"Adam H. Kerman"  wrote:   
   > dpeltier@my-deja.com wrote:   
   >> Glen Labah  wrote:   
   >>> 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/Deliveri   
   g%20Energy/Projects/Sandpiper/ENB2013-Sandpiper-L19.pdf   
   >   
   > Thanks. I didn't know Bakken just needed a short pipeline.   
      
   Well, it would need a lot more than just that one new pipeline. The   
   advertised capacity of the Sandpiper is something like 60% of the current   
   Bakken production, and I have no idea whether there is downstream capacity   
   available to match those numbers. Plus, it doesn't do anything for   
   refineries on the west coast.   
      
   Dan   
      
   --- SoupGate/W32 v1.03   
    * Origin: LiveWire BBS -=*=- UseNet FTN Gateway (1:2320/1)