Transport of oil

[buzz456]

Buffet.jpg

Interesting. As you all know I am a huge rail fan but have always wondered why this logical pipeline has been held up.

[DrewG]

In Canada the pipeline goes through a couple first nation reserves and if they say no, which they are, bye bye pipeline.

[plethaus]

Money in politics??? That's impossible!!!

[buzz456]

I thought everything was OK in Canada, it was just our feckless government down here in the lower 48 holding things up. No?

[DrewG]

That's the last I've heard of it. Could have changed. I haven't really formed much of an opinion on this pipeline, Harper (sadly our PM / Conservative leader) was all for it, and with his latest decisions I'm not very supportive of him.

[buzz456]

It's not a matter of supporting the government it's a matter of common sense.

[Chacal]

Canada outside Alberta is massively against the pipeline.

[FourEightFour]

It's not a matter of supporting the government it's a matter of common sense.

Seconded...

I wish more people could figure this out.


Why are people against this pipeline? Why?

[Chacal]

Ecological disasters come to mind.

[GSkid]

Canada outside Alberta is massively against the pipeline.

Which is why I love Alberta!

[DrewG]

Okay, formed an opinion. I'm with chacal on this, with train transport any spills due to derailment is limited to the amount of cars involved in the derailment. With a pipeline, the amount of oil in a break is essentially unlimited until it's stopped. Also with trains it would be easier to get to the derailmemt site than a pipeline. I'm all for economic growth and most of the other things this pipeline promises but I'd rather see oil by train.

[Ericmopar]

Hmmm. If I was just hearing facts I'd be more inclined to listen, but since little fact is shown and it looks and smells like political mud slinging at it's worst, I'll wait on judgment on that. (It stinks of a Tea Party rant)
1. All the Class 1 roads move unit oil not just BNSF... So why does that statement above single out BNSF?
2. They move oil all over the place, what really is one pipeline? The main reason for the pipeline BTW, is so they can load ships quicker along the Gulf Coast and move oil to Europe and other places faster, thus making more money. They sold North American oil away in the past, which is why our own reserves disappeared before and we all became more dependent on foreign oil...
4.There are actually some geologic reasons to be wary of, when considering this pipeline's path. I've read some articles at the U.S.G.S on that. Combine that with the fact that workmanship and engineering on those kinds of things seems to be getting lower, I'd be much more reluctant to have one near me.

Plus they are stating the shipping costs, but does that include the cost of the construction of that pipeline?
Is the Gov. going to subsidize that pipeline? Could that be the real reason it appears "cheaper"?

[buzz456]

Let's not try to get political here. It's not a "Tea Party Rant." It's a fact that Buffet is a huge supporter of this administration and his railroad has benefited mightily from no pipeline.

If you look at objective statistics moving oil by pipeline is much better for the environment than by rail even with the spills. A pipeline is much more contained since railroad cars must be vented to account for temperature changes and that results in volatiles being given off whereas the pipeline is much more contained.

[plethaus]

Oh it's definitely political. You may think you're looking at things objectively but all your "data" is coming down the pipe (pun intended) through political filters.

[NYWhiskey]

The statement in the first post is a collection of facts. How is that political?