| Submit your comments on this article |
| -Short Attention Span Theater- |
| A buried oil pipeline might have prevented this |
| 2013-12-31 |
| Officials warn of toxic fumes near ND derailment |
| Posted by:Besoeker |
| #10 I certainly not down on railroads. CSX is a heck of an investment for the guy who can't buy Berkshire Hathaway. |
| Posted by: Besoeker 2013-12-31 19:54 |
| #9 OK, so there was another train that derailed that caused the oil cars to derail; that doesn't mean the oil train was dangerous; just in the wrong spot at the wrong time. Not to down play the incident, but how many times have airplanes run into each other on the ground? do we ban airplanes? A bigger danger or perhaps a better question to ask is when are the older tank cars going to be retired? A few years back,, the safety standards for construction and testing were increased, however existing cars can remain in service. And with the big backlog railcar manufacturers have ( >2 years by some reports), the shippers have no incentive to replace the older cars. Note I said shippers; the railroads are rapidly getting out of the business of providing rolling stock, but rather only offering the rails and the locomotives/crew to transport the shippers' goods |
| Posted by: USN, Ret. 2013-12-31 19:36 |
| #8 At #7: BINGO ! |
| Posted by: Besoeker 2013-12-31 19:03 |
| #7 The number of crude oil carloads hauled by U.S. railroads surged from 10,840 in 2009 to a projected 400,000 this year Warren Buffett's Berkshire Hathaway owns BNSF railway. Why build a pipeline when there is money to be made (and political contributions to be reaped)? |
| Posted by: SteveS 2013-12-31 17:00 |
| #6 It's not easy to build a refinery in a first-world country: they're dirty, expensive and hard to run well. Since the southern US refineries had the excess capacity it made sense to pipe the crude to them and let them do the work. I'm comfortably certain that the Soros- and Hollywood-funded eco-fools would go after a Canadian refinery just as they have the Alberta tar sands, the Keystone pipeline and every other oil project. With that in mind it makes more sense just to sell the stuff to China and be done with it. |
| Posted by: Steve White 2013-12-31 16:30 |
| #5 If the US stalls long enough, Canada will just pipe/rail the oil to the coast and ship it to China. |
| Posted by: Rambler in Virginia 2013-12-31 16:23 |
| #4 Regarding Keystone, why doesn't Canada build some refineries and ship the pure stuff instead of the bulk crude? I'm sure if they put the word out Exxon or others might help finance them after all the stalls regarding keystone. |
| Posted by: rjschwarz 2013-12-31 16:04 |
| #3 Y'all forgot about the buried pipeline that spewed 350,000 gallons of highly-toxic MBTF (?) gasoline additive into a Texas creek a few years ago? Or that little Caliphornia town blasted to smithereens three or four years ago? BTW, I do think Keystone and others should be built. There is plenty for all, if the Gubbamint gets out of the way! |
| Posted by: Bobby 2013-12-31 15:42 |
| #2 Ban rail transport of crude oil. For the children. |
| Posted by: Glenmore 2013-12-31 12:00 |
| #1 Ahhhh, but trains can't be detained by the POTUS. Like a pipeline. Yet. |
| Posted by: Bobby 2013-12-31 11:57 |