Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Another train hauling oil derails

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • The Doctor
    replied
    Originally posted by Combat Engineer View Post
    Please explain how the pipeline from Canada would handle these:



    That is from your link. So the oil sands pipeling will handle Montana crude? ND crude? Please explain.
    KXL will also handle Bakken oil headed to Gulf Coast refineries, reducing the need for rail transport.

    Leave a comment:


  • Pirateship1982
    replied
    Originally posted by Combat Engineer View Post
    Please explain how the pipeline from Canada would handle these:



    That is from your link. So the oil sands pipeling will handle Montana crude? ND crude? Please explain.
    Ummm, yes the pipeline will handle Montana crude.



    Watch the dotted line. You see the storage facility in Baker marked in big bold letters? Take a gander at what state it's in.

    Nice try.

    Leave a comment:


  • Combat Engineer
    replied
    Originally posted by Trung Si View Post
    I think the OP is only trying to point out that a pipeline is safer than shipping oil by rail or truck which both go thru populated areas, but some people just don't want to understand that.
    Yes it would be. However he explicitly states XL would have prevented this wreck.

    Leave a comment:


  • Mountain Man
    replied
    Originally posted by Jose50 View Post
    Probably the Saudis...
    I was thinking more those pushing Keystone.

    Leave a comment:


  • Trung Si
    replied
    Originally posted by Combat Engineer View Post
    Please explain how the pipeline from Canada would handle these:



    That is from your link. So the oil sands pipeling will handle Montana crude? ND crude? Please explain.
    I think the OP is only trying to point out that a pipeline is safer than shipping oil by rail or truck which both go thru populated areas, but some people just don't want to understand that.

    Leave a comment:


  • Combat Engineer
    replied
    Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post
    This one is in Illinois and would have been replaced by the Keystone XL if it were in place.

    The Obama administration's response to these derailments (this one and previous ones) isn't to allow the pipeline to be built but rather put new regulations to make tank cars stronger.

    http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/fre...aD?ocid=SMSDHP

    Obama the Ignorant strikes again.
    Please explain how the pipeline from Canada would handle these:

    Bakken oil patch of North Dakota and Montana,
    That is from your link. So the oil sands pipeling will handle Montana crude? ND crude? Please explain.

    Leave a comment:


  • Jose50
    replied
    Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
    Hmmm...awfully easy to derail a train..."und highly suspicious" as Arnie used to say on Laugh In.

    Makes me wonder if someone has an agenda.
    Probably the Saudis...

    Leave a comment:


  • Mountain Man
    replied
    Hmmm...awfully easy to derail a train..."und highly suspicious" as Arnie used to say on Laugh In.

    Makes me wonder if someone has an agenda.

    Leave a comment:


  • T. A. Gardner
    started a topic Another train hauling oil derails

    Another train hauling oil derails

    This one is in Illinois and would have been replaced by the Keystone XL if it were in place.

    The Obama administration's response to these derailments (this one and previous ones) isn't to allow the pipeline to be built but rather put new regulations to make tank cars stronger.

    http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/fre...aD?ocid=SMSDHP

    Obama the Ignorant strikes again.

Latest Topics

Collapse

Working...
X