CKA Forums
Login 
canadian forums
bottom
 
 
Canadian Forums

Author Topic Options
Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Vancouver Canucks
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 20878
PostPosted: Wed Sep 11, 2013 8:50 am
 


DrCaleb wrote:
PublicAnimalNo9 wrote:
Zipperfish wrote:
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.


Offline
CKA Super Elite
CKA Super Elite
 Montreal Canadiens


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 7835
PostPosted: Wed Sep 11, 2013 9:38 am
 


Zipperfish wrote:
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.

Image

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)

Image

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.


Offline
CKA Moderator
CKA Moderator
 Vancouver Canucks


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 63861
PostPosted: Wed Sep 11, 2013 9:44 am
 


Zipperfish wrote:
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.


Offline
CKA Moderator
CKA Moderator
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 33868
PostPosted: Wed Sep 11, 2013 9:59 am
 


BartSimpson wrote:
Zipperfish wrote:
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.


Offline
Forum Super Elite
Forum Super Elite
 Edmonton Oilers
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 2566
PostPosted: Wed Sep 11, 2013 10:05 am
 


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...


Offline
CKA Moderator
CKA Moderator
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 33868
PostPosted: Wed Sep 11, 2013 10:12 am
 


peck420 wrote:
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 wrote:
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.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Toronto Maple Leafs
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 13958
PostPosted: Wed Sep 11, 2013 10:27 am
 


Zipperfish wrote:
PublicAnimalNo9 wrote:
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 wrote:
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.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Vancouver Canucks
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 20878
PostPosted: Wed Sep 11, 2013 10:31 am
 


[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:

Quote:
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.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Toronto Maple Leafs
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 13958
PostPosted: Wed Sep 11, 2013 10:31 am
 


PublicAnimalNo9 wrote:
Zipperfish wrote:
PublicAnimalNo9 wrote:
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 wrote:
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.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Vancouver Canucks
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 20878
PostPosted: Wed Sep 11, 2013 10:39 am
 


PublicAnimalNo9 wrote:
.
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 wrote:
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.

Quote:
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.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Toronto Maple Leafs
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 13958
PostPosted: Wed Sep 11, 2013 10:41 am
 


Zipperfish wrote:
DrCaleb wrote:
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.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Vancouver Canucks
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 20878
PostPosted: Wed Sep 11, 2013 10:43 am
 


PublicAnimalNo9 wrote:
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.


Offline
Forum Super Elite
Forum Super Elite
 Edmonton Oilers
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 2566
PostPosted: Wed Sep 11, 2013 10:59 am
 


Zipperfish wrote:
PublicAnimalNo9 wrote:
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 wrote:
I would postulate that oil transport by rail carries a greater threat of environmental damage than a pipeline.


Offline
CKA Moderator
CKA Moderator
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 33868
PostPosted: Wed Sep 11, 2013 11:06 am
 


Zipperfish wrote:
PublicAnimalNo9 wrote:
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.


Image


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Toronto Maple Leafs
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 13958
PostPosted: Wed Sep 11, 2013 11:33 am
 


Zipperfish wrote:
PublicAnimalNo9 wrote:
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 wrote:
Another bullshit strawman. I have never denied global warming(or cooling) I merely questioned the extent to which humans are responsible for it.


Zipperfish wrote:
My bad--that was Pluggy.
Fair enough. My apologies for the terse response.

Quote:
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 wrote:
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?


Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 52 posts ]  Previous  1  2  3  4  Next



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest




 
     
All logos and trademarks in this site are property of their respective owner.
The comments are property of their posters, all the rest © Canadaka.net. Powered by © phpBB.