From the Associated Press:
The federal government predicts that trains hauling crude oil or ethanol will derail an average of 10 times a year over the next two decades, causing more than $4 billion in damage and possibly killing hundreds of people if an accident happens in a densely populated part of the U.S.
The projection comes from a previously unreported analysis by the Department of Transportation that reviewed the risks of moving vast quantities of both fuels across the nation and through major cities. The study completed last July took on new relevance this week after a train loaded with crude derailed in West Virginia, sparked a spectacular fire and forced the evacuation of hundreds of families.
Monday’s accident was the latest in a spate of fiery derailments, and senior federal officials said it drives home the need for stronger tank cars, more effective braking systems and other safety improvements.
“This underscores why we need to move as quickly as possible getting these regulations in place,” said Tim Butters, acting administrator for the Transportation Department’s Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration.
In response to using trains to haul fuel, the federal government is poised to impose a slate of rules and regulations.
As opposed to examining a much safer method – Approving the Keystone XL pipeline.
But that would make too much sense.
I cannot wait for a real American to become President of these United States, rather than an African immigrant. It was telling last night when not one supporter of Selma said how good it is to have an African American President; must be that Obama is such an un-American louse that even the Oprah gang will avoid raising his name. Seriously, though, we are on the verge of a national economic catastrophe and the imposter in the White House could not care less. Without the Keystone XL pipelinewe will slide back into the great recession. Jobs, National Security, Prosperity! What is so hard for this President to grasp? God Bless America!
He’s Muslim too right? 🙂
Dissent is the highest form of patriotism, right?
Once again, we have liberals whose ideas will KILL people.
What can we say after they ignore the science, other than they INTEND to kill people ,all in the name of their Agenda?
Is the Keystone pipeline going to take Bakken crude to West Virginia, Pat? …or are you perhaps mixing apples and oranges here?
“Is the Keystone pipeline going to take Bakken crude to West Virginia, Pat?
Probably not.
But that’s not the issue.
Seems like the issue to me. One thing the article doesn’t mention is the extreme volatility of the crude being shipped our of ND. It’s almost like gasoline, and hasn’t been conditioned for transport. Can piplines carry that type of crude more safely? Seems to me the issue really is the safety of rail transport, since it’s probably going to stay in the transportation mix for a good long while, no?
“. It’s almost like gasoline”
Come on…enough wild exaggeration.
Do you understand that gasoline is currently transported by pipeline?
“Can piplines carry that type of crude more safely? ”
Are you “arguing” that TC would jeopardize their multiBILLION dollar investment by pumping an uncontrollable liquid through their pipeline?
“Seems to me the issue really is the safety of rail transport, ”
Well no. The issue is the safety of pipeline vis-a-vis rail tankers. The science is clear.
“since it’s probably going to stay in the transportation mix for a good long while, no?”
Not really, It would take TC about 18 months to finish Keystone XL.
Not sure it’s an exaggeration. It’s my understanding that Bakken crude is highly volatile and that most other states condition crude like that for safer transport. If pipelines are safer, fine, but isn’t that a separate issue? Is it a mistake to be trying to make rail transport of crude safer?
“Seems to me the issue really is the safety of rail transport, ”
See, your ilk keep moving the goalposts.
It USED to be that we wanted “energy independence” from those Arabs who were funding terrorists. The libs told us that we had to “conserve” and “check our tire pressure” and fund “green energy” with TRILLIONS in gov’t subsidies.
While conservatives were pushing new exploration, new technologies arrived that increased US production to record levels, essentially making us energy independent.
Surprised by this, liberals denied that they wanted energy independence if it meant more oil–they wanted SUSTAINABLE energy…and in fact, oil is NOT a part of that.
So, the agenda became: oil is evil; stop it at all costs even if people along railroad tracks are sacrificed and the science is ignored.
I thought the oil to be carried was from Canada. I believe the point is that we can continue to use rail or we can use a pipeline that according to the studies is much safer and efficient. This article is not suggesting anything about WV. What it is suggesting is to learn from the problems of WV and avoid their problems. I’m not sure whether Bakken oil is planned to go through the Keystone.
Dugger, it’s my understanding that while some Bakken oil may be going through KXL, most will not. It will be transported by rail (and perhaps other pipelines?) to various locations as market demands.
Bill my question to President Obama would be , ” Should America continue pumping billions of dollars into terror sponsoring Middle Eastern countries importing oil or should America improve North America’s oil producing infrastructure which includes pipelines?”
Simple question the leader of the free world refuses to answer. He cannot stop Dakota Access pipeline but the anti-energy crowd is sure working hard to cover for him. Thing to remember is we cannot be an agriculturally invested State with only wind , solar or nuclear energy. The internal combustion engine is the only power source to date which fuels modern agriculture.
It appears our US State Department wishes to continue funding terrorism by importing Saudi crude.
Great idea. Build it. And while we’re at it, why don’t we try to get our infrastructure up to the level of the rest of the developed world.
“It appears our US State Department wishes to continue funding terrorism by importing Saudi crude.”
Whew, good thing you didn’t use the word “Islamic”, or else Obama’s NSA would be knocking on your door!
It just shows the following:
1) They do not want cheaper oil/gasoline because it reduces the viability of the preferred energy sources.
2) They don’t want enhanced economic competitiveness of America and the resultant jobs. They prefer economic activity that uses their “green energy” sources.
3) They want to enhance the economic income of the Middle East at our expense.
4) They have been lying with regard to their motives.
Troy, I don’t think it shows any of those things.
1. Even if gasoline were free, burning of foolish fuels still presents environmental hazards both short teem and long term.
2. There is as much, if not more economic opportunity in the development of new energy technology as there is maintenance of the old. Besides there is more to national and state infrastructure maintenance that building on pipeline.
3. The proliferation of oil development in the US has already upset the OPEC formula and BECAUSE OF OUR ECONOMIC DIVERSITY, we can most likely stand them down in the price war. Long term, they have far more to lose from low oil prices than we do.
4. What is it you think “they” are lying about? Safe energy and safe energy transport has always been the issue, hasn’t it?
sorry about the typos. “fossil fuels” not “foolish” and short “term” not “teem”.
1.”. Even if gasoline were free, burning of foolish fuels still presents environmental hazards both short teem and long term.
ALL energy presents environmental hazards.
“2. There is as much, if not more economic opportunity in the development of new energy technology as there is maintenance of the old. ”
If that is true, then our gov’t needs to stop picking winners and lowers. If the “economic opportunity” exists, it will rise. it. hasn’t.
“Besides there is more to national and state infrastructure maintenance that building on pipeline.”
Strawman. No one claimed otherwise.
“3. The proliferation of oil development in the US has already upset the OPEC formula and BECAUSE OF OUR ECONOMIC DIVERSITY, ”
What diversity are you referring to?
“Safe energy and safe energy transport has always been the issue, hasn’t it?”
No. Obama is willing to sacrifice people next to tracks for his agenda.
3. Countries like Venezuela and some Middle East countries have economies entirely based on oil production. If that income stream is diminished likewise is their economy. The higher GDP is comprised of oil production and trade, the more vulnerable the country is to low oil prices, especially if the price is at or near the cost of production.
2. Not so. PP claimed otherwise, as did others. Hence my challenge here. Equating KXL with the solution to dangerous rail transportation is the real straw man here. Or red herring, take your pick.
1. Yes. Agreed. And some risks are more dire than others.
Didn’t we already establish that KXL won’t be taking crude to West Virginia and that there will still be a need for safe rail transport of highly volatile crude? Are you guys so focused on KXL and Obama that you’re willing to overlook an obvious transportation safety problem?
the president has laid down a firm intention to support so-called green energy and not support fossil fuels. if he were to have even one instance of caving in by supporting keystone, he’d ignite internecine warfare among the democrats. he will never allow keystone.
I actually think he might approve it, given the right set of trade offs. We’ll see. It’s more an issue for the GOP (almost an irrational obsession) than it is for The Administration, I think. And there are plenty of Dems who understand that Canada is our friend in world trade. Not sure you guys have a real grasp of the issue here. I think you may be blinded by your prejudices. Just sayin’.
if we were talking about president bill clinton instead of president obama, the pipeline would be half built already. there wasn’t a logjam his friends or his enemies could build that the slickster couldn’t outmaneuver. president obama has always had his keen eye on sticking with the fundamental transformation of the united states – from the country bill clinton could run, into something else. that’s mostly why i think he won’t cave on the pipeline. it’s just not important in the long run.
footnote: the pickens plan was presented in 2008; the natural gas explosion at a connecticut electrical plant was in 2010.
Rock on.
I’m obviously not a professional in this area, but it seems to me from my reading that in order for KXL to be viable, oil prices need to go back up. If this is true, doesn’t it run directly counter to Troy’s assertion #1 above?
http://www.politico.com/story/2014/12/oil-keystone-xl-113551.html
on the t.boone pickens tour a few years ago, tbp pointed out that any time the market price is high enough to support our own effort to wean away from middle east oil, we’re going to experience a market glut that makes that opportunity undoable because the opec cartel doesn’t want to lose their cash cow. according to his logic (he was pushing a plan to replace a lot of u-s oil and gas usage with a conversion to natural and lp gas) we’d have to commit to the natural gas conversion even against market logic because of the billions we’d eventually recoup from not buying so much middle east oil.
then of course about a year later we had a massive explosion at an electrical generating plant that had converted to natural gas. oh well.
footnote: the pickens plan was presented in 2008; the natural gas explosion at a connecticut electrical plant was in 2010.
Rock on, WB.
Bill,
1) Your admission but very subtle that the goal is higher gasoline prices. Why don’t liberals/progressives just say that is their goal. The higher the price, the less consumed.
2) That is just balderdash. At the end of the day, cost of energy (up or down) has more impact on jobs than all the jobs in the oil industry or potential in “green” energy combined. Cheaper energy (no matter the source) leads to more jobs and vice versa.
3) I agree. But none of that was done because Obama wanted to give the Middle East competition.
4) See number #1 above. See #2 above. See #3 above. The assertion that pipeline transportation is more environmentally risky than on Buffet’s railroads or our highways is either stupid or dishonest. Frankly, sometimes it is hard to discern which is which. So, if the President is stupid, I apologize for the charge of dishonesty.
“Balderdash?” That must be one you pull out when I’m right but you really hate to admit it, right Troy? 😉 LOL
You’re mixing everything up, and then commenting on things I didn’t say. I’m going to write it off as OBS (Obama Derangement Syndrome) and offer you a little ray of hope. You’ll get over it. I used to have BDS but it passed in time. 🙂
Bill,
Regarding viability at higher prices, a lot of businesses fail because market conditions are not what expected. Are you trying to save some Canadian entrepreneurs and investors from themselves? I didn’t know you cared. 🙂
No. I’m making an objective observation. No hidden agenda.
Now that KXL is out of the way for the time being, perhaps it’s time to concentrate on making sure rail transportation is made as safe as it is possible to make it. That really has been my whole argument this entire thread. I was objecting to PP’s equating rail to pipeline, and still am. There is clearly a need for both, and both need to be regulated well to serve the public interest. Why there should even be an argument about that is a bit beyond my understanding.
there’s obviously not a shared consensus on the need for a pipeline, so it’s not ‘clearly’ a need in the view of one group in the debate. levee renovation at lake pontchartrain was ‘clearly’ needed and known about for decades. the federal government managed to ignore it for a number of years.