in West Virginia today. The train was pulling over 100 cars of North Dakota crude when it derailed and dumped 14 burning cars into a river. One house was burned and the area evacuated but only one minor injury so far. That crude their getting out of the ground up there must be some very volatile stuff. Other crude oils I've seen and heard of are much less flammable and would not cause an explosion like this stuff does. I've worked derailments with LP gas tanks cars and other bad stuff involved that didn't blow up or burn at all. I guess the difference is the construction of the tank cars. The makers of the cars and the RR's are fighting new requirements for safety in case of a derailment or crossing accident because of the cost. I'd say they're gonna hafta to give in on that pretty soon.
CSX Crude Oil Train Derailed
- Thread starter 3Rfan
- Start date
A
ag-man
Guest
WOW,
RR seem to be very,very dangerous. Too bad we can't get the Keystone up and running!!! Who is holding that up ??
Just funning with you 3R .... Lol
I know the RR is very safe, just an unfortunate accident.
RR seem to be very,very dangerous. Too bad we can't get the Keystone up and running!!! Who is holding that up ??
Just funning with you 3R .... Lol
I know the RR is very safe, just an unfortunate accident.
S
Stevedangos
Guest
You mean there are safety issues "possible" no matter how you transport it? I doubt there would be any pipeline going through the middle of town like the trains do. Oil that burns.......scary stuff!
Y ou'll be singing a different tune if/when you have grandkids and one of them gets sick from living too close to a line break.
Greed just makes stupid people dumber.
That would take critical thinking to connect living too close to a line break and people getting sick. We already know critical thinking is not exactly miller's forte.
Miller we have pipelines running everywhere around here and most of them are gas lines. You think they wouldn't cause a problem if they leak/blowup. They don't just bury them out in the wilderness. I know of one gas pipeline here that runs through the middle of a subdivision that was was one of the nicest in this area when it was built years ago.The town that was destroyed in Ark. was by tar sands crude and it didn't burn anything. It just crawled through the streets and buried their nice little town with stuff too nasty to clean up. How far do you think it had to crawl to bury that town?
I have never said that a pipeline was without risk. Trains aren't without risk either. Nothing is without risk! Unless you are argueing against oil transportation, I don't see what your point is.
No I won't because we are going to put them in protective bubbles so none of the dangers of living can touch them.
Driving a car poses a greater risk than living next to a pipeline. Pipelines can leak and if one did people could get sick.
Once again you just criticize a post rather than having an idea.
Here's an idea: Quit taking US land for Canadian profits. How can you support something that takes land from AMERICANS? Oh yeah..you're a republiberalcan.
This is a political bundle and that's all. Some folks get distracted by the little things like this.
I saw that reported later Peabody. I think they still haven't come up to the standards needed to lower the risk of puncture. There are a lot tank cars running around carrying stuff that would be really bad if they were punctured in a derailment. Many with nasty chemicals or LP gas that run through towns and cities everyday and a lot of times they are a train made up of 100 cars or with nothing but tank cars with bad stuff in them. I'm sure they've made improvements but they were recently given a year to prove they OK as is. I guess this derailment shows they still have work to do. I can't imagine why any kind of crude oil is so combustible. Heck I'd think it would be hard to cause that kind of explosion with a tank car full of diesel fuel. when working on the track we would stand by and say here comes one of those "death trains." If a terrorist type ever figures out how blow one of those suckers up in a rail yard or traveling through St.Louis it's gonna be real ugly cause just the leaking the fumes from some of them would get a LOT of people even if there was no big explosion or fire damage.
Ignorance is no excuse. It's called Eminent Domain and XL has invoked it.
You republiberalcans and what you believe.
Miller if you want evidence of pipelines in and around towns then drive over to southeast Missouri and look for those little yellow pipes sticking up out of the ground. If you don't think that's a gas line you can read the warning on it or just run over it with your car. There is one that runs along side old highway 60, now called B highway, going east out of P.B. We had a contractor cutting on RR right of way knock over one of those pipes with his trackhoe in Fisk, Mo. Luckily nothing was ignited, he called it in and we stayed away from it until somebody came to fix it. The subdivision I spoke of is not in the city limits of P.B. but it sure has a lot of houses in it. I guess since I didn't give you link you won't believe it.
Not really sure why Obama has decided to plant the flag on keystone. It's a really insignificant pipeline.
Posted from Rivals Mobile
Posted from Rivals Mobile
It's all about his legacy with enviromentalists. Whether warranted or not they don't want it to happen and he hasn't done a lot keep keep them happy during his tenure in office. Their issue is no so much what it "could' do to the water supply but what they perceive it helps do to the environment as it relates to pollution. They say this is the dirtiest form of fossil fuel coming out of the ground and to expand it's use is a bad thing as far as they're concerned. Any expansion of fossil fuel use is bad in their book.
First, I said they PROBABLY aren't going through THE MIDDLE of town. I never said people didn't live near them. I live near one! I have no fear of it.
The point was that trains ALWAYS run to the center of major population centers.
Expansion of fossil fuels is bad, but this pipeline has very little to do with that. They're still going to do the tar sands business pipeline or not.
Posted from Rivals Mobile
Posted from Rivals Mobile
The pipeline makes it get to refineries a lot faster and I would guess cheaper since I'm sure the guy in Canada is NOT going to be the one paying to build the pipeline. We can use the construction jobs for sure. It will only create about 40 permanent jobs but no construction work is permanent, you build something and hopefully move on to another job.
I don't know about a whole lot faster. The oil is still going to get there.
Posted from Rivals Mobile
Posted from Rivals Mobile
The pipeline would carry a lot more volume than a train can. I have no idea how long it will take to get it from Canada to the refineries in the gulf through the pipeline but I assume once the flow gets started it would keep a pretty high volume of that crud coming out the south en of it everyday.
You can apologize now and admit you're wrong:
From Forbes....
TransCanada said it has reached voluntary agreements to secure 100% of
the private easements required for the pipeline in Montana and South
Dakota. It has 76% of the easements required for the route in Nebraska,
it said. In general, the company said it has had to use eminent domain
with only 2% of landowners.
LOL can you not even admit when you're just BLATANTLY wrong???
Transcanada is based in Calgary. They are a CANADIAN company. They used Eminent Domain the USA baby!!!
Come on man. Just admit it.
Listen son, there has not been any eminent domain used to sieze any land by Transcanada. If there is the use of eminent domain it will be because the legislature legislated them the rights and a court allowed it. As is, the very article you cite indicates they have THREATENED eminent domain. A foreign company has no standing to use eminent domain unless it is given to them legally. The legislature may decide it is in the publics interest to have the pipeline but it would be the ones granting eminent domain.
You, no doubt, will argue it is still the company invoking it but it can't without the US deciding to do it. If this eventually happens (hasn't yet), Canadians aren't seizing land, the government is....as always.
Who said anything about comparing?
You just won't admit you're wrong. That's a sad commentary on things.
Canadian company got American land through Eminent Domain...just like I said.
You reason with people ? BAHAHAHHHAHA
Similar threads
