From: ahk@chinet.com   
      
   Sancho Panza   wrote:   
   >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"?   
      
   Did you miss my question about whether crude is pipe with high levels of   
   volatile chemicals? Otherwise what you've written is meaningless.   
      
   --- SoupGate/W32 v1.03   
    * Origin: LiveWire BBS -=*=- UseNet FTN Gateway (1:2320/1)