From: ahk@chinet.com   
      
   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/Delivering   
   20Energy/Projects/Sandpiper/ENB2013-Sandpiper-L19.pdf   
      
   Thanks. I didn't know Bakken just needed a short pipeline. What could   
   possibly go wrong?   
      
   --- SoupGate/W32 v1.03   
    * Origin: LiveWire BBS -=*=- UseNet FTN Gateway (1:2320/1)