oversight, etc. So, yeah, I'm saying it's impossible in this country.

[Mnpaul]

8. The trains wouldn't be a problem

if they removed the propane from the crude like they are supposed to do.

[Thor_MN]

9. So an oil spill if the propane is removed is fine?

[Mnpaul]

10. No but it is far less dangerous

crude would not be as flammable/explosive as the mix.

[Thor_MN]

11. Derailments are derailments. They happen. Too frequently.

[99th_Monkey]

2. One of the reasons Bernie's calling for rebuilding our crumbling infrastructure

rails could be safe, like they are in nations that have the good sense to invest
in a sound infrastructure.

Rachael has done some excellent segments on RR lines, carrying flammables and toxins
derailing near populated areas. It's not rocket science.

[Brickbat]

3. Bernie's talking about nationalizing railroads?

[99th_Monkey]

4. I haven't heard that

probably not a bad idea though.

We do have a thing called safety standards, inspectors, and such too; short of
nationlization; we could step-up our oversight and enforcement of RR's lack of
tending to their own needs for repair and upkeep of their lines.

[Brickbat]

5. I'm sure he hasn't.

I was being a dick about your "infrastructure" comment. Many of the tracks oil trains run on aren't considered "infrastructure" because they're privately owned. Your point stands, however. Enforcement is sorely lacking as far as maintenance is concerned; in many cases, it's simply cheaper to pay the fine and kick it down the road.

[Fred Sanders]

6. Maybe a re-routing of the rail line and a protected zone around the right of way?

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

7. Both are potentially dangerous, and that's where the wicket gets sticky.

A pipeline leak has the potential for really serious environmental damage over a wide area. One concern about the Keystone pipeline is what might happen if there's a major leak into the Oglala aquifer. On the other hand, an oil train derailment could cause more localized but nevertheless catastrophic damage, as in the Lac-Megantic disaster in Canada. The recent derailment of cars carrying denatured alcohol was not as bad because only a few cars spilled into the river, and at least along that line that's what's more likely to happen with oil cars as well. But still, the possibility is worrisome. No system can be made perfectly safe, so you have to do a really thorough risk analysis. IMHO it would be better not to transport the damn stuff at all, but for now that doesn't seem to be an option.

[glinda]

13. WI had two derailments. Another one happened right after that. Nope. No oil I say.

We are burning up and it is time to stop the madness.

[fpublic]

12. Here's a safety issue that trumps pipelines and trains

Forget about how to safely transport the oil; it is not safe to burn it. We know the planet is warming from burning fossil fuels. Are we just creating centuries of environmental and political disaster, for which the cost of mediation is multiples of the economic gain from the tar sands, or are we teeing up a planet that can not support human life?

I see this OP is from the Minnesota Group so I understand why your focus is local but check out a wider focus:

http://guymcpherson.com/2014/01/climate-change-summary-and-update/

Scroll the linked article (if you care to "question everything&quot , to the section on Extinction Overview: "... here’s the bottom line: On a planet 4 C hotter than baseline, all we can prepare for is human extinction..." This frightening analysis makes the distinction between ruptured pipelines and derailed tanker cars moot.