From: otterpower@xhotmail.com
On 5/11/2014 11:34 PM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
> 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.
Is North Slope crude "pre-refined"?
> 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.
>
---
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus
protection is active.
http://www.avast.com
--- SoupGate/W32 v1.03
* Origin: LiveWire BBS -=*=- UseNet FTN Gateway (1:2320/1)
|
