strigori Posted February 18, 2015 Share Posted February 18, 2015 http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/west-virginia-oil-train-derailment-sparks-massive-fire-article-1.2117374 Pick your poison - pipeline burst or train derailment I'll take the train. When it happens, you know it instantly, and clean up is easier. And its also pretty much impossible to hide and cover up. This made national news. The regular oil leaks in existing pipelines do not make the major news cycle. Give me transparency. Link to comment
DaveH Posted February 18, 2015 Share Posted February 18, 2015 http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/west-virginia-oil-train-derailment-sparks-massive-fire-article-1.2117374 Pick your poison - pipeline burst or train derailment Might as well not drive anywhere either. There's a decent chance you'll die. Hell, better not even get out of bed. The boogie man might get you. Link to comment
C N Red Posted February 18, 2015 Share Posted February 18, 2015 It absolutely blows my mind why Keystone won't just put the f'ing pipe next to the one they already have. What's wrong with the route they already used? Seems to me like if they did this the BS would be over and they would have a new pipeline. Link to comment
BigRedBuster Posted February 18, 2015 Share Posted February 18, 2015 It absolutely blows my mind why Keystone won't just put the f'ing pipe next to the one they already have. What's wrong with the route they already used? Seems to me like if they did this the BS would be over and they would have a new pipeline. They don't want to have to risk digging next to a pipeline. 1 Link to comment
HUSKER FREAK Posted February 18, 2015 Share Posted February 18, 2015 It absolutely blows my mind why Keystone won't just put the f'ing pipe next to the one they already have. What's wrong with the route they already used? Seems to me like if they did this the BS would be over and they would have a new pipeline. They don't want to have to risk digging next to a pipeline. In all honesty it would be a bad idea to dig right next to another pipeline, disturbing the pack around it could cause it to leak. Anyway, I'm not sure how far the regulations say to stay away in this situation. I still am baffled by the thought of putting a bunch of pipe lines over top of one of the nations biggest and best as far as quality underground aquifers. All it comes down to in their minds is money period, but the amount they would save by the easy digging and install wouldn't compare to the amount of money it would cost if disaster struck, and eventually it would. Link to comment
deedsker Posted February 18, 2015 Share Posted February 18, 2015 It absolutely blows my mind why Keystone won't just put the f'ing pipe next to the one they already have. What's wrong with the route they already used? Seems to me like if they did this the BS would be over and they would have a new pipeline. They don't want to have to risk digging next to a pipeline. In all honesty it would be a bad idea to dig right next to another pipeline, disturbing the pack around it could cause it to leak. Anyway, I'm not sure how far the regulations say to stay away in this situation. I still am baffled by the thought of putting a bunch of pipe lines over top of one of the nations biggest and best as far as quality underground aquifers. All it comes down to in their minds is money period, but the amount they would save by the easy digging and install wouldn't compare to the amount of money it would cost if disaster struck, and eventually it would.Except Keystone is only on the hook for, what, $200 million max. No sweat off their back. You and I will pay for that problem. Link to comment
BigRedBuster Posted February 18, 2015 Share Posted February 18, 2015 It absolutely blows my mind why Keystone won't just put the f'ing pipe next to the one they already have. What's wrong with the route they already used? Seems to me like if they did this the BS would be over and they would have a new pipeline.They don't want to have to risk digging next to a pipeline. In all honesty it would be a bad idea to dig right next to another pipeline, disturbing the pack around it could cause it to leak. Anyway, I'm not sure how far the regulations say to stay away in this situation. I still am baffled by the thought of putting a bunch of pipe lines over top of one of the nations biggest and best as far as quality underground aquifers. All it comes down to in their minds is money period, but the amount they would save by the easy digging and install wouldn't compare to the amount of money it would cost if disaster struck, and eventually it would. What made me laugh is their constant advertising claiming, once installed, the land owner doesn't lose any rights to do whatever he wants to do to his land....."ummm......until you want to dig or actually do anything with the land". As a past contractor, that just made me laugh. 1 Link to comment
strigori Posted February 19, 2015 Share Posted February 19, 2015 It absolutely blows my mind why Keystone won't just put the f'ing pipe next to the one they already have. What's wrong with the route they already used? Seems to me like if they did this the BS would be over and they would have a new pipeline.They don't want to have to risk digging next to a pipeline. In all honesty it would be a bad idea to dig right next to another pipeline, disturbing the pack around it could cause it to leak. Anyway, I'm not sure how far the regulations say to stay away in this situation. I still am baffled by the thought of putting a bunch of pipe lines over top of one of the nations biggest and best as far as quality underground aquifers. All it comes down to in their minds is money period, but the amount they would save by the easy digging and install wouldn't compare to the amount of money it would cost if disaster struck, and eventually it would. What made me laugh is their constant advertising claiming, once installed, the land owner doesn't lose any rights to do whatever he wants to do to his land....."ummm......until you want to dig or actually do anything with the land". As a past contractor, that just made me laugh. The wording is much more nefarious than that. By the land remaining in the 'control' of the landowner with the forced easement for the pipeline, it is designed to force some of, if not all of, the cost of clean up on the inevitable leak to the landowner. Link to comment
TGHusker Posted February 19, 2015 Share Posted February 19, 2015 http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/west-virginia-oil-train-derailment-sparks-massive-fire-article-1.2117374 Pick your poison - pipeline burst or train derailment I'll take the train. When it happens, you know it instantly, and clean up is easier. And its also pretty much impossible to hide and cover up. This made national news. The regular oil leaks in existing pipelines do not make the major news cycle. Give me transparency. good point Link to comment
ColoNoCoHusker Posted February 24, 2015 Share Posted February 24, 2015 Love this line: "The president is just too close to environmental extremists to stand up for America's workers. He's too invested in left-fringe politics to do what presidents are called on to do, and that's put the national interest first," he said. Lots of ways to attack the President but I don't understand how a Canadian owned pipeline is in the US National Interest... 3 Link to comment
Recommended Posts