CDZ Dakota Pipeline Not a Big Deal?

Discussion in 'Clean Debate Zone' started by Toronado3800, May 1, 2017.

  1. Toronado3800
    Offline

    Toronado3800 VIP Member

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2009
    Messages:
    4,311
    Thanks Received:
    335
    Trophy Points:
    85
    Ratings:
    +592
    Apparently a train can carry 1/6th the oil this 3.8 billion dollar pipeline can carry in a day.

    Train derailments almost never spill EVERYTHING the train is carrying. Even in a large disaster like Eunice fifteen or so years back. Oil isn't even the scariest thing moving on trains so while the possibility exists of a disaster at every crossing....

    Pipelines seem to have the bigger chance of a catastrophic disaster. Railroads to have the higher chance of a spill.

    Pipelines, once you take construction out of the equation, are cheaper to move this oil on.....construction costs though make it a pretty long term investment. There is something I am missing with tax breaks or the ability to increase capacity though.
     
  2. Markle
    Offline

    Markle Gold Member Gold Supporting Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2016
    Messages:
    8,035
    Thanks Received:
    1,082
    Trophy Points:
    275
    Location:
    Tallahassee, FL
    Ratings:
    +4,786
    100% FALSE
     
    • Winner Winner x 1
  3. Markle
    Offline

    Markle Gold Member Gold Supporting Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2016
    Messages:
    8,035
    Thanks Received:
    1,082
    Trophy Points:
    275
    Location:
    Tallahassee, FL
    Ratings:
    +4,786
    Bottom line, the worst case scenario for a pipeline is far greater than by rail. The chances of incidents with rail are far greater than with pipelines.

    The cost to transport oil by pipeline is about $5.00 per barrel and $10-$15 per barrel by rail.

    A pipeline is far superior for long distance transportation whereby rail and truck superior for short distances.

    We have millions of miles of pipelines all across the US, through mountains, under lakes and rivers.

    They're being built, they're safe, economical and a great think for America.
     
  4. Toronado3800
    Offline

    Toronado3800 VIP Member

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2009
    Messages:
    4,311
    Thanks Received:
    335
    Trophy Points:
    85
    Ratings:
    +592
    There is something my formulas above are missing, where the economic sense of building the pipeline is. I have done something wrong or am skipping something (tax breaks?).

    Otherwise the pipeline construction makes sense in 300+ years to shareholders....I have skipped something.
     
  5. Picaro
    Offline

    Picaro Gold Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2010
    Messages:
    7,821
    Thanks Received:
    1,104
    Trophy Points:
    290
    Location:
    Texas
    Ratings:
    +5,221
    100% true. Pipelines dump a lot more oil in even a small spill. Rail spills are small and limited to the area of the track itself. The sludge from Canada is a lot more toxic than regular petroleum to boot and a much larger health and environmental threat, and it's extremely corrosive.

    And, it doesn't reduce the costs to '$5 a bl'; the costs from Dakota to the Gulf ports is around $12/bl; the cost by rail from Dakota to New York is $13/bl for a comparable distance. Rail also provides more long term jobs.
     
    Last edited: May 4, 2017
  6. Picaro
    Offline

    Picaro Gold Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2010
    Messages:
    7,821
    Thanks Received:
    1,104
    Trophy Points:
    290
    Location:
    Texas
    Ratings:
    +5,221
    Crude explodes as well; it outgasses not only natural gas but several kinds of combustible methanes and other fumes. Pipeline leaks can go for days without being detected.
     

Share This Page