From: lfsheldon@gmail.com
On 5/12/2014 12:08 PM, 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"?
>
> > 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
>
Does anybody actually read all that old, tired, copied (and often
irrelevant to the current comment) stuff?
--
Idioten aangeboden. Gratis af te halen.
h/t Dagelijkse Standaard
--- SoupGate/W32 v1.03
* Origin: LiveWire BBS -=*=- UseNet FTN Gateway (1:2320/1)
|
