Glen Labah  wrote:   
   > 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.   
      
   The Enbridge "Sandpiper" pipeline, scheduled for 2016 completion, would   
   bring Bakken crude east to existing pipelines in Minnesota and Wisconsin.   
   Its fact sheet mentions "new storage tanks, pumping units, and metering   
   facilities" but nothing about head-end refineries. Given that the people   
   opposed to this pipeline are constantly referring to the product's   
   explosiveness, the fact that Enbridge says nothing about reducing   
   volatility of the product in any of its public info makes me believe they   
   will be transporting exactly the same stuff that currently travels by rail.   
      
   http://www.enbridge.com/~/media/www/Site%20Documents/Delivering%   
   0Energy/Projects/Sandpiper/ENB2013-Sandpiper-L19.pdf   
      
   >   
   > 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.   
      
   Well, the Sandpiper is encountering opposition too, particularly from   
   Indian tribes in northern Minnesota. The reason the Keystone XL is getting   
   all the attention is because it's permitted by the federal government   
   rather than the various state governments, and therefore serves as a great   
   football for the national political game. Plus, of course, it is many times   
   longer, involves the dirtiest kind of petroleum known to man, etc.   
      
   But even if you leave out the permitting issues, Sandpiper will take   
   several years to construct.   
      
   >   
   > 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.   
      
   The oil in the Casselton train could have been destined for either the east   
   coast or the Texas / Oklahoma / Gulf markets, so there's a small chance it   
   could have been carried by a hypothetical Keystone XL. Otherwise, I agree.   
      
   Disclaimer: I work for a Class 1 railroad that is active in the   
   crude-by-rail market. The opinions expressed above are my own personal   
   opinions, not my company's, and are based entirely on publicly available   
   information.   
      
   Dan   
      
   --- SoupGate/W32 v1.03   
    * Origin: LiveWire BBS -=*=- UseNet FTN Gateway (1:2320/1)