[Zipperfish]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

PublicAnimalNo9 PublicAnimalNo9:

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

Rail has more accidents, but pipeline spills are typically much more severe.

True, but pipeline spills tend not to go BOOM, causing death and destruction.
Plus you have the added emissions from diesel exhaust.

From a purely global warming perspective, rail can't compete with pipelines.
Oil spill from pipeline: damage to the environment.
Oil spill from a rail accident: high potential for burning fossil fuels, damage to the environment plus the emissions from the train before any accident that might occur.

What he said. ^^

Cities and towns were built along rail lines as the lines headed West and North. So transporting oil by rail means it will inevitably intersect population centers. Pipelines are built away from populations, but on the shortest path that is cost efficient. If the pipelines are properly monitored, environmental damage can be limited.

Ah, nice bait and switch. But what PAN said was that rail transportation were more threat to the environment. I would agree with the proposition that rail presents more human health and safety concerns, but pipelines clearly present a greater threat to the environment.

[commanderkai]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

OK, your original point about rails spilling more than pipelines is conclusively wrong. Absolutely. Maybe you should stop a second and internalize that before just continuing on as if your whole argument wasn't just blown out of the water.

Does rail ship anywhere near the amount of oil that pipelines do? Not even close, and the sheer amount of crude oil that will be exported to the US from Alberta will most certainly increase the likelihood of more accidents and spills.



More importantly, the chart you provided shows that the amount of crude oil spilled by trains per billion gallons shipped is double compared to pipelines. 80 gallons spilled per billion shipped by trains compared to 38 gallons spilled per billion shipped by pipelines.

On top of this, the oil spilled by pipelines can be more easily recovered compared to any spillage by rail or road (generally because it usually burns up)



And, obviously, the human cost of any pipeline spills is extremely low compared to any other shipping method.

Admittedly, I'm not an expert on oil spill cleanup, but if large amounts of spilled oil can be recovered and still be used, doesn't that mean cleanup operations can be more effectively handled?

Basically, rail has more incidents, with more fatalities, but due to the nature of rail, only a limited amount of oil is spilled compared to pipelines, with fewer incidents and very little death, but those few incidents can spill a lot of oil.

[BartSimpson]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

Ah, nice bait and switch. But what PAN said was that rail transportation were more threat to the environment. I would agree with the proposition that rail presents more human health and safety concerns, but pipelines clearly present a greater threat to the environment.

That's nonsense. Rail transportation of oil is the more hazardous threat to the environment given the legions of opportunities for human error (like in Quebec, non?) that simply don't exist with pipelines.

[DrCaleb]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

Ah, nice bait and switch. But what PAN said was that rail transportation were more threat to the environment. I would agree with the proposition that rail presents more human health and safety concerns, but pipelines clearly present a greater threat to the environment.

That's nonsense. Rail transportation of oil is the more hazardous threat to the environment given the legions of opportunities for human error (like in Quebec, non?) that simply don't exist with pipelines.

Those were my thoughts too. Rails were run ...wherever they could expropriate right of way. Pipelines had to choose the routes so as to be the least disruptive and friendliest to the environment in case of accident.

Rail therefore would pose a greater environmental risk because environment was not a consideration when building railways, and is amplified because populated areas now encroach the railways.

[peck420]

Hmmm...antiquated rail system vs antiquated pipeline system?

Is it too much to ask for a dedicated, monitored, and tailored to our needs system?

I see the term 'convert', 'modify', or 'repurose' in one more proposal, I'm going to puke.

Who wants to put money down, that if Trans East gets built, it's first spill occurs on the modified NG line...

[DrCaleb]

peck420 peck420:

Hmmm...antiquated rail system vs antiquated pipeline system?

Is it too much to ask for a dedicated, monitored, and tailored to our needs system?

Anything built in the last couple decades is dedicated, monitored and tailored. It's the mooks monitoring the warning lights that don't shut down the pumps that are the problem.

peck420 peck420:

Who wants to put money down, that if Trans East gets built, it's first spill occurs on the modified NG line...

Sucker bet. Unless they plastic coat that 30 year old iron, the caustic bitch that is diluted Bitumen will chew it up in a few years. They should only ship synthetic crude through it.

[PublicAnimalNo9]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

PublicAnimalNo9 PublicAnimalNo9:

True, but pipeline spills tend not to go BOOM, causing death and destruction.
Plus you have the added emissions from diesel exhaust.

From a purely global warming perspective, rail can't compete with pipelines.
Oil spill from pipeline: damage to the environment.
Oil spill from a rail accident: high potential for burning fossil fuels, damage to the environment plus the emissions from the train before any accident that might occur.
And Obummer stated quite clearly that his decision on XL was based on the potential effects on global warming. I think it's a no-brainer.

OK, your original point about rails spilling more than pipelines is conclusively wrong. Absolutely. Maybe you should stop a second and internalize that before just continuing on as if your whole argument wasn't just blown out of the water.

Wow Zip, you're really hauling out the strawmen at this point aren't you. First off I never said rails spill more than pipelines, I echoed what the Railroad Association stated about transporting oil by rail, that it is riskier than pipelines.

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

Emissions from diesel exhaust? So, you think that diluted bitument just moves through a pipeline magically then? That's right up there with your claim that glbal warming is p[ile of crap because the laws of thermodynamics are all wrong.

Another bullshit strawman. I have never denied global warming(or cooling) I merely questioned the extent to which humans are responsible for it.
Secondly, I wonder how many emissions are generated to run oil through pipelines as opposed to having diesel locomotives hauling long lines of 286,000 pound loaded tanker cars across the continent.

[Zipperfish]

[quote="commanderkai]Does rail ship anywhere near the amount of oil that pipelines do? Not even close, and the sheer amount of crude oil that will be exported to the US from Alberta will most certainly increase the likelihood of more accidents and spills. [/quote]

great point. But not what we're talking about.
Here's the point I responded to:

$1:

Shouldn't more rational environmentalists, knowing that the United States will still need oil for the immediate future, realize a pipeline is safer for the environment than current transportation methods of oil from the Prairies to the southern US?

At this point, I provided evidence that pipelines currently spill 50 times as much oil as rails, which would have a bigger impact on the environemnt.

You are presetning speculative agruments about what will happen if the pipeline doesn't get built. You've assumed that all the oil that would be moved by the Keystone pipeline will instead be moved by rail. That isn't necessarily true. There are other pipelines in the works (Gateway, the one to New Brunswick). There are economic arguments (the expense of shipment by rail may ultimately be the limiting factor).

Oil spilled by pipelines is no easier to recover than oil spilled from rails. That's just another sheerly speculative argument. The difficulty of the response is usally related to to the mobility of the oil. The mobility of the oil is realted to what media it is in/on (land, air, water two-phase, water dissolved, water entrained, groundwater, etc etc).

Pipeline spills are rarer and bigger.

I'm not against Keystone myself. On the other hand, I don't think it's a bad thing that Americans are demanding high environmental safeguards and more environmental commitment from Canada and from their own government.

[PublicAnimalNo9]

PublicAnimalNo9 PublicAnimalNo9:

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

PublicAnimalNo9 PublicAnimalNo9:

True, but pipeline spills tend not to go BOOM, causing death and destruction.
Plus you have the added emissions from diesel exhaust.

From a purely global warming perspective, rail can't compete with pipelines.
Oil spill from pipeline: damage to the environment.
Oil spill from a rail accident: high potential for burning fossil fuels, damage to the environment plus the emissions from the train before any accident that might occur.
And Obummer stated quite clearly that his decision on XL was based on the potential effects on global warming. I think it's a no-brainer.

OK, your original point about rails spilling more than pipelines is conclusively wrong. Absolutely. Maybe you should stop a second and internalize that before just continuing on as if your whole argument wasn't just blown out of the water.

Wow Zip, you're really hauling out the strawmen at this point aren't you. First off I never said rails spill more than pipelines, I echoed what the Railroad Association stated about transporting oil by rail, that it is riskier than pipelines. Feel free to argue with them but I don't think you'll convince the professionals in the industry.

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

Emissions from diesel exhaust? So, you think that diluted bitument just moves through a pipeline magically then? That's right up there with your claim that glbal warming is p[ile of crap because the laws of thermodynamics are all wrong.

Another bullshit strawman. I have never denied global warming(or cooling) I merely questioned the extent to which humans are responsible for it.
Secondly, I wonder how many emissions are generated to run oil through pipelines as opposed to having diesel locomotives hauling long lines of 286,000 pound loaded tanker cars across the continent.

[Zipperfish]

PublicAnimalNo9 PublicAnimalNo9:

.

Wow Zip, you're really hauling out the strawmen at this point aren't you. First off I never said rails spill more than pipelines, I echoed what the Railroad Association stated about transporting oil by rail, that it is riskier than pipelines.[/quote]

So you admit that spills from pipelines have a larger impact on the environment oil spills from rail cars? If that's the case, one wonders why you bothered with your original post.

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

Another bullshit strawman. I have never denied global warming(or cooling) I merely questioned the extent to which humans are responsible for it.

My bad--that was Pluggy.

$1:

Secondly, I wonder how many emissions are generated to run oil through pipelines as opposed to having diesel locomotives hauling long lines of 286,000 pound loaded tanker cars across the continent.

I don't know. I'm not for rail, or against pipelines. I just wanted to point out the false statement by PEck that the environmental risk from shipping oil by rail is currently worse than pipelines.

[PublicAnimalNo9]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

Cities and towns were built along rail lines as the lines headed West and North. So transporting oil by rail means it will inevitably intersect population centers. Pipelines are built away from populations, but on the shortest path that is cost efficient. If the pipelines are properly monitored, environmental damage can be limited.

Ah, nice bait and switch. But what PAN said was that rail transportation were more threat to the environment. I would agree with the proposition that rail presents more human health and safety concerns, but pipelines clearly present a greater threat to the environment.

I never said any such thing. I said it's a greater risk to global warming, as per Obummer's concern about XL.

[Zipperfish]

PublicAnimalNo9 PublicAnimalNo9:

I never said any such thing. I said it's a greater risk to global warming, as per Obummer's concern about XL.

Yes, what Peck said. It's all these darn "P" names.

[peck420]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

PublicAnimalNo9 PublicAnimalNo9:

I never said any such thing. I said it's a greater risk to global warming, as per Obummer's concern about XL.

Yes, what Peck said. It's all these darn "P" names.

Umm...what?

Want to quote me on that...I can't seem to find it on these 3 pages?

Are you referring to this post by PluggyRug?

PluggyRug PluggyRug:

I would postulate that oil transport by rail carries a greater threat of environmental damage than a pipeline.

[DrCaleb]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

PublicAnimalNo9 PublicAnimalNo9:

I never said any such thing. I said it's a greater risk to global warming, as per Obummer's concern about XL.

Yes, what Peck said. It's all these darn "P" names.

[PublicAnimalNo9]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

PublicAnimalNo9 PublicAnimalNo9:

Wow Zip, you're really hauling out the strawmen at this point aren't you. First off I never said rails spill more than pipelines, I echoed what the Railroad Association stated about transporting oil by rail, that it is riskier than pipelines.

So you admit that spills from pipelines have a larger impact on the environment oil spills from rail cars? If that's the case, one wonders why you bothered with your original post.

OK, I guess I haven't made myself clear enough despite my mentioning the subject more than once. YOU, are talking about immediate local environmental damage. I am talking about the potential contribution to global warming.

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

Another bullshit strawman. I have never denied global warming(or cooling) I merely questioned the extent to which humans are responsible for it.

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

My bad--that was Pluggy.

Fair enough. My apologies for the terse response.

$1:

Secondly, I wonder how many emissions are generated to run oil through pipelines as opposed to having diesel locomotives hauling long lines of 286,000 pound loaded tanker cars across the continent.

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

I don't know. I'm not for rail, or against pipelines. I just wanted to point out the false statement by PEck that the environmental risk from shipping oil by rail is currently worse than pipelines.

I fully appreciate the fact that an oil spill from a pipeline will have more of an immediate environmental impact on the local area.
But as I said previously, Obummer's main objection to XL seems to involve concerns over global warming more than potential, localized environmental damage from a spill.

Pipeline spills rarely result in fire, thus there's generally no burning of the spilled fossil fuel. Train crashes involving petroleum products have a tendency to brew up, although that's not always the case.
I guess the question I need to ask is, what is the GHG emissions rate of a pool of spilled oil of a given size, if any?