[bootlegga]

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 think the most important word in that paragraph is currently.

With the massive growth in the past couple years in rail transport of oil, it may be the other way around fairly soon.

[Zipperfish]

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.

Well, I'm sure a pigheaded determination to compoetely ignore facts will see you through, Bart.

[Zipperfish]

peck420 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.

This:

$1:

...a pipeline is safer for the environment than current transportation methods of oil from the Prairies to the southern US?

[Zipperfish]

PublicAnimalNo PublicAnimalNo:

9OK, 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.

Yes, I was responding to Peck's asertion that pipeline transportation was safer for teh environment. Period. Full stop. The global warming argument is more difficult.

$1:

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.

Yes, I'm not sure his concerns bear out based on some of the calcs I've seen. That said, I think people are concerned about more oil generally and the oil -based economy and global warming. Even those not denying global warming aren't doing anything about it, and the train keeps-a-rollin'. Not that elected oficals can do anyting about it. The global economy is way beyond their control. but this general feeling of unease that we're the proverbial frog in the pot is disconcerting to many. there's not a whole of actual reason being brogyht to bear by either side. Probably because manipulating peoples' emotions is much easier, cheaper and more effective than puttig together a reasonable argument.

$1:

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?

Oil spills have a negligible impact on global warming. And even if pipeline spills don't generally catch fire, responders still often have the option of doing so. It's been done before.

As for the tendency to catch fire--it depends a lot on the product. If it's a gasoline spill or a natural gas release, fires and explosions are common. Diesel, not so much. Crude--depends on the type of crude, but generally no.

[peck420]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

This:

$1:

...a pipeline is safer for the environment than current transportation methods of oil from the Prairies to the southern US?

Came from this:

commanderkai commanderkai:

Who do you think is spearheading the anti-Keystone Pipeline campaign? 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?

Page 2, 6th post.

[BartSimpson]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

It's all these darn "P" names.

Don't feel too bad. I used to confuse Brenda with Lily all the time.

[commanderkai]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

commanderkai commanderkai:

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.

Certainly, at the time. However, the year of the statistics you originally presented, very little crude oil was shipped by rail compared to pipelines. Your chart has statistical information from 1980-2003. However, the development of the Albertan oil sands, along with the lack of a pipeline between the oil sands, and to the massive refineries in the southern US occurred much more recently.

To quote the Association of American Railroads through the Wall Street Journal:

$1:

As oil production surges in the U.S., rail companies have stepped in where pipelines don’t currently exist. U.S. shipments of oil by rail have gone from 9,500 carloads in 2008 to 233,811 carloads in 2012, according to the Association of American Railroads.

Using quick google searches, the larger rail tankers carrying oil can fit 600 barrels, so in 2008, 5.7 million barrels of oil were shipped, or 239 million gallons of oil. In 2012, we now have 5.9 billion gallons of oil shipped, no doubt an overwhelming majority coming from Albertan oil sands.

By your statistics, admittedly somewhat dated, crude oil shipments by rail spill twice the amount of oil per 1 billion gallons shipped compared to pipelines. The amount of crude oil shipped by rail has doubled between 2003 and 2009, and certainly have even increased even more between 2009 and now.

$1:

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).

Of course I am discussing what might happen of a pipeline is not built, due to the current trends of where the oil is going currently (the US)and how it's being shipped there (rail), and the fact it's a discussion about the Keystone Pipeline.

The other pipelines you mentioned, like the Gateway proposal that has even worse PR, and the EnergyEast pipeline, which has a limit of 1.1 million barrels shipped per day compared to the 1.75 million barrels produced daily in 2011 (and I assume it's higher now) and no doubt will be increasing in the future.

I find it highly likely that oil from Alberta will continue to be shipped to the United States. Currently, 1.3 million barrels are shipped to the US daily. The oil will go to the United States somehow. If not Keystone, it'll be shipped by rail, unless some other, alternative route is built.

$1:

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.

Pipelines are rarer, but larger, and result in much less loss of human life. I agree, and it's hard not to argue that. Obviously the sheer volume of oil carried by pipelines can lead to much more oil spilled, and no doubt the conditions of the terrain and the remoteness of the location will certainly impact any response and recovery of any oil. I don't think it's all that speculative to argue that oil recovery and environment reclamation with pipelines in the continental US might be easier compared to how oil spilled from rail based infrastructure might occur, considering that has a tendency to explode and/or burn.

$1:

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.

Uh, 82% of Americans, according to a Harris poll, view the Keystone XL as an important national interest in June. Sadly June is the most recent poll I can find.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/brighammcco ... -new-high/

The American House of Representatives and their Senate approved the Keystone's construction.

I find it rather interesting that you think Americans in general are demanding anything but the Keystone XL's construction. There is an individual who is against Keystone, but I don't really think environmental concerns by Americans are the reason why the Keystone pipeline is stalled in the United States. I find it more interesting, and a huge stretch of the imagination that you think those same Americans who overwhelmingly support Keystone in polls and through the successful votes by both the US House and Senate are somehow demanding Canada should have more environmental commitment. Speculating here, Zip?