From: nilknocgeo@earthlink.net   
      
   "Glen Labah"  wrote in message   
   news:gl4317-650681.21534211052014@mx05.eternal-september.org...   
   > In article ,   
   > Sancho Panza  wrote:   
   >   
   >> Better than either of those would be a modern well-equipped pipeline.   
   >   
   >   
   > Except that:   
   >   
   > 1. Mixtures of these volatile chemicals are not allowed in pipelines.   
   > They have to be separated out.  Some can be in their own pipeline, but   
   > butane, propane, etc. are always handled in tanks or bottles.   
   >   
   > 2. The Keystone XL pipeline that is the only controversial one that I   
   > know of right now would primarily be for Alberta tar sands oil, not the   
   > North Dakota Bakken formation stuff that seems to be prone to blowing up.   
   >   
   > 3. None of the trains that have blown up so far have been on routes that   
   > are anywhere near the routes where the Keystone XL pipeline would go.   
   > So, all of that material would have been on a train anyway, no matter   
   > what happens with Keystone XL.  Casselton, ND?  That train was headed   
   > for the west coast as best as I can tell.  The Virginia train was   
   > nowhere near the route of the Keystone XL pipeline.  Aliceville,   
   > Alabama?  Two states away from Keystone XL at the closest point.  None   
   > of the others are even close.   
   >   
   > --   
   > Please note this e-mail address is a pit of spam due to e-mail address   
   > harvesters on Usenet. Response time to e-mail sent here is slow.   
      
   The key issue here is where the existing refineries got their crude before   
   Bakken.  I believe it was by ship.  Even now the Port of Albany, NY, is   
   where the trains offload their oil into ships.   
      
   --- SoupGate/W32 v1.03   
    * Origin: LiveWire BBS -=*=- UseNet FTN Gateway (1:2320/1)