On Monday, May 12, 2014 12:53:42 AM UTC-4, Glen Labah wrote:   
      
      
   > 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.   
      
   The issues with the oil are complex.  However, I understand that the Bakken   
   oil is potentially more explosive due its nature.   
      
   As a reminder, there was a recent excellent Trains Magazine article on the   
   current issues of transporting oil.  It explains the higher violatility of the   
   Bakken stuff and the problems involved.  I would strongly recommend this   
   article as it will answer    
   many of the questions posed in this thread.   
      
   I believe a pipeline, once built, is significantly more economical than trains   
   for transporting oil.  Indeed, many years ago they used to just burn off gas   
   from western oil wells rather than ship it.  It was actually cheaper for   
   notheastern cities to    
   manufacture their own gas rather than ship it in.  The construction of   
   pipelines in the 1950s-60s changed that, and cities converted to natural gas.   
      
   --- SoupGate/W32 v1.03   
    * Origin: LiveWire BBS -=*=- UseNet FTN Gateway (1:2320/1)