I'm not quite sure what to make of the Canadian oil train disaster that caused the deaths of 47 people. Certainly regulations were lax and Canada has stepped up and made moves to fix the problems in transporting hazardous goods. Of course, they don't have irrational adolescents in their country screaming about socialism so that makes it easier.
But what about Keystone? If the northern section of the pipeline is approved, what sort of guarantees do we have that the same thing won't happen here? Do we have regulations that are similar to the ones Canada is implementing? No more one man crews?
I really don't know. That's why I am asking.
14 comments:
Well, it seems a bit cart before the horse to start throwing out regulations before the investigation has even determined what the causes.
Be that as it may...
No, US railroads don't have one person crews. Although there has been talk of it. This incident will probably put a stop to that.
The FRA does have regulation about train securement. And the union pacific rr recently required all unattended trains be locked.
Of course I don't know what that has to do with a pipeline.
Well, the oil has to be transported by freight or truck, right? When the northern section of keystone gets approved, we will be shipping more oil around. Good to know that we have regulations in place to hopefully prevent this from happening here
The oil will be transported.
Absent a pipeline then it will by by rail or truck. So, with approval of a pipeline less oil will be transported via rail or truck.
Which is my question - what do safety questions about transport of oil via rail have to do with the opener of 'if a pipeline if approved'?
It would make much more sense if you asked if the pipeline should be approved in order to minimize risks of rail transport.
What is the route of the northern pipeline?
Which phase?
It's my understanding that construction on the southern route is nearly complete.
http://www.upi.com/Business_News/Energy-Resources/2013/07/08/US-leg-of-Keystone-XL-nearly-complete/UPI-50441373281994/
That's the OK to Texas route. The Alberta to the US route is what has still not been approved.
So, I guess what I don't understand is how this oil is going to get moved from the pipeline to the places around the country and the world where it will be used. By truck? By rail?
From the wikipedia:
This phase is part of the Keystone XL pipeline and would start from the same area in Alberta, Canada as the main pipeline.[11] The Canadian section would consist of 526 kilometres (327 mi) of new pipeline.[24] It would enter the United States at Morgan, Montana and travel through Baker, Montana where American-produced oil would be added to the pipeline, then it would travel through South Dakota and Nebraska, where it would join the existing Keystone pipelines at Steele City, Nebraska.
So it joins existing pipeline and has exit port in the gulf.
Ah, I see. Does the southern section also go out to the gulf? If that's the case, then no oil would be shipped by rail or freight that is part of the Keystone project.
Not only does the proposed southern route go to the gulf, but the existing seaway pipeline goes from Cushing Ok to the gulf. Competition!
So, really, the only concern is the environmental impact (if any) on the areas around the pipeline and eminent domain issues. With the latter, the Constitution does state that the government does have the right to seize property if there is just compensation.
Once again, I find myself frustrated with the knee jerk reactions. I'm not convinced that it Keystone will pose an environmental risk nor am I convinced that it is perfectly wonderful either.
I'm not so convinced of environmental impacts. I remember doom and gloom predictions for the trans-alaskan pipeline too....
As to the eminent domain. I don't think the gov't has any business taking one persons private property just to give it to another person. That, as far as I'm concerned is not what eminent domain was supposed to be used for.
If that's the case, then why do you support Keystone? That's just what they are doing.
I support pipelines. I oppose political holdouts on regulatory approval.
Regulatory approval does not necessarily mean eminent domain as they are two separate issues. It's one thing to stamp OK on a building permit, it's a completely different thing to take someones property and give it to someone to build upon.
That it exists in this case is disheartening. I do not approve or support it. That doesn't mean I would oppose the builders actually buying, leasing or otherwise getting permission from the legitimate owners to build their pipe.
Ah, got it. Thanks for clearing that up. I suppose TransCanada could ask the owners of the land who are up in arms right now for permission and/or offer them cash in exchange for the land. Perhaps it has already happened? I don't know..
Post a Comment