Wait for it. You knew this was coming:

[unhappycamper]

http://www.adn.com/2014/01/24/3288818/backers-report-on-rail-risks-boosts.html



The National Transportation Safety Board onThursday Jan. 23, 2014 asked for stricter safety measures for transporting crude oil by rail. One proposal by the NTSB would call for railroads to have careful route plannng for trains with hazardous materials and to avoid populated areas. Above, a line of tanker cars used to carry crude oil in the Mandan railyard on Thursday afternoon.

Backers: Report on rail risks boosts Keystone XL
By MATTHEW DALY
Associated Press
January 24, 2014 Updated 11 minutes ago

WASHINGTON — A government warning about the dangers of increased use of trains to transport crude oil is giving a boost to supporters of the long-delayed Keystone XL pipeline.

U.S. and Canadian accident investigators urged their governments Thursday to impose new safety rules on so-called oil trains, warning that a "major loss of life" could result from an accident involving the increasing use of trains to transport large amounts of crude oil.

Pipeline supporters said the unusual joint warning by the U.S. National Transportation Safety Board and the Transportation Safety Board of Canada highlights the need for Keystone XL, which would carry oil derived from tar sands in western Canada to refineries on the U.S. Gulf Coast. Oil started flowing Wednesday through a southern leg of the pipeline from Oklahoma to the Houston region.

Sen. John Hoeven, R-N.D., said the yearslong review of Keystone has forced oil companies to look for alternatives to transport oil from the booming Bakken region of North Dakota and Montana to refineries in the U.S. and Canada. A planned spur connecting Keystone to the Bakken region would carry as much as 100,000 barrels of oil a day.

[Demeter]

1. why don't they move the damn refineries closer, and transport finished product!

It's a damn sight safer to handle a stable distillate than an unstable and explosive goo.

[progressoid]

2. Cost. 230 Million Dollars.

No new oil refinery has been built in the U.S. in more than 35 years. Now there are two in the works. A 20,000-barrel a day refinery in North Dakota is already under construction and on Monday a second was announced.

Houston-based Rock River Resources says it will build a 10,000-barrel a day refinery and rail terminal in Green River, Utah, at a cost of $230 million. Rock River expects to break ground on the project this year and to be operating the rail terminal by next year. The refinery is expected to be operational by mid-2015 and a wax plant that can process the black waxy crudes of eastern Utah into paraffin and lube oils is scheduled for completion by mid-2016.

http://247wallst.com/commodities-metals/2013/09/25/new-u-s-oil-refinery-proposed/

[Demeter]

3. A Bargain!

Hell, compared to the environmental and property destruction, deaths and maimings, not to mention the bad press and resulting regulatory blowback, it's the most cost-effective solution out there!

Won't even need bribes.

[friendly_iconoclast]

4. No, because lighter distillates (gasoline, diesel fuel) are more volatile

Bakken light crude is similar in volatility to #2 diesel or Jet A, so there would be
no safety advantage

[One_Life_To_Give]

5. Crude Spills is the least of our worries with Trains

Trains are supposedly the safest means of transport. These Crude spills may just be the Canary in the Coal mine. Warning that we are about to have a real bad accident if we don't get things straightened around.

[arachadillo]

6. they could have tried being nice

if the frackers were so concerned about getting their product to market, they could have been nicer to the BC people.

nothing us people can do if the canadians really want to export their tar sands....nothing the canadians can do if the BC people say, we don't want your pipeline....

nothing wrong with us people saying we don't want your pipeline either.