Transporting Oil: Pipeline or Railway?
We are stuck at this point in time so far with having to use energy from the ground. We all are in agreement to begin using energy sources from the sun, wind and water. But until then, how it's to be transported is a huge controversy, dividing many on both sides.
Both are terrible disasters waiting to happen with dire consequences for all who will be involved.
What would you decide was best?
Here are some facts for each side.
http://www.treehugger.com/energy-disasters/train-derails-spilling-30000-gallons-canadian-oil.html
"TransCanada — Keystone XL Pipeline — Pipeline Safety — Shutoff Valves from TransCanada on Vimeo.
As the nice TransCanada video explains, they are using some fancy shutoff valves, so nothing could go seriously wrong, as long as no sensors ever fail or there are no problems with the satellite communication, which never happens as anyone with a cell phone or satellite TV can attest!
Here are a few examples to help illustrate how these spills can go in the real world:
In July of 2010, when the Enbridge pipeline ruptured in Michigan, some 800,000 gallons were spilled.
In May 2011, when TransCanada's Keystone 1 pipeline spilled 21,000 gallons in North Dakota, it was their twelfth spill in the first year of operating the pipeline. They ended up allowing thirty three spills that first year, alone!
When the ExxonMobil Silvertip pipeline ruptured in Montana and spilled 42,000 gallons into the Yellowstone River, oil was spread for 240 miles downriver and operators took 56 minutes to seal the leak. Had this been the Keystone XL pipeline, which has a much higher carrying capacity, the spill would have released 1,000,000 gallons of oil."
http://business.time.com/2012/01/24/railroads-the-unlikely-green-alternative-to-the-keystone-pipeline/
"Whichever side is right in this argument, one beneficiary is clear: Railroads. Quite simply, some of the oil that would have been moved through the pipeline will now have to go by tanker car. If oil is more expensive or less available in some places, that will encourage the use of low-sulfur coal. Either way, it means more hauling business for the Big Rails, especially Burlington Northern, now owned by Warren Buffett’s company Berkshire Hathaway. (Conspiracy theorists were quick to point out that Buffett is an informal advisor to President Obama. Liberal billionaire George Soros is supposedly involved, too, somehow.)
But railroads offer more than just an alternative to a pipeline unpopular with environmentalists. They are in fact one of Americas most energy-efficient modes of transport – and as such a legitimate “green” industry, whether environmentalists acknowledge that fact or not. Here are two key reasons for the rails’ green appeal:
Productivity is high and rising. The industry was largely deregulated in 1980 and had an incentive to reinvest, especially in technology. As railroads merged and rail networks grew more complex, it became increasingly important to route the trains – and even individual cars – in the most efficient ways. Sophisticated software now calculates the best way to put different cars together into trains. And onboard electronics assess topography, track curvature, train length and weight to calculate the optimum speed for conserving fuel.
Read more: The Unlikely Green Alternative to the Keystone Pipeline? Railroads | TIME.com http://business.time.com/2012/01/24/railroads-the-unlikely-green-alternative-to-the-keystone-pipeline/#ixzz2sg2DdahL
"
http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2013/07/05/everything-you-need-to-know-about-keystone-xl-why.aspx
"Before railroads even consider the fate of Keystone XL, they all have their own kinds of problems they have to deal with if they want to move oil via rail to the Gulf Coast. The average cost to move a barrel of oil from Alberta to the Gulf coast via pipeline ranges from $7 to $11; that price jumps to $30 if it decides to go via rail. The only way for rail to be a competitive force in moving oil from Alberta to the Gulf coast is if the current price differential between Canadian heavy oil, and other heavy sources, were to stay above that $30 mark.
For railroads, though, there are three distinct advantages that could play into their hands. Railroads can provide more delivery options for crude oil. So, if the opportunity was there, railroads could transport heavy crude to refineries on the East and West Coast. This has been a common trend that has proven lucrative for producers in the Bakken region. Both Valero and Phillips 66 have signed rail contracts to ship crude from the Bakken to their coastal refineries. As long as the costs for rail shipments to these other markets can stay under foreign crude prices, then rail has a much better shot at delivering to these refiners.
Second, pipelines can only carry so much oil, and that excess produced in Canada needs to be delivered somewhere. Provided that every proposed oil pipeline were to come online in the U.S., the combination of oil sands and Bakken production is expected to outpace pipeline capacity by 2022. If producers are desperate to keep the oil moving, they might need to rely on rail, even if it means taking a price cut to move it to market.
Finally, oil sands bitumen doesn't need to be blended for shipment. In order for oil sands to flow freely in a pipe, it needs to be diluted with light compounds such as condensate. If the price for these light products becomes prohibitively expensive, then rail has a shot at competing against pipelines. At the same time, it would still need to be able to deliver to the Gulf Coast at a price less than what we can import for."
Other facts and view points:
http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/subjects/k/keystone_pipeline/index.html
http://www.npr.org/2013/01/24/170184509/will-obama-administration-clear-keystone-xl-pipeline
http://news.nationalpost.com/2013/01/02/pipeline-politics-forcing-producers-to-rely-on-rail-to-transport-crude/
= new reply since forum marked as read
Cost of doing business.
But will a spill from a train derailment still be Obama's fault?
(I am being facetious.... 
)
Let them figure out a way to handle their tar sands. Or maybe Canada needs to bring the rail infrastructure up to par, at their expense to use it. One way is just as dangerous to us as the other IMO.
Oh girl, I know you would not be endorsing Keystone. 
I probably know more about the industry than anyone in this thread.
The existing pipeline infrastructure is pretty miserable and the sins of contractors and folks in charge of maintenance are buried, literally.
Also, any new pipeline infrastructure is permanent, and will NOT be undone, so it condones increased production and transport.
So, if you're in favor of scaling back production and distribution, not increasing it, go with rail because it's easily inspected and easily ended.
So, rail is safer on two levels, ease of inspection and the fact that it's an impermanent method of moving product.
How's that?
highways, railroads, and two coasts. So why is it a given that their oil must come through our country?
