This is what happens when you do not build pipelines

[Dot Com]

Prove that prices will increase.

And seriously are you stupid? There are already two finished Keystone pipelines from Canada to the US

That's the point, dumbass. The completed Keystone pipeline process is intended to allow the oil to flow to the Gulf. The oil that reaches the Gulf will be exported--HENCE, no longer on the domestic oil market. The existing pipelines stop in the interior U.S. and is sold on those markets.

Get it yet? I don't know how else to say this.

Hey ace, do you understand what else is down here besides ports???? The biggest storage and refineries in the North American Continent. Do you honestly believe that the United States is going to let the transport of oil across our country without a deal on the product. If it was just going to market, why wouldn't they just build the pipeline to the Pacific or the Atlantic?.....Canada has over 20 major ports....does that surprise you?

link?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Kalamazoo is what happens when you build pipelines. What happened there is not following safety regulations Republicans want to get rid of.

We saw the same thing in Texas:

I'm glad I could clear that up.

They have fertilizer pipelines?

For you, not for normal people.

In Texas, they ignored regulations that prevent such disasters. The kind of regulations Republicans call costly and onerous.

God you're dumb.

Which regulations did they ignore?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Kalamazoo is what happens when you build pipelines. What happened there is not following safety regulations Republicans want to get rid of.

We saw the same thing in Texas:

I'm glad I could clear that up.

How are those gun regulations working for you in democrat utopia dump ......Rahmbama land?

The states with the most gun regulations have the fewest deaths. But I like guns. I like lots of them in Red States. two thirds of all gun related deaths are suicide. Get it? Two theirs of ALL gun related deaths are suicide. Most of them are by white guys in Red States. See, that's what we call a "silver lining".

California has fewer gun deaths than Texas?

 

[Luissa]

Most of those accidents she posted were not accidents.

You didn't answer the question

The NTSB does not provide a way to break accidents down by cargo. I will, however, point out that every single train accident involves oil unless you have a wood burning steam engine.

Accident Investigations - NTSB - National Transportation Safety Board

Are you serious right now? Lol

 

[Quantum Windbag]

You didn't answer the question

The NTSB does not provide a way to break accidents down by cargo. I will, however, point out that every single train accident involves oil unless you have a wood burning steam engine.

Accident Investigations - NTSB - National Transportation Safety Board

Are you serious right now? Lol

Am I serious that the NTSB doesn't list the cargo involved when there is a train accident? Why wouldn't I be?

 

[FA_Q2]

Wow, 18 accidents on that page. I can beat that with this list of train accidents since 2010.

List of rail accidents (2010?19) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

With oil involved?

Most of those accidents she posted were not accidents.

Lists of accidents are meaningless and provide a deluge of information that is not filtered for actual oil transportation. Neither the data you provided or the data that Ravi provided is useful. This article, I believe, provides a fair picture:
COLUMN-Pipelines vs rail for moving oil safely - a close call: Kemp | Reuters
Keep in mind, it is an opinion piece but I think it provides some real relevant data.
The most important point is here:

Adjusted for the much larger amount of hazardous liquids that they carry, pipelines spill less, though the difference is not huge. But crucially, pipelines must shut very promptly in the event of an accident to avoid a catastrophic release of material.

Earlier in the article it also states that trains spill more often but pipelines spill greater amounts. It is worth noting, IMHO, that the location is also very important as rail goes through MORE areas that are populated where a pipeline (at least a major one) is not likely to do so. There is commerce in train stations and people migrate to that. There is nothing for pipelines other than at the end of the line.

Also, I think that not only are accidents important here but also the end cost of transporting oil. There are a lot of other things that need to be accounted for with moving oil than simply spills. Environmentally speaking, how much oil is burned using that train to transport the oil that would not have been burned if you pipelined it? Is that being counted here? As far as I can tell, no, it’s not. What about the ancillary costs? I would be willing to bet that up keeping that pipeline is FAR cheaper and more efficient than up keeping the rail system and trains/tanker cars. How much energy is expended in that as well?

Honestly, I cannot fathom how rail would even come close. It is close is just spills alone but that does not take into account the thousands of other factors involved.

 

[FA_Q2]

Prove that prices will increase.

And seriously are you stupid? There are already two finished Keystone pipelines from Canada to the US

That's the point, dumbass. The completed Keystone pipeline process is intended to allow the oil to flow to the Gulf. The oil that reaches the Gulf will be exported--HENCE, no longer on the domestic oil market. The existing pipelines stop in the interior U.S. and is sold on those markets.

Get it yet? I don't know how else to say this.

Hey ace, do you understand what else is down here besides ports???? The biggest storage and refineries in the North American Continent. Do you honestly believe that the United States is going to let the transport of oil across our country without a deal on the product. If it was just going to market, why wouldn't they just build the pipeline to the Pacific or the Atlantic?.....Canada has over 20 major ports....does that surprise you?

Where it is traded is irrelevant. Oil is traded on a global market; putting more oil into any market affects all of them in essentially the same manner. The only real difference here is whether there are going to be Americans with American jobs (good paying ones at that) refining that product here or are the Chinese going to do it instead.

There is the only real difference.

 

[JoeBlam]

No but we DO understand you don't know what you're talking about. Very little refined product will be exported from Houston overseas...only the white gas/low-grade kerosene we don't use anymore will go to asia.....so get your mind right or be called a LIAR.

 

[bripat9643]

Kalamazoo is what happens when you build pipelines. What happened there is not following safety regulations Republicans want to get rid of.

We saw the same thing in Texas:

I'm glad I could clear that up.

How are those gun regulations working for you in democrat utopia dump ......Rahmbama land?

The states with the most gun regulations have the fewest deaths. But I like guns. I like lots of them in Red States. two thirds of all gun related deaths are suicide. Get it? Two theirs of ALL gun related deaths are suicide. Most of them are by white guys in Red States. See, that's what we call a "silver lining".

I'll bet you claim you're not a hater.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

With oil involved?

Most of those accidents she posted were not accidents.

Lists of accidents are meaningless and provide a deluge of information that is not filtered for actual oil transportation. Neither the data you provided or the data that Ravi provided is useful. This article, I believe, provides a fair picture:
COLUMN-Pipelines vs rail for moving oil safely - a close call: Kemp | Reuters
Keep in mind, it is an opinion piece but I think it provides some real relevant data.
The most important point is here:

Adjusted for the much larger amount of hazardous liquids that they carry, pipelines spill less, though the difference is not huge. But crucially, pipelines must shut very promptly in the event of an accident to avoid a catastrophic release of material.

Earlier in the article it also states that trains spill more often but pipelines spill greater amounts. It is worth noting, IMHO, that the location is also very important as rail goes through MORE areas that are populated where a pipeline (at least a major one) is not likely to do so. There is commerce in train stations and people migrate to that. There is nothing for pipelines other than at the end of the line.

Also, I think that not only are accidents important here but also the end cost of transporting oil. There are a lot of other things that need to be accounted for with moving oil than simply spills. Environmentally speaking, how much oil is burned using that train to transport the oil that would not have been burned if you pipelined it? Is that being counted here? As far as I can tell, no, it’s not. What about the ancillary costs? I would be willing to bet that up keeping that pipeline is FAR cheaper and more efficient than up keeping the rail system and trains/tanker cars. How much energy is expended in that as well?

Honestly, I cannot fathom how rail would even come close. It is close is just spills alone but that does not take into account the thousands of other factors involved.

I thought I actually pointed out that the NTSB doesn't break down train accidents by cargo when I provided the data.

Your article was interesting, but it sort of glossed over the fact that most of the major spills that are attributed to pipelines actually occur within storage or processing facilities, like the tank rupture in OK that was the largest pipeline spill.

 

[shintao]

Train accidents are always worse than pipeline accidents.

I notice that is in canada, so let canada deal with their trains & pipelines.

 

[shintao]

That's the point, dumbass. The completed Keystone pipeline process is intended to allow the oil to flow to the Gulf. The oil that reaches the Gulf will be exported--HENCE, no longer on the domestic oil market. The existing pipelines stop in the interior U.S. and is sold on those markets.

Get it yet? I don't know how else to say this.

Hey ace, do you understand what else is down here besides ports???? The biggest storage and refineries in the North American Continent. Do you honestly believe that the United States is going to let the transport of oil across our country without a deal on the product. If it was just going to market, why wouldn't they just build the pipeline to the Pacific or the Atlantic?.....Canada has over 20 major ports....does that surprise you?

link?

biggest port in Canada - Google Search

 

[FA_Q2]

Most of those accidents she posted were not accidents.

Lists of accidents are meaningless and provide a deluge of information that is not filtered for actual oil transportation. Neither the data you provided or the data that Ravi provided is useful. This article, I believe, provides a fair picture:
COLUMN-Pipelines vs rail for moving oil safely - a close call: Kemp | Reuters
Keep in mind, it is an opinion piece but I think it provides some real relevant data.
The most important point is here:

Adjusted for the much larger amount of hazardous liquids that they carry, pipelines spill less, though the difference is not huge. But crucially, pipelines must shut very promptly in the event of an accident to avoid a catastrophic release of material.

Earlier in the article it also states that trains spill more often but pipelines spill greater amounts. It is worth noting, IMHO, that the location is also very important as rail goes through MORE areas that are populated where a pipeline (at least a major one) is not likely to do so. There is commerce in train stations and people migrate to that. There is nothing for pipelines other than at the end of the line.

Also, I think that not only are accidents important here but also the end cost of transporting oil. There are a lot of other things that need to be accounted for with moving oil than simply spills. Environmentally speaking, how much oil is burned using that train to transport the oil that would not have been burned if you pipelined it? Is that being counted here? As far as I can tell, no, it’s not. What about the ancillary costs? I would be willing to bet that up keeping that pipeline is FAR cheaper and more efficient than up keeping the rail system and trains/tanker cars. How much energy is expended in that as well?

Honestly, I cannot fathom how rail would even come close. It is close is just spills alone but that does not take into account the thousands of other factors involved.

I thought I actually pointed out that the NTSB doesn't break down train accidents by cargo when I provided the data.

Your article was interesting, but it sort of glossed over the fact that most of the major spills that are attributed to pipelines actually occur within storage or processing facilities, like the tank rupture in OK that was the largest pipeline spill.

I think that the article was trying to be overly fair with both. As I pointed out, there are a Lot of other factors involved as well, none of which people against pipelines seem to be willing to address (likely because pipelines have clear advantages in all other areas).

Even environmentally, pipelines don’t really have and disadvantages. What really blows my mind is that it seems the arguments against things like Keystone center around the thought that oil is not going to be pulled up and used. It WILL be brought to market; it is just a matter of who gets to refine it and how it gets to that refinery.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Lists of accidents are meaningless and provide a deluge of information that is not filtered for actual oil transportation. Neither the data you provided or the data that Ravi provided is useful. This article, I believe, provides a fair picture:
COLUMN-Pipelines vs rail for moving oil safely - a close call: Kemp | Reuters
Keep in mind, it is an opinion piece but I think it provides some real relevant data.
The most important point is here:
Earlier in the article it also states that trains spill more often but pipelines spill greater amounts. It is worth noting, IMHO, that the location is also very important as rail goes through MORE areas that are populated where a pipeline (at least a major one) is not likely to do so. There is commerce in train stations and people migrate to that. There is nothing for pipelines other than at the end of the line.

Also, I think that not only are accidents important here but also the end cost of transporting oil. There are a lot of other things that need to be accounted for with moving oil than simply spills. Environmentally speaking, how much oil is burned using that train to transport the oil that would not have been burned if you pipelined it? Is that being counted here? As far as I can tell, no, it’s not. What about the ancillary costs? I would be willing to bet that up keeping that pipeline is FAR cheaper and more efficient than up keeping the rail system and trains/tanker cars. How much energy is expended in that as well?

Honestly, I cannot fathom how rail would even come close. It is close is just spills alone but that does not take into account the thousands of other factors involved.

I thought I actually pointed out that the NTSB doesn't break down train accidents by cargo when I provided the data.

Your article was interesting, but it sort of glossed over the fact that most of the major spills that are attributed to pipelines actually occur within storage or processing facilities, like the tank rupture in OK that was the largest pipeline spill.

I think that the article was trying to be overly fair with both. As I pointed out, there are a Lot of other factors involved as well, none of which people against pipelines seem to be willing to address (likely because pipelines have clear advantages in all other areas).

Even environmentally, pipelines don’t really have and disadvantages. What really blows my mind is that it seems the arguments against things like Keystone center around the thought that oil is not going to be pulled up and used. It WILL be brought to market; it is just a matter of who gets to refine it and how it gets to that refinery.

I think there are some legitimate concerns about pipelines. I just honestly believe that trains are worse, even if the stats seem to say otherwise under certain narrow conditions. When you factor in the fact that the NTSB investigates, and reports, refinery accidents as pipeline accidents instead of classifying them separately, it seems that pipelines are substantially safer.