Quote:
Originally Posted by EonBlue
The funny thing is that it is more environmentally friendly to move the oil by pipeline than by rail. So there seems to be some sort of failure of logic if that is the reasoning against it.
|
Well, yes and no.
If you measure it in lives lost and property destruction, Forbes says "truck worse than train worse than pipeline worse than boat ".
Pick Your Poison For Crude -- Pipeline, Rail, Truck Or Boat - Forbes
So in that case, pipeline doesn't seem so bad.
If you want to compare how much energy is required to pump all that oil from Alberta to Texas, that would be cool to know. I honestly don't know.
To me, a pipeline would seem to be the best way because it probably takes the least amount of energy, and SHOULD be the safest way way, and fastest way, vs train.
On the other hand, a train is made up of segmented parts that are individually checked for leaks, and a single segment can be removed, unloaded and repaired in the event of a leak. Should it all leak out, you lose maybe 5000 gallons of oil or whatever those things hold.
But if there's a leak in a pipeline, you dump 50,000 - 100,000 gallons or more because its (a) under lots of pressure, and (b) not always detected or found before the damage is done.
I'd feel better if pipelines had a better history.