Media Party wakes up to the danger of transporting oil via rail

Que Train Fire 20130707

From the National Post:

Preventing the next Lac-Mégantic means having a serious national conversation about energy infrastructure. Till now, many environmentalists have argued against new pipelines without giving any serious consideration to the consequences of their position. But oil that cannot travel by pipeline will not simply disappear, or remain in the ground: Instead, it will be shipped by rail — at greater expense, spillage rate (U.S. data suggest that crude spillage on rail averages at double the pipeline spillage rate), and risk of possible catastrophe. (see here)

Keep in mind that this is the same newspaper that employs two full-time eco-nuts who are constantly pushing to stop pipelines from being built.

The other ramification of this tragedy is maybe now the police will start doing their jobs when it comes to eco-protesters breaking the law instead of obeying their political masters.


14 Responses to “Media Party wakes up to the danger of transporting oil via rail”

  1. Liz J Says:

    Could we find a better example of hypocrisy/hypocrites?
    These are the people who jump on the band wagon on the common sense/right side of matters when they have no where to go with their stupidity.

  2. Guffman Says:

    Too bad this lesson in safer oil delivery had to come at the expense of the people of Lac-Mégantic. There’s a lot of finger pointing going on over responsibility for this, but it seems to me it was just a series of unfortunate events and decisions that all came together (obviously) unintentionally. Delivery by pipeline would remove this above surface risk.
    But perhaps the “eco-nuts” will now wake up to the benefits of new and much safer pipelines that will help prevent these kinds of disasters.

  3. Ian Says:

    I think that these eco nuts really don’t see the loss of life as important as the ecological aftermath of an oil spill.

  4. don morris Says:

    I have little faith in the railways that are expected to carry oil around this continent,and I don’t know why so many of the MSM and environmentalists seem to have no problem with it. I suppose because it’s “not a pipeline” their withered brains can’t foresee any other problems.

    I read earlier today that a pipeline from the Bakken oil fields would be uneconomic because it’s a short-term productivity field, but the field is expected to produce for at least 45 years. Is that “short-term”?

    And if anyone takes a close up look at the CNR mainline in Northern BC,they’ll see that this track is in no condition to carry heavy loads of Alberta oil or bitumen.

    Pipelines are the way to go, but as long as railway magnates like Warren Buffet have influence over Obama I guess we’ll just have to wait and see when the next disaster occurs.

    Edward Burkhardt of MMA comes across as a penny-pinching accountant who takes that more seriously than public safety.One man crew on a 72 car oil train is absurd,no room for contingencies at all.

    • Liz J Says:

      Surely someone has to answer for the fact there was only one man on that train, the size of it and the cargo should warrant at least another backup person. Expect the talking heads and scribes will soon be joining Mulcair in criticizing the government as being somehow to blame. We can have all the rules in place but there’s not much you can do if they’re not followed or enforced.

  5. morri Says:

    to date I have not heard what caused the explosion. crude oil or even other levels of oil not made into gas will not explode unless there is extreme heat or something else added to it.

    • Ian Says:

      Do you mean to say that you expect the MSM to actually do some work and maybe ask some real questions about how this happened? No they’re too busy exspending all their energy looking for the latest negative Conservative story. Either that or they’re busy sweeping under the rug the story about Ontario Liberal Premier Kathleen Wynne’s former deputy education minister who just got busted for making child porn. Yeah he’s the same guy who was involved in last year’s attempt to change the sex ed curriculum and to teach it to 8 year olds. Get them started young I guess he feels.

    • taxpayer Says:

      Propane tank rail cars parked on a siding in town were involved and provided the “explosion” when the runaway derailed into them. The Bakken crude is flammable, so it caught fire when tank cars ruptured. CTV detailed this yesterday on one of their postings.

  6. Bec Says:

    An oil spill via a pipeline (these new ones will be state of the art) wouldn’t kill and burn up people while they are sleeping nor destroy the major infrastructure of a small sleepy town. This is devastating and I agree with the suggestion that ‘rail’ is a fad form of transporting this commodity because of the players who will benefit.

    To the eco nuts,… birds, animals, insects are not important when it comes to …say…windmills but they become important when debating a pipeline? Meanwhile back at the nut farm full of hypocrites…

    • rje Says:

      I think the implication is that production slows down without pipelines, which is beneficial in terms of global co2 output. Transporting by rail is a separate issue, and besides that there is extremely limited capacity to do so. So yes, if we’re talking about global co2 output, not having pipelines is beneficial.

      Accidents happen whether it’s oil in rail cars or other hazardous goods– and as far as hazardous goods go, petroleum is not even up there on the list of hazardous materials that are transported by rail. If it would have been sour gas or something in the cars, there would have been devastation as well (potentially far greater), but we wouldn’t be having this pipeline conversation.

      If anything, I would say that pipeline proponents are being pretty opportunistic here.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: