From: ahk@chinet.com   
      
   Sancho Panza   wrote:   
   >On 5/11/2014 8:43 PM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:   
   >> Sancho Panza   wrote:   
   >>> On 5/11/2014 6:53 PM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:   
   >>>> Sancho Panza   wrote:   
   >>>>> On 5/9/2014 9:17 AM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:   
   >>>>>> conklin  wrote:   
   >>>>>>> "Adam H. Kerman"  wrote:   
   >>>>>>>> conklin  wrote:   
   >>>>>>>>> "Wayne Hines"  wrote:   
   >>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 08 May 2014 08:44:50 -0400, conklin wrote:   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>> The press is reporting today that the Feds are in fact going to   
   give   
   >>>>>>>>>>> those living on the routes of trains hauling crude oil some   
   >warning of   
   >>>>>>>>>>> the dangers they might face.  Or at least that seems the   
   >intent.  Given   
   >>>>>>>>>>> the profit involved to the carriers, I am wondering why the   
   >Feds don't   
   >>>>>>>>>>> also insist on track upgrdes on those routes.   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>> Perhaps there is no need for track upgrades on those routes.   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>> Well, tell that to Lynchburg, VA....the track was fine.  There was no   
   >>>>>>>>> accident.  It was all imagination.   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>> I must have missed the imaginary news story. Could we wait till   
   there's   
   >>>>>>>> an authoritative report backing up your allegations?   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>>> You mean give warning to local authorities?  You must not read very   
   much.   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> No, I mean I'd like to wait until there is a report of track   
   >failure before   
   >>>>>> I post on Usenet that it's track failure, you know, just what I wrote.   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>>> Today the NY Times points out that 10 of the 13 cars that derailed  and   
   >>>>>>> burned in Lynchburg, VA, were CPC-1232s, or the newer cars.  And that   
   >>>>>>> includes the car which dumped 30,000 gallons of crude oil into the   
   James   
   >>>>>>> river.  There was also an earlier accident in which the "new"   
   >standard cars   
   >>>>>>> also failed.  So it looks like even cars built under the improved   
   >standards   
   >>>>>>> are ineffective in preventing spills and fires.  I doubt the train was   
   >>>>>>> traveling very fast in downtown Lynchburg either.   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> Tankers aren't puncture-proof. So, you want all this oil moved by truck,   
   >>>>>> which has a far worse safety record?   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>> Better than either of those would be a modern well-equipped pipeline.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> Good thing rights of way for pipelines can be assembled overnight!   
   >>>>   
   >>> Rights of way do not appear to be anywhere near the stumbling block that   
   >>> government approvals are.   
   >>   
   >> You can't just open pipelines, and as we've been discussing on Usenet,   
   >> there's no perfect safety with pipelines either. They lack protection   
   >> from backhoes. So you're deluding yourself.   
   >>   
   >Comparative studies are available from many agencies, including the U.S.   
   >State Department.   
      
   Do we ship crude with high levels of volatile chemicals through pipelines?   
   I assume not, and some pre-refining is required, which means the same   
   investment that they don't want to make. By the time they make the decision,   
   it's possible the North Dakota oil will be depleted.   
      
   "Just build a pipeline" is a ridiculous position. Even if it would be   
   ready quickly, we're talking about many years' lead time and continuing   
   shipment of oil by train. You're suggestion that it's an immediately   
   available alternative is ridiculous.   
      
   --- SoupGate/W32 v1.03   
    * Origin: LiveWire BBS -=*=- UseNet FTN Gateway (1:2320/1)