Here is what happens when you don't have a pipeline i.e.Keystone

Train derails in Lynchburg, Va.

A collection of images and video from the scene, curated by Yahoo News editors

A train derailed in downtown Lynchburg, Va., on Wednesday, sending flames soaring and giant plumes of black smoke billowing into the air. Below, a collection of images and video from the scene, curated by Yahoo News editors.
Update, 3:05 p.m. EDT: A Lynchburg city spokesman told Reuters that some crude oil has leaked into the James River from the derailed train. Still no reports of injuries.

1. 
   

Update, 3:00 p.m. EDT: Emergency officials confirm that a train derailed in downtown Lynchburg. There are no immediate reports of injuries. Some nearby buildings have been evacuated, while employees at some businesses have been told to shelter in place, WSET-TV reports.
http://news.yahoo.com/lynchburg-train-derailment-184510610.html

 

The shale oil is going to get piped somewhere. Either North to South or East to West. North to South it is refined under the rules and regulations of the EPA and the US reaps economic benefit. I read on AOL today that China is less than a decade away from becoming the world's largest economy. East to West the pipeline goes across Canada then the oil gets loaded into tankers shipped to China and refined there with little economic benefit to the US.

Environmentally speaking which is the better choice-
refined in the US ?
refined in China ?

 

Presently it is all going south. But guess how the oil is going now?

 

Sorry, you're flat out wrong even on this tangential point. The reason that they want to send the oil to this location in the first place is because many of these refineries are in Foreign Trade Zones where oil may be exported to international buyers without paying U.S. taxes. That is why they are getting such a large woody over this pipeline.

 

Gee! "Many of these refineries are in Foreign Trade Zones where oil may be exported to international buyers without paying U.S. taxes". Wow! They won't pay US taxes. But the alternative is it import oil from Russia, Venezuela, Iran, Iraq, etc. and then not pay US taxes. What am I missing here? You would rather pay Iran, Russia, Venezuela, etc. than Canada and send their oil to China where they refine it and super pollute the atmosphere? Get a grip on it!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keystone_Pipeline

 

Yeah, because the pipeline was going to go right through Lynchburg, VA.

Gee and wow!

 

Your words. Not mine. But that oil (or at least some of that oil) WILL be imported the the US. If Keystone is not built, the alternative is by train. That is more expensive. It emits more pollution. And, as can be seen above, it can and will lead to more accidents.

 

Here is an idea, build the pipeline through Canada instead of the the U.S. Oh yeah, Canada has rejected that idea. I wonder why?

 

http://bangordailynews.com/2013/08/...ada-would-shake-up-global-oil-trade-dynamics/

 

At the same time, these sleazy oil companies are trying to kill renewable energy. They are pure scum.

 

The U.S. currently, as of today, has a record inventory of crude. A bloody f***kin' record of crude oil inventory. We need this corrosive dirty Canadian oil why?

 

Good! That means we can cut our imports from Russia and Venezuela.

 

Show me!

 

Oil pipelines are everywhere. They crisscross the country, yet trains are still utilized for certain markets, and will be for the foreseeable future.

The current Keystone Pipeline project, if approved, built and utilized, will not stop future oil spills caused by train derailments, but it will definitely add it's leaking to the vast system of pipelines already being utilized.

There are pros and cons to everything. The problem with the OP is that information is being withheld in order to present a "sunny" side to the oil industries argument. It's half-truth vitreous that darkens as more information is presented.

 

http://www.adn.com/2013/04/21/2873796/pipeline-project-quietly-moving.html

http://www.sunnewsnetwork.ca/sunnews/politics/archives/2014/04/20140402-175148.html

Really - Canada has already approved back piping east to Quebec. The tar sands are going to be exploited (environmentalsit terminolgy) one way or another.

 

Actually, shipping oil by train is far cheaper and cleaner than by pipeline. The amount of power used to work the compressor stations is equal to that used to power a city of about 3,000, daily, while a train can ship twice the volume over the same distance using less than a gallon of diesel per 1000 miles per ton. This is exactly why we don't see many oil and gas pipelines where we have rail lines available.

 

I have no idea where you get your numbers, but they are wrong. First off, it is 400 miles per ton. That is 120 gallons per rail car for the trip or about 12,000 gallons per train per trip. Keystone has a capacity of 600,000 barrels per day. i.e. 2500 tankers per day or 25 trains per day. That translates to 300,000 gallons of fuel per day. I will let you figure out how many cities that could power.

 

I get my numbers from the source, as thats where I work. If your numbers were correct we'd have to refuel every 160 miles, when in fact a 16,000 ton oil train with about 150 tankers could travel 2500 miles on a single tank of diesel. Our typical tank car capacities are 25-30,000 gallons each, making a typical tank train of 150 cars capable of hauling over 4.5 million gallons of oil. We typically run about six such trains just on our southern transcon daily. At 35 gallons per barrel, thats 128,000 barrels daily on one rail line.

Now, I'm sure like gas, oil has to be run through compressor stations in order to maintain pressure in the system thus moving it along. We have three such stations in the small town where I live, but I'll use the Topock station for an example. It uses 10 gas fired engines to maintain pressure with a combined btu of 35,000, or 10,257 watts on a continuous basis.

 

I should have added this in earlier to avoid (or in this case cause) any confusion. Frankly, I'm all for the pipeline. Figure that one out.

 

435 miles per ton;
http://www.ctls.uconn.edu/do-csx-tr...n-of-cargo-500-miles-on-1-gallon-of-fuel.html
Tank car capacity is immaterial for the calculations, but I found 10,000 gallons (40t).

And, no, my figures pretty much follow your except I used 400 gpt as opposed to your 1000 gpt. And I figure CSX would not advertize 400 if they were actually getting 1000.