Slashdot Mirror


Oil Train Explosion Triggers Evacuation In North Dakota

Hugh Pickens DOT Com writes "The LA Times reports that the small town of Casselton, North Dakota dodged a bullet after being partially evacuated when a train carrying crude oil collided with another train, setting off a large fire and explosions. Officials received a report at 2:12 p.m. of a train derailing about a mile west of Casselton, a city of 2,432 people about 20 miles west of Fargo. At some point, another train collided with the derailed train, belonging to the BNSF Railway, carrying more than 100 cars loaded with crude oil. The explosions and fire erupted after cars from a grain train struck some of the oil tank cars. 'A fire ensued, and quickly a number of the cars became engulfed,' said Sgt. Tara Morris of the Cass County Sheriff's Office, adding that firefighters had managed to detach 50 of the 104 cars but had to leave the rest. This was the fourth serious accident involving trains hauling crude in North America this year. In July, an unattended train with 72 tank cars carrying crude oil from North Dakota's Bakken shale fields rolled downhill and set off a major explosion in Lac-Megantic, Quebec, killing 47 people. The accidents have put a spotlight on the growing reliance on rail to move surging oil production from new fields in Texas, North Dakota and Colorado. U.S. railroads are moving 25 times more crude than they did in 2008, often in trains with more than 100 tank cars that each carry 30,000 gallons. Though railroads have sharply improved their safety in recent years, moving oil on tank cars is still only about half as safe as in pipelines, according to Eric Smith, associate director of the Tulane University Energy Institute. 'You can make the argument that the pipeline fights have forced the industry to revert to rail that is less safe,' says Smith. One problem is that the trains go through small towns with volunteer fire departments, not well schooled in handling a derailment and explosion. Casselton Mayor Ed McConnell says it is time to 'have a conversation' with federal lawmakers about the dangers of transporting oil by rail. 'There have been numerous derailments in this area,' says McConnell. 'It's almost gotten to the point that it looks like not if we're going to have an accident, it's when.'"

199 comments

  1. Shouldn't have to run oil by rail by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Thank everyone against the pipeline.

    1. Re:Shouldn't have to run oil by rail by AtomicSnarl · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I don't recall ever hearing about a pipeline colliding with another pipeline. Pump failures, punctures, and such maybe.

      Anybody have statistics on ton-miles transported per accident rate for petroleum pipelines vs railroad tank cars?

      --
      Pacifist paratroopers yell, "Ghandi!" when they jump.
    2. Re:Shouldn't have to run oil by rail by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Thank everyone against green power.

    3. Re:Shouldn't have to run oil by rail by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      Because pipes - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellowstone_River#2011_oil_spill

      are always - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kalamazoo_River_oil_spill

      safe - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2013_Mayflower_oil_spill

    4. Re:Shouldn't have to run oil by rail by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      SOMETHING HAPPENED SOMEWHERE ONCE IT'S THE END OF THE WORLD rabble rabble rabble.



      Lameness filter encountered. Post aborted! Filter error: Don't use so many caps. It's like YELLING.

    5. Re:Shouldn't have to run oil by rail by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      We have 47 people exploded and vaporized thanks to the last oil train explosion in Quebec. I don't see that happening in the pipeline oil spills you mentioned. Are there any that have resulted in mass deaths yet?

    6. Re:Shouldn't have to run oil by rail by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thank everyone against the pipeline.

      The environmentalists working against the Keystone XL pipeline have a pretty funny idea in their heads in that they honestly believe that if they block or delay the pipeline the oil companies will say, "Oh well, if we cannot move the oil by pipeline I guess we'll just leave it in the ground." What actually happens is that the oil gets produced anyway and then moved by rail which is even dirtier than the pipeline. The environmentalists are shooting themselves in the foot opposing Keystone XL because there is no way that oil is not going to be produced. The only question for them is dirty or extra dirty oil? If it's the former and not the latter they should choose the pipeline because rail is even worse for the environment.

    7. Re:Shouldn't have to run oil by rail by Shag · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Thank everyone against which pipeline? Keystone? Phase 1 has been operational since 2010 - and oh, look, it runs right through North Dakota. If I recall, phase 2 is built now too (somewhere else in the country) and phase 3 (part of Keystone XL) is under construction to connect those phases to the gulf coast. Oh, did you mean phase 4 of Keystone XL? That wouldn't even run through North Dakota... but if they build it, apparently that'd be another 2% of US daily oil consumption in pipelines.

      I'd be very interested in knowing where this train came from and was going to, 'cos it sounds like it must not have been going where the perfectly good existing pipeline goes, or where any of the proposed bits would go.

      --
      Village idiot in some extremely smart villages.
    8. Re:Shouldn't have to run oil by rail by Demonantis · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The issue is demand. Demand will be met with supply. A route of transportation will be found. Similar to drugs. I just hope it doesn't get banned on trains and end up in tractor trailers.

    9. Re:Shouldn't have to run oil by rail by lxs · · Score: 3, Informative
    10. Re:Shouldn't have to run oil by rail by blindseer · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Pipelines by their nature are run through low population areas, the land is cheaper and fewer people to complain about. Trains by their nature run through high population areas. Rail carries a variety of cargo, cargo that people need. If the rail does not stop at as many population centers as possible that rail does not make as much money. Pipeline on the other hand only needs to serve two customers, the supplier and the consumer, so the path can avoid the population.

      I've seen some spectacular failures of pipelines before, some notable ones were from poor site choices. One I recall is from a rocket fuel plant built on top of a large natural gas pipeline. That just had "fail" written all over it.

      The argument isn't if transporting oil is safe, it isn't. Nothing is "safe", even hiding under the bed from the evil world contains the risk of getting killed from a meteor strike. The argument is if the pipeline would have been safer than transport by rail. There is little evidence that the train is safer.

      If you want to argue about the safety of oil transport then I'll have that argument. I'd then demonstrate the statistical safety, low cost, and minimal carbon output of nuclear power.

      --
      I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
    11. Re:Shouldn't have to run oil by rail by Rix · · Score: 1

      Shouldn't run oil by rail or pipeline. Leave it in the ground.

    12. Re:Shouldn't have to run oil by rail by QA · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Back in the late 70's I used to work for the only company in Canada that manufactured very large ball valves for pipelines. We are talking in excess of 10 ton's with 42" flanges. We supplied Trans Canada Pipelines, Foothills, etc. I designed the pressure testing rig and tank for these very large units.

      Know what the biggest problem was/is with pipelines? Materials used in manufacturing.

      "Sour" gas vs "Sweet" gas valves (and the pipeline itself) are made of completely different materials. An "O" ring housing for example may be made from Titanium for a corrosive sour gas and Stainless Steel for sweet non corrosive gas.

      More than once, on smaller valves (gate or ball, I forget now) we had to investigate why a valve failed and it was always the incorrect material. Some worker swapped a part behind QC's back thinking "no big deal, they look the same".

      Perhaps traceability and manufacturing has improved (I would hope so) by now though.

      On an interesting side note, the big guy's were tested at 20,000kpa, or about 2900psi. The rumor went that if there were ever a pinhole leak in one of the 3" deep welds, or porosity in the casting and you walked through it without seeing it, it would cut you in half.

      Nothing is perfectly safe, but I do think a pipeline is "safer" than rail transport.

    13. Re:Shouldn't have to run oil by rail by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      The details were light in that list, but the ones I could find details about looked to all be "petroleum products" and not a single one was listed as crude. The "lesson" from that is don't put pipelines with expensive products in poor areas, and be careful with the more volatile compounds.

    14. Re:Shouldn't have to run oil by rail by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The railroad is already in place and does a lot more than just transport oil. The pipeline isn't and doesn't.

    15. Re:Shouldn't have to run oil by rail by rally2xs · · Score: 1

      GREEN POWER ISN'T READY, duh! Its expensive, expensive, expensive and yeah, that does make a difference. We've already 50 million people in poverty, and poverty takes about 6.5 years off your life. That's 330 million person-years less life for the American people, and "green" energy will add millions of people to the poverty roles because of its expense. Its happening already, electricity prices are at an all-time high. You want green energy? Get your PHD, get your a** in the lab, and make it cheap. Simply whining about it and expecting someone else to provide it for you is a non-starter.

    16. Re:Shouldn't have to run oil by rail by Mashiki · · Score: 1

      Thank everyone against green power.

      Green power...where you pay Feed In Tariffs, at a rate of anywhere between 38c/kWh to 86c/kWh. And watch as your electricity rates climb through the roof so fast, you'll soon be making the decision as to whether or not you'll be paying rent, electricity, or food on the table. Last news article I saw on everyone's current favorite "green energy" country Germany, 1.3 million people can no longer afford the electricity rates. And here in my home province of Ontario, we're now looking at between 30% and 48% in an increase in our rates in the next 3 years.

      Thanks environuts for slowing down the deployment of nuclear power. You're making the world a more terrible place, and increasing human misery and suffering.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    17. Re:Shouldn't have to run oil by rail by rally2xs · · Score: 1
    18. Re:Shouldn't have to run oil by rail by Derec01 · · Score: 1

      Given your experience, I actually had a question about the pipelines. It would seem most of the failures are caused by a combination of pressure and time. Assuming that you have to operate on a sliding scale of perfect safety for infinite cost and reasonable safety for much lower cost*, is there a way to build pipelines with specific failure points such that you avoid failures at costly points? Something like a fuse in an electrical circuit; you certainly don't want it to blow, but it's there to blow so that worse places don't burn. I've always been a little surprised that discussion of running pipeline through sensitive areas didn't involve a compromise where you just build in a costly but agreed upon sigma of reliability into the region at issue by shunting the risk to an area you're prepared to clean up.

      *A possibly erroneous assumption.

    19. Re:Shouldn't have to run oil by rail by NicBenjamin · · Score: 1

      That would be a much more convincing argument if there were any fatalities at four of the five rail accidents you mentioned.

      If your definition of "dangerous" is killing people all you've got against rail pipelines is one accident, and since there's only one of it you can't prove it wasn't a freak accident.

    20. Re:Shouldn't have to run oil by rail by voss · · Score: 1

      Keystone XL is a pipeline to haul CANADIAN oil that ran through American enviromentally sensitive areas and over ogalla aquifer which supplies water
      to 27% of the irrigated land in the US.

      Now if you want to make an argument for a pipeline to haul American oil that doesnt involve danger to aquifers
        and enviromentally sensitive lands im all ears.

    21. Re:Shouldn't have to run oil by rail by rally2xs · · Score: 1

      Do you drive a car, ride a bus, ride a train, ride an airplane? If so, you couldn't be doing it by leaving it in the ground. We don't have an alternative to oil yet. We just don't. We can't do what we need to do without oil. Yet. And we don't simply need to be able to run on electricity or some other energy (what?), we need to do it at the same price as oil, or we'll throw even more people into poverty. Poverty will take about 6.5 years off your life. IOW, poverty kills. You want to leave it in the ground? Fine, get your PHD, get your a** into a lab, and invent an alternative that won't cost more than what we have already.

    22. Re:Shouldn't have to run oil by rail by rally2xs · · Score: 1

      One's enough, since the arguments against building pipelines are simple obstructionism, and not rational. If the whiners had an alternative, they would at least be reasonable. But they can't say, "Do this instead of a pipeline" because they just don't have a "this" to do. They want to cast the whole country into poverty by strangling it of cheap energy. Cheap energy is life for millions of people. Obstructing it should be chargeable as murder.

    23. Re:Shouldn't have to run oil by rail by NicBenjamin · · Score: 2

      I know somebody whose response to everything is to blame it on a conspiracy to murder people by denying them cheap energy is not terribly rational, but I'll humor you because I'm bored.

      I'm one of the people who opposed the pipeline. If I opposed cheap energy my response to this wouldn't be "shit, some asshole fucked up, that sucks, I wonder which company the asshole worked for," it would be "It is impossible to transport oil by rail safely, therefore Obama should immediately ban all crude oil shipments from rail lines." This would totally fuck the rail companies, but since every rail car magically becomes an 18-wheeler, instead of having 1-2 engineers per train you'd have 100 Teamsters, which would also advance my goal of increasing working class employment and boosting Union membership. Moreover since some percentage of those Teamsters would get drunk/have unavoidable accidents/just plain fuck up within a couple months I'd have the perfect excuse to ban trucks from driving oil around.

      Hell, just look at your definitions. $70-$80 a barrel is the break-even point for any company operating in the Alberta Tar Sands. The Tar Sands are literally the only place in the entire fucking world that could use the pipeline you're talking about. $70 a barrel is quadruple the price oil was in the Clinton years. Oil is not cheap anymore. We're near peak oil. Supply is not gonna go up very fast. When it does it won;t be cheap supply, it will be expensive, deep-water drilling or expensive extraction from the tar sands. The Chinese are demanding cheap train rides home for factory worker's in the Chinese New Year, which is not precisely unreasonable, the Indians will be demanding the same thing if their economic growth continues, which means demand is skyrocketing.

      This means that if you actually support cheap energy, rather then simply supporting your ability to convince ExxonMobile to pay you six figures, you are ambivalent towards any policy that increases oil consumption anywhere. We have too goddamn much oil consumption for oil to be cheap, and it is literally physically impossible for us to increase supply at the Clinton-era rate of $15-$20 a barrel. OTOH Solar is new tech. It will improve. It's already price competitive with oil. In the short-term we're gonna have to spend money to develop the tech. But if we don't 50 years from now there will be no such thing as cheap energy, therefore if you support cheap energy you necessarily support more renewables.

    24. Re:Shouldn't have to run oil by rail by squiggleslash · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Bullshit.

      Creating a single pipeline will not remove demand for oil on rail. In order to reduce that demand you'd have to create a network of oil pipelines as big as the rail network itself. Oil goes by rail beause it's relatively efficient (compared to trucks et al) and can go anywhere without the need to build out huge amounts of infrastructure.

      Pipelines are a total red-herring.

      What is clear is that the North American rail industry has a terrible safety problem. That needs to be resolved. Unfortunately, the fact the entire industry was prepared to rally behind Ed Burkhardt, whose shoe-string rail operation in Montreal and Maine was happy to leave an oil train with a burning locomotive unattended on a slope on the main line, apparently in large part due to understaffing, I don't see any evidence there's even any respect for the concept of a safety culture in this part of the industry, or any desire to see one. Honestly, people in it seem to see "Keeping a railroad open" as more important than "Ensuring terrible horrific accidents don't happen."

      The FRA will, undoubtedly, have to act. When it's done so in the past it's done so with no regard to the relative efficiencies of rail vs road, or relative safeties thereof, and it'll probably do something that ends up pushing large amounts of oil transportation onto the roads where they'll do even more damage. In the mean time, pipeline proponents will get a free pass, despite offering "solutions" that don't actually make any substantial difference.

      This is a cluster fuck. Thanks Obama!

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    25. Re:Shouldn't have to run oil by rail by ganjadude · · Score: 1

      I would wager that at least 1 part in your computer or phone you use to get on the internet is made up of some oil from the ground

      --
      have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
    26. Re: Shouldn't have to run oil by rail by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      They probably live in a dorm, so food and water and electricity probably come from 'somewhere' and it can all be fixed if we'd just listen to the ideas their humanities professor was talking about. Anyways the girls at the rally are really hot when everybody is chanting.

      No Nukes!
      No Nukes!

    27. Re: Shouldn't have to run oil by rail by kenh · · Score: 1

      Because "spill" = "explosion"?

      Pipeline deaths seem to occur, as best I can remember, when natural gas pipelines explode, not when crude oil is spilt - oil spills result in clean up operations, natural gas explosions result in numerous corpse-less funerals... See the difference?

      --
      Ken
    28. Re:Shouldn't have to run oil by rail by rally2xs · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Problem with solar is that its hard to run cars on it. Fix that, and we're walking in tall cotton. As much as you might like, we just can't leave this stuff in the ground. Yeah, cheap oil is possible, its called fracking. We're accessing billions of barrels in N. Dakota alone, and there's more in lots of other places. Too many of those places are on gov't land, which "O" is obstructing from being explored / exploited. We need to do everything we can to make oil production cheap, and rely on industry to research cheaper ways to make solar into electricity, and run cars on electricity. As soon as someone invents the magic battery, the devil will be out for breakfast in terms of building new electrical generating capacity.

      Electricity: See if I can work this math again. Chevy Volt gets 35 miles on 7.5 Kwh of electricity, so use that as an efficiency for cars. 4.6 miles per KwH. There are about 3 trillion vehicle miles driven per year in the USA, so that's ( 3 X 10^12) X 4.6 = 13.8 trillion KwH or 13.8 X 10^15 watt-hours. Our largest nuke is in Arizona and has a capacity of 3,875 Mw or 3.875 X 10^9 watts. So, you have to run a plant this size for 13.8 / 3.875 X (10 ^ (15-9)) hours per year to power all the cars in the USA that have the efficiency of a Chevy Volt. That'd be 3.56 X 10 ^ 6 hours per year. Unfortunately, there are only (24 X 365) = 8,760 hours in a year, so you'd need 3.54 / 8.76 X (10 ^ (6 - 3)) = 0.404 X 10 ^ 3 or 404 new nuclear plants the size of the one in Arizona to be built to power these electric cars. But wait, almost all cars are far less efficient than the Chevy Volt in terms of size, weight, and frontal area, and then we need to include trucks. Multiply the need for new, giant nuclear power plants by a factor of 4, ballpark. 1600 new giant nuclear power plants the size of our largest one in Arizona. 32 per state on average. What do you think the chances of that happening are? Probably more likely than being able to afford the construction of enough wind machines and solar farms that produce seriously expensive electricity. The Arizona nuke produces at 6.33 cents per KwH, according to Wikipedia:

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

      You can do the math for the wind machines and solar panels to generate that same amount of electricity. Think we'd have any birds left after all the wind machines knock them out of the sky with their whirling blades occupying probably every square foot of the country that has any significant wind? Cost comparison for electrical generation shows Wind and Solar putting up some really ugly numbers:

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

      So, solve the envirowacko opposition to new nuclear plants, envirowacko opposition to new power lines, the hideous cost of solar and wind energy, and then we can talk about leaving the oil in the ground. But until then, we NEED it - we simply cannot support the size of our population without it. People have to get to work, get back, go to the store and buy things, and yeah, recreation is necessary. Trucks and trains and airplanes have to bring us things. You probably couldn't cut the transportation required by more than a few percent, and doing so would make everyone miserable waiting for buses to arrive and trains to depart and force them to live like sardines in a can in some high-rise apartment complex, which would be miserable enough for me to contemplate suicide. I've got an acre on which I have a really fine ham radio antenna system, with another tower / antenna planned, and not being able to do that hobby, with my other hobbies also requiring lots of transportation (I have 70K miles on my car for 21 months of driving due to my other hobby) and without being able to do them, I'm miserable.

    29. Re: Shouldn't have to run oil by rail by kenh · · Score: 1

      The pipeline is safer than rail transport of crude oil - that's kind of important...

      --
      Ken
    30. Re: Shouldn't have to run oil by rail by kenh · · Score: 1

      The publicly stated alternative to the Keystone XL pipeline is not railroad cars in and out of Canada, it's a purely Canadian pipeline that will run the crude oil to the west coast, where it will go on to tanker ships and be carried over to China.

      Will anyone argue that running all that crude oil in oil tankers to China's refineries to be burned in China is better for the GLOBAL environment than running that same crude through a pipeline right to the refinery where our own US EPA controls the emissions of the refinery?

      --
      Ken
    31. Re:Shouldn't have to run oil by rail by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It never was about the environmentalists. The media gave them lip service as cover for the real reason to use rail. You see Warren Buffett is a major Obama supporter. How do you think campaign contributions get repaid? By using the power of the federal government to insure your donors get the contracts/business. WB owns Burlington Northern Sante Fe railroad. Railroads are pretty much regional monopolies. By denying another major pipeline, WB instantly was granted yearly multi-billion dollar contracts to move crude from ND. It really is a sick corrupt bunch of people in Washington these days surrounded by people that believe their BS. When you reply don't even try to explain it all away as another "coincidence". There is no such thing.

    32. Re:Shouldn't have to run oil by rail by Overzeetop · · Score: 1

      So it's ready, it's just more than you're willing to pay. Maybe you should cut back on your energy usage instead?

      --
      Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
    33. Re:Shouldn't have to run oil by rail by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The issue is demand. Demand will be met with supply. A route of transportation will be found. Similar to drugs. I just hope it doesn't get banned on trains and end up in tractor trailers.

      All hail the Great Material Continuum!

      http://en.memory-alpha.org/wiki/Great_Material_Continuum

    34. Re:Shouldn't have to run oil by rail by couchslug · · Score: 1

      " The rumor went that if there were ever a pinhole leak in one of the 3" deep welds, or porosity in the casting and you walked through it without seeing it, it would cut you in half."

      An old way to check for live steam leaks is to hang a rag from a broomstick. The steam is quite capable of cutting as well as burning the rag.

      3000 psi oil and hydraulic leaks can certainly cause injury by injecting oil into flesh and sometimes cutting. Hydraulic and diesel (injector lines are high pressure) mechanics have to be aware of this when troubleshooting.

      --
      "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
    35. Re:Shouldn't have to run oil by rail by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 1

      Yes, this much energy would be more safely handled if it were in a pipeline. And more safely still if it were a cupful of uranium.

    36. Re:Shouldn't have to run oil by rail by dfenstrate · · Score: 1

      Bullshit.

      Creating a single pipeline will not remove demand for oil on rail. In order to reduce that demand you'd have to create a network of oil pipelines as big as the rail network itself. Oil goes by rail beause it's relatively efficient (compared to trucks et al) and can go anywhere without the need to build out huge amounts of infrastructure.

      Pipelines are a total red-herring.

      Are you saying we shouldn't build any pipelines, because we can't completely eliminate rail shipment of crude oil? It would seem to me that if you build just a few pipelines from the sources of crude oil to the refineries, you would greatly reduce the crude oil being shipped on rails.

      That's the idea behind the Keystone XL pipeline.

      Warren Buffet, Obama's buddy, owns BNSF railway, incidentally. Blocking the Keystone XL pipeline from being built directly enriches a major Obama campaign donor.

      --
      Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms should be the name of a store, not a government agency.
    37. Re:Shouldn't have to run oil by rail by rally2xs · · Score: 1

      No, it isn't ready, and the expense of it results in killing people.

    38. Re:Shouldn't have to run oil by rail by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, maybe just launch a software project for a unified rail-monitoring system?

      received a report at 2:12 p.m. of a train derailing about a mile west of Casselton, a city of 2,432 people about 20 miles west of Fargo. At some point, another train collided with the derailed train, belonging to the BNSF Railway, carrying more than 100 cars loaded with crude oil.

      WTF? Why didn't the BNSF stop their train until the derailed was taken care of?!

    39. Re:Shouldn't have to run oil by rail by Spoke · · Score: 1

      Problem with solar is that its hard to run cars on it. Fix that, and we're walking in tall cotton.

      Done!

      Assuming 3 kWh / mi (less efficiency than your number) and driving 12,000 mi year for a consumption of 4,000 kWh / year.

      In Phoenix, Arizona (one of the sunniest areas of the USA, 1 kW of solar PV will generate about 1600 kWh / year (data from PVWatts)
      In Seattle, Washington (one of the least sunny areas of the USA, 1 kW of solar PV will generate about 1000 kWh / year.

      So in Seattle you need about 4 kW of solar PV and in Phoenix you need about 2.5 kW of solar PV. Solar PV is only around $4 / W or less for a residential install (without tax credits rebates or other subsidies) and will last at least 20 years. So for 20 years of driving or 240,000 miles, your energy will cost between $10,000-$16,000, or about $0.04-$0.07 / mile which is cheaper or equal to the cost of fueling a 50 mpg Prius!

      Conclusion: Driving on solar power is possible today and cheaper than gasoline!

    40. Re:Shouldn't have to run oil by rail by NicBenjamin · · Score: 1

      So fracking produces oil cheaper then the oil sands, and it produces more oil then the oil sands, but it isn't taking off solely because nobody in North Dakota is smart enough to take an 18-wheeler to the Keystone pipeline's start in Alberta? It seems to me that we're getting plenty of oil from ND without building a pipe-line, which makes your insistence that anyone who opposes the pipeline opposes fracking in ND pure BS.

      The rest of your post is an excellent example of straw-man construction. I never claimed we should eliminate gasoline use, I claimed that enacting a policy that encourages more of it is fucking stupid. My argument is that if we encourage gasoline use to rise in the short term, in the long term we will be fucking ourselves because we won't be able to afford to keep the economy running in 2030. I'm opposing a policy that increases our gasoline use precisely because I think we can't run our economy without gasoline, and in 2030 we won't be able to afford an economy that is based on everyone having a car that gets less then 50 MPG.

      What you really don't seem to get is that oil is a global commodity. If ND's frackers are allowed to sell oil to India at $167 a barrel they will do so, and unless you are willing to pay $168 per barrel (which would mean you're paying $4 a gallon just for the oil) the car-centered life-style you just defended so eloquently will end. Period. Pretty much your only hopes are that a) that bacteria that shits oil will work, and/or b) Chevy Volt and electric cars get better. b) won't happen unless somebody spends money on them.

      In other words pumping oil will not save your lifestyle. If a) happens pumping is an expensive waste because bacteria colonies are cheap. Why pay ExxonMobile engineers $150k to find oil when you can pay HS-educated immigrants minimum wage to tend vats? If b) happens it will be because somebody put a lot of money into making the Volt's engine work better, not because we fracked the Backen shale 5% faster.

    41. Re:Shouldn't have to run oil by rail by rnturn · · Score: 1

      Not to mention that the refined products will be exported to other countries. So American land/water is put at risk for the benefit of oil refiners loading their product onto ships destined for overseas sales. But that's not a problem, I guess. When the aquifers are messed up from oil spills and rendered unusable for drinking or irrigation, I suppose we can buy our water and food from China.

      --
      CUR ALLOC 20195.....5804M
    42. Re:Shouldn't have to run oil by rail by cusco · · Score: 1

      we simply cannot support the size of our population without it.

      There is an answer for that, the same answer that Mother Nature gives any animal that exceeds the carrying capacity of its environment. We either have to reduce our population, or Ma Nature will do it for us and she's a bitch. We're like deer on an island with no predators, at some point the cheap oil/cheap fertilizer/cheap food/rising population lines are going to converge, and it won't be pretty.

      --
      "Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
    43. Re:Shouldn't have to run oil by rail by cusco · · Score: 1

      They're already fracking the hell out of the ground below the Ogalla Aquifer, I'm not optimistic about its long-term health already.

      --
      "Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
    44. Re:Shouldn't have to run oil by rail by Dare+nMc · · Score: 1

      $4 / watt doesn't cover a off grid battery system that would last 20 years. So your not going to charge your car anywhere near the getting 100% of the output of the solar system unless it is connected to that grid all day, so now your only using your car at night? Currently you will need the plant to charge your car at night, then make up for it by day, or maintain 2 battery packs... likely not cheaper than gas if scaled at todays tech to even replace a 1/4 of the ICE cars today, luckily we don't have to replace at that rate currently.

    45. Re:Shouldn't have to run oil by rail by davester666 · · Score: 1

      Buses! Fill the bottom half with oil, top half with people. What could go wrong?

      --
      Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
    46. Re:Shouldn't have to run oil by rail by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      People aren't against a pipeline, just against running it over our largest source of underground fresh water that our descendants will depend on. Ruining our drinking water is not worth the risk. A busted train car seems bad, but the oil burns or spills at the surface and can be cleaned up. A busted pipeline leaks for years into the ground and can't be cleaned up. Displacing people for a short time is not as bad as displacing all future people and agriculture activity in the midwest.

      There were two major leaks discovered last year that have ruined groundwater. Once the water is tainted with petroleum, it is won't clean itself.

      A pipeline built around the aquifer is better. The oil companies don't like it because it would cost a little more up front. I think they should build it above ground anyway so people can see when it leaks. Some complain that it would be a terrorist target but it's not like the current pipes are secret. A farmer I know hits one with his plow every year. He laughs about it.

    47. Re:Shouldn't have to run oil by rail by fisted · · Score: 1

      Why are pipelines operated at such a ridiculously high pressure?

    48. Re:Shouldn't have to run oil by rail by Spoke · · Score: 1

      Getting enough solar PV so that grid storage is required to make use of it is not going to happen overnight.

      By the time you get to that point you'll have enough used EV batteries from old EVs to use for static grid storage for load shifting and the cost of solar PV will decline even further. The rest of the time, you'll plug in at work to charge instead of plugging in at home.

      Solar PV will never be the sole energy source except in localized areas. It will always be more cost effective to use some other source of energy to get the rest of the way without a ton of storage, but instead of fossil fuels and all the drawbacks that come with burning those, perhaps it will be methane captured from landfill, sewage treatment plants, etc (not to mention whatever other renewables make sense in the area such as wind, geothermal, etc).

    49. Re:Shouldn't have to run oil by rail by Nethead · · Score: 2

      I don't think that Bellingham, WA is that economically disadvantaged.

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

      Three people died in the accident. The first was Liam Wood, 18, who was fly fishing in the creek. He succumbed to the fumes, fell unconscious into the creek and drowned, dying before the explosion.[6] Two children, Wade King and Stephen Tsiorvas, both 10, were playing near the creek confluence during the explosion. Both survived the blast, but died the next day in the hospital.

      Olympic Pipeline had failed to properly train employees, and had to contend with a faulty computer system and pressure relief valve. In 1994, five years before the accident, a construction crew accidentally damaged the pipeline while constructing the city's water treatment plant, and Olympic Pipeline had failed to find or repair the damage.
       

      --
      -- I have a private email server in my basement.
    50. Re:Shouldn't have to run oil by rail by mysidia · · Score: 1

      Given the choice of some oil spilled, and 50 people dead due to the explosion caused in a train derailment ---- I would pick the oil spilled any day.

    51. Re:Shouldn't have to run oil by rail by Nethead · · Score: 1

      I'm guessing that, just like three everyday, it was going to travel about 100' from my office desk in Everett, WA. Where it then turns east and travels under downtown. I'm guessing that it's going to either the Cherry Point or Arco refinery.

      https://www.google.com/maps/preview#!data=!1m4!1m3!1d1611!2d-122.2011388!3d47.9790728!2m1!1e3&fid=7

      --
      -- I have a private email server in my basement.
    52. Re:Shouldn't have to run oil by rail by mysidia · · Score: 2

      " The rumor went that if there were ever a pinhole leak in one of the 3" deep welds, or porosity in the casting and you walked through it without seeing it, it would cut you in half."

      Are these high pressures, truly necessary for oil pipelines, OR are they simply used to maximize number of gallons that can be transmitted per hour?

      It seems if safety were the priority, there would be a legal pressure limit of 5 to 10 PSI for the pipeline.

    53. Re:Shouldn't have to run oil by rail by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      GREEN POWER ISN'T READY, duh! Its expensive, expensive, expensive and yeah, that does make a difference.

      Is it more expensive then all the oil dump clean-up bills? And i mean real clean-up, not dump dispersant and let the oil sink at the bottom.

      Oil is only cheaper when you exteriorized all the associate cost to health, environment and conflict. Oil companies do not pay for this, they privatize the profit and socialize the cost. Fuck them. Fuck you. Get a electric car already.

    54. Re:Shouldn't have to run oil by rail by Inzkeeper · · Score: 1

      I did some work on software used for a corrosion inspection system. The basic idea is that any medium travelling through a pipe corrodes the pipe at a measureable rate. Pipelines have procedures in place to monitor corrosion over time with special attention given to "weak links". There is a lot of careful engineering that goes into building and maintaining a pipeline.

      Regarding setting conditions for running a pipeline through a sensitive area:
      A review of the proposed Northern Gateway Pipeline approved the proposal in principle with 209 conditions.
      But the public's reaction proves that, for some people, no amount of protection will ever be enough.

      I am very concerned that the opposition to pipelines will result in more of these kind of accidents.
      It seems to me, from following the Lac Megantic disaster, that the safety protocols on rail lines needs some review.

    55. Re:Shouldn't have to run oil by rail by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is there something in particular you have against Canadians or is it just non-Americans in general?

    56. Re: Shouldn't have to run oil by rail by DigiShaman · · Score: 1

      You want me to get an electric car?! Ok, when do you plan on buying me one with your own money Mr. Moneybags?

      --
      Life is not for the lazy.
    57. Re: Shouldn't have to run oil by rail by sl149q · · Score: 1

      No, ONE of the alternatives to Keystone XL is one (or more) pipelines West (to the coast) or East to the (other) coast...

      But realistically given the amount of oil in the ground its not a question of which pipeline but how many and on what schedule. Keystone was promoted as an early contender because of the additional oil in the ground in (for example) North Dakota and because of the existing infra-structure in the southern US (refineries and shipping.)

      The net result is that Keystone --XL will be built, basically the parts up to North Dakota, because there is and will be close to sufficient need for that anyway. Rail will be used to bridge the 49th parallel until such time as the State Department OK's the crossing. And all of the parts up to the 49th have the required approvals (from the states) to be built. At some point in the future a State Department WILL OK the crossing. Just have to wait.

      I had thought they might just implement a short hop. But currently the plan is to use the existing (building in progress) rail terminal in Hardisty Alberta to ship to somewhere in (i think, name escapes me) in Nebraska. This is much longer (close to 2000 km) but utilizes existing infrastructure sooner.

      The reason that this is all moving to rail is simple. It is cost effective. It exists. It does not need (new and/or changed) regulatory approval. You just arrange to have your product delivered to one railhead, the railroad will arrange everything else and get it to the destination for you. The cost is higher than rail but still lower than the differential in pricing.

    58. Re:Shouldn't have to run oil by rail by Required+Snark · · Score: 1
      The real world disagrees with you:

      If you want to argue about the safety of oil transport then I'll have that argument. I'd then demonstrate the statistical safety, low cost, and minimal carbon output of nuclear power.

      Nuclear power has an intrinsic government subsidy that you (and all nuclear advocates) ignore: disaster insurance

      Insurance available to the operators of nuclear power plants varies by nation. The worst case nuclear accident costs are so large that it would be difficult for the private insurance industry to carry the size of the risk, and the premium cost of full insurance would make nuclear energy uneconomic.

      The next paragraph says the same about installations like dams, but you made a blanket statement about nuclear power, and I'm addressing that topic.

      For a real world example, what is the cost of the Fukushima disaster? I suspect that this question literally has no answer, since there are so many unknowns in dealing with the aftermath. One figure is $58 billion. I suspect this is wildly optimistic, since every evaluation to come out of official channels in Japan has been that way since the earthquake hit. Other values are $100 billion and $250 billion. Some of this variation may be due to what is considered a direct cost vs. what is being ignored.

      To give some perspective of how things are being managed, consider this recent report on labor used for the cleanup

      In January, October and November, Japanese gangsters were arrested on charges of infiltrating construction giant Obayashi Corp's network of decontamination subcontractors and illegally sending workers to the government-funded project.

      In the October case, homeless men were rounded up at Sendai's train station by Sasa, then put to work clearing radioactive soil and debris in Fukushima City for less than minimum wage, according to police and accounts of those involved. The men reported up through a chain of three other companies to Obayashi, Japan's second-largest construction company.

      Do you expect that homeless exploited workers who suffer from exposure to radiation and other environmental toxins will be accurately accounted for in the cost of the cleanup? Does this give you any confidence that the cleanup process itself is going to be done correctly, even with a multibillion dollar price tag?

      And remember, the disaster isn't over yet. Of the four units that had explosions, two of them have not had a survey of reactor damage because no technology exists that can stand up to the radiation. They could be going through a process that could release more radiation and the only way we would find is is when it happens. Speaking of which: steam of unknown origin is coming out of Unit 3.

      Fresh plumes of most probably radioactive steam have been detected rising from the reactor 3 building at the crippled Fukushima nuclear plant, said the facility’s operator company.

      The steam has been detected by surveillance cameras and appeared to be coming from the fifth floor of the mostly-destroyed building housing crippled reactor 3, according to Tokyo Electric Power Co (TEPCO), the plant’s operator.

      This started on Dec 24, i.e. last week, and is continuing intermittently. It could be rain water contacting surfaces heated by radioactive decay, or an early warning of the damaged core or fuel pool becoming critical.

      --
      Why is Snark Required?
    59. Re: Shouldn't have to run oil by rail by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You want me to get an electric car?! Ok, when do you plan on buying me one with your own money Mr. Moneybags?

      You want me to drive a safe car and that is not wider then one lane? when do you plan to buy me one with your own money?

      If electric car are too expensive for you, then you can't afford to own a car. Exteriorized the cost of ICE car on everyone else do not make ICE more affordable to you; It only make you a socialist douchebag. I will not pay for your clean up bills, and i will not accept that your mess is not taken care of.

      You got 3 choice:
      1. Pay the million dollar cleaning tax, which is cheap and really not sufficient to remove every molecule of the crap you dump in the air, road and water, all the for the luxury of burning rare and exquisite non-renewal petroleum for your own penis compensation pleasure.
      2. Buy the electric car.
      3. Walk.

      Typical commie hippie asking for everyone to pay for his stuff.

    60. Re:Shouldn't have to run oil by rail by dj245 · · Score: 1

      " The rumor went that if there were ever a pinhole leak in one of the 3" deep welds, or porosity in the casting and you walked through it without seeing it, it would cut you in half."

      Are these high pressures, truly necessary for oil pipelines, OR are they simply used to maximize number of gallons that can be transmitted per hour?

      It seems if safety were the priority, there would be a legal pressure limit of 5 to 10 PSI for the pipeline.

      It is clear from the GP post that 2900psi was the test pressure. The operating pressure would be much lower.

      If you limited the pipeline to 10 or 15psi you would need a pump every 50 feet.

      --
      Even those who arrange and design shrubberies are under considerable economic stress at this period in history.
    61. Re:Shouldn't have to run oil by rail by Dare+nMc · · Score: 1

      >Getting enough solar PV so that grid storage is required to make use of it is not going to happen overnight.

      Well, you did average over 20 years, in order to get the affordability to work out. The level where PV storage saturates the daytime grids needs in the residential neighborhoods will likely occur in 5 to 10 years in Arizona. Electric vehicle charging at night will likely make use of the grid for storage mostly dead before that 20 year payoff period. My guess is we will be having alot more EV battery change outs than predicted, but not enough to take the load for all new cars. Without a breakthrough in storage, the costs to store and recover may double the cost of PV electric power at that point. Improvements in Hybrid vehicles and fuel efficiency standards will keep the cost of ICE on par with electric for some time.

    62. Re:Shouldn't have to run oil by rail by dj245 · · Score: 1

      $4 / watt doesn't cover a off grid battery system that would last 20 years. So your not going to charge your car anywhere near the getting 100% of the output of the solar system unless it is connected to that grid all day, so now your only using your car at night? Currently you will need the plant to charge your car at night, then make up for it by day, or maintain 2 battery packs... likely not cheaper than gas if scaled at todays tech to even replace a 1/4 of the ICE cars today, luckily we don't have to replace at that rate currently.

      Most people drive to work, park there all day, then drive home. Maybe they run some errands but it probably sits at home in the garage for at least an hour a day during daylight too. You don't need grid storage for those people, they just charge the car wherever their workplace is. Electric may never be a solution for salespeople / deliverymen / plumbers, but for a lot of people it could work.

      --
      Even those who arrange and design shrubberies are under considerable economic stress at this period in history.
    63. Re:Shouldn't have to run oil by rail by Spoke · · Score: 1

      If/when solar becomes big enough so that it overwhelms the grid during the day, like I said earlier, we can easily shift charging to daytime from night. There are a lot of industrial loads that run at night to take advantage of low off-peak rates that I'm sure would prefer to run during the day as well.

      Low interest loans are available that let you take advantage of solar with low money up front - you can easily roll the cost into your home loan.

      At some point we will have enough solar so that storage is required, but by then costs are projected to be low enough to make it worth while regardless.

      Solar will likely be a dominant energy source in the future as costs fall unless something better comes along. But still, it will be far from the only source of energy. My primary point is that solar today can provide energy for less than the cost of gas for the most efficient car on the market - and it takes a lot less solar PV than one might expect.

    64. Re:Shouldn't have to run oil by rail by Dare+nMc · · Score: 1

      >You don't need grid storage for those people

      So first you used grid transfer, to transfer electric from home to work, and grid storage to charge the car at night for work the next morning. My electric bill seams to say it costs $.05kwhr to generate electric, then $.05 kwhr to get it to them, then $.08 kwhr to get to my house and another $.02 to bill me...
      So it costs $.12/kwhr for the solar panel power, then likely another $.08 to get it to my work, (or likely even more if I have to use batteries to store)

      In order to not have to charge cars with Nuclear, coal, NG, etc would require solar to be so overbuilt, that their is excess available, like we have with these conventional sources. If you have 20 cars show up at my work one day, then 0 over a weekend, holiday, etc you either need to transfer the excess, lose it, or store it. Storing and transferring are both more expensive than conventional generation today. With the conventional sources, they can be cut to half output, and most of the cost is saved, with PV, wind you can't reduce output and save some of the cost.
      >but for a lot of people it could work.
      True, that is why I said maybe 1/4 could go electric currently, my guess is current tech maybe 1/4 of people have a commute that the affordable electric cars works for, that don't need a large vehicle for the job, that live where a high current charger can be added where they park, that also drive on roads compatible with them, and also avoid too centralized ownership to overpower the available grid, and where solar could be upped to help cover.
      I know for me, the Tesla is the only car with the range to get me to and from work (my work is 100% diesel generator powered, so no savings over a hybrid, if they did allow me to charge.) But living down a 2 mile dirt road mostly rules the Tesla out as well, and the car costs too much at my rural electric rate to ever pay for it's high initial cost.

    65. Re:Shouldn't have to run oil by rail by Dare+nMc · · Score: 1

      PV can't become the dominant source without some fundamental change. Per your math it is $.16 kwhr (on the cheap side) for solar power now, but it doesn't flex. It is competing with $.06 kwhr nuclear/coal/NG, that does flex. What makes solar competitive is that it can be at the endpoint. That $.06 nuclear electric costs me $.20 because of costs of the grid, (losses, transformers, maint, right of way...) Once you try to use that $.16 kwhr power at a remote location with the help of the grid, your going to add that $.14/kwhr cost to your cost (you have a exception now, while it is helpful to cover the peak...)
      So yes for the current few, car charging at night, and PV by day is a plus, plus to society. The moment those becomes a significant amount of people (long before it becomes dominent), your costs are going to nearly double.
      The only way for PV/wind solar to become dominant, is for it to either become cheap enough that we can build excess capacity all over the place, that we don't care if we throw away half of it. Or storage becomes cheaper than the cost of the power generation. because currently if we cut output of the non-renewable sources by half, we cut the cost by almost half.

    66. Re: Shouldn't have to run oil by rail by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I choose #1. Blow me!

    67. Re:Shouldn't have to run oil by rail by squiggleslash · · Score: 1

      I'm saying the building of pipelines will make little or no difference to oil transportation safety. It simply isn't practical to build out a pipeline network as substantial as the existing rail network within any reasonable timeframe.

      If you think that the Keystone XL pipeline will reduce substantially the amount of crude tranported by rail, you're probably either unaware exactly how many sources and destinations crude has in this country alone, or you're under the impression it's a much more substantial project than it is. Saying the Keystone XL project will "greatly reduce the crude oil being shipped on rails" is like saying that a new subway from 42nd Street to Broadway in New York will "greatly reduce" the amount of cars on the road nationwide.

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    68. Re:Shouldn't have to run oil by rail by Rix · · Score: 1

      Not necessarily that oil.

    69. Re:Shouldn't have to run oil by rail by Rix · · Score: 1

      Again, that oil specifically isn't necessary.

    70. Re: Shouldn't have to run oil by rail by Rix · · Score: 1

      I really doubt there are many people in dorms with 5 digit /. UIDs.

    71. Re:Shouldn't have to run oil by rail by rally2xs · · Score: 1

      Getting you to work and around town is not a solution. Getting me from Virginia to Tucson to Colorado, up Pikes Peak and back, then to St. Louis and then back to Virginia in a space of 3 weeks, as I did early last year with my gasoline powered car, is (part of) a solution. A solution has to include 18-wheelers, merchant ships, railway locomotives, aircraft, etc. etc. And there is no electrical solution to replace jet aircraft, period. Best we have is electric motors spinning propellers, and that's 400 mph or so, not 600 and up for military aircraft. IOW, you're dreaming. All this is not going to happen probably for decades, until someone invents the magic battery that charges in a couple minutes and will power a non-rollerskate vehicle, like maybe a Jeep Cherokee, for 300 miles at 70 mph. And THEN we will need more power plants than we can build.

      We're going to need oil for a very long time.

      And, BTW, just 'cuz you're in Phoenix and can do this, that doesn't mean someone in Toledo, Ohio can do it. I'm from that area, and have seen the sun go behind the clouds in late November and not be seen again 'til mid-January. Its cloudy there, a lot. And the days are really short in the winter, too.

    72. Re:Shouldn't have to run oil by rail by blindseer · · Score: 1

      First problem with your argument is that you are talking about a nuclear power reactor of a very old design. The design was known to be flawed but still allowed to operate since Japan is in desperate need of cheap electricity. The reactors that were destroyed were scheduled to be decommissioned or shutdown for periodic maintenance. One was already shutdown as I recall, another was on it's last run before decommissioning. Very unfortunate since the time before getting shutdown is when fission products are the highest in the reactors.

      Second problem is that the mistreatment of the workers has nothing to do with the fact that it is a nuclear power plant. People get mistreated all the time. People are subject to life endangering work environments all the time. The fact that the danger is radiation is irrelevant, lots of things are dangerous.

      Third problem with your argument is that there is no comparison to other energy sources. How many people would have died in coal mines if they did not have the nuclear power? How many people would have had lung problems from breathing the ash and smoke? How many people were harmed from things like mercury and lead in the water and air from burning coal? Even wind and solar are not immune to this. Photovoltaic panel plants have been known to contaminate the water with heavy metals. People fall of roofs and towers installing and repairing windmills and solar panels.

      No other power source has a safety record like nuclear power. I guess an alternative to nuclear, coal, and wind power is no power at all. How many people would die from freezing, starvation, and disease if we didn't have heat and refrigeration from modern power sources?

      --
      I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
    73. Re:Shouldn't have to run oil by rail by dfenstrate · · Score: 1
      The projected capacity is 830,000 barrels per day. This is equivalant to a continous chain of 30,000 gallon rail cars, with one completing an offload every 1 minute 14 seconds. Even if they run it initially at a quarter capacity, that's still a railcar every five minutes, or 288 rail cars kept off the tracks each day.That's a three mile long train.

      Given the massive capital cost of this project, I'm imagine TransCanada will make good use of the line.

      I am curious why you have a problem taking a 3-12 mile long train of crude oil off the tracks each day.

      The only explanation I can come up with is that you believe:

      1) that the relevant oil production is limited by rail transportation constraints, and

      2) that the creation of a pipeline would allow a large increase of oil production, and

      3) the same amount of oil would travel by rail, with an additional amount traveling via pipeline.

      That explanation alone is also insufficient to explain opposition to the project.

      Oh, one more thing:

      It simply isn't practical to build out a pipeline network as substantial as the existing rail network within any reasonable timeframe.

      Given that we can use infrastructure like this for a good 100 years if not longer, this no reason to stop the project either. A 'reasonable timeframe' isn't limited to our vanishingly brief lives.

      --
      Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms should be the name of a store, not a government agency.
    74. Re:Shouldn't have to run oil by rail by Spoke · · Score: 1

      PV can't become the dominant source without some fundamental change.

      I would never claim otherwise. My math is for small residential installs. For larger installs the cost is already half - they are getting installed for $2/watt.

      As far as "flex", sure they can flex, but of course the cost to run those plants goes up the more you flex them. There's a reason why all plants aim for 100% run-time. Similarly you can "flex" PV by simply reducing power output. Or by adding storage. Both of these will increase costs, but as we can see, costs are already reaching parity with conventional generation sources - as evidenced by the enourmous growth in PV generation as well.

    75. Re:Shouldn't have to run oil by rail by Spoke · · Score: 1

      I love it how the goal-posts keep on moving - and how a solution has to solve 100% of the problems or it is a complete fail. Why can't a solution simply be a step in the right direction? Or a solution that works for a very large portion of the population?

      On to your arguments:

      Tesla will be able to get you from Virginia to Tuscon and Colorado via their Supercharger network in the next month or two. St Louis will be accessible by the end of the year.

      Will it be as fast as a gas/diesel vehicle? No, but for cross-country road trips just rent a Prius if you're aiming for maximum speed and efficiency. And as many people will attest, actually slowing down an enjoying the scenery can enhance the road-trip experience. Or simply use a plug-in hybrid - all your local miles will be electric - and you can still have your road trips. The vast majority of your annual miles are within 40 miles of home - low hanging fruit.

      As far as 18-wheelers: Most of that cargo should be moved to rail leaving short/medium haul trucking. Short-haul trucks can be electrified, medium-long haul can use natural gas and/or fuel cells. Railways can also be electrified (most trains are simply diesel generators that run electric motors, anyway). Aircraft are a tough nut to crack - bio-fuels are probably our best bet there in the near term.

      And as far as power plants go - we need more low-carbon power plants regardless of whether or not we electrify the fleet. But a huge portion of the fleet can easily be powered without substantial changes to the electrical grid.

    76. Re:Shouldn't have to run oil by rail by Dare+nMc · · Score: 1

      > as evidenced by the enourmous growth in PV generation as well.

      No, that is evidence of government subsidies, and laws requiring them to charge a extra fee to customers directed to provide more clean energy. Un subsided solar can work for end points, and off grid. But the rest is soley from government intervention.

    77. Re:Shouldn't have to run oil by rail by Spoke · · Score: 1

      > as evidenced by the enourmous growth in PV generation as well.

      No, that is evidence of government subsidies, and laws requiring them to charge a extra fee to customers directed to provide more clean energy.

      The rate of growth has been enhanced by subsidies, but even without them, the industry would still be undergoing very rapid growth as costs have come down an order of magnitude.

    78. Re:Shouldn't have to run oil by rail by JamieIanMacgregor · · Score: 1

      I heard about the broomstick from an old timer, not the rag though, you would walk around your leaking steam vessel waving the broomstick around in front of you, when it snapped in half you had found your leak.

    79. Re:Shouldn't have to run oil by rail by rally2xs · · Score: 1

      No point in trying to clean it up. It was there when the wooden ships first arrived from Europe. Early explorers found tar balls on the beaches of what is now Texas. Oil happens, that's all there is to it. Recent spills just are more of the same.

      And since we don't do asinine things like attempting to clean up the floor of the Gulf of Mexico, the cost is $0.

      BTW, no oil company, or any other sort of company, pays for anything. Their CUSTOMERS pay for whatever-it-is through higher product prices.

    80. Re:Shouldn't have to run oil by rail by rally2xs · · Score: 1

      "I love it how the goal-posts keep on moving - and how a solution has to solve 100% of the problems or it is a complete fail."

      Its because y'all want to leave the oil in the ground. To do that, you have to have a 100% "something else" solution. We're talking electricity. So, you need batteries to be able to run everything that normally runs on oil right now.

      Next time I can afford a $100K car, I'll buy a Tesla.

      It has to be as fast a gas/diesel or it isn't a solution, people would still buy the gas/diesel. What we need to do is make electric so good, that people choose it over gas/diesel. That's the only way to do the change-over.

      You gonna build rails everywhere trucks go? Your envirowacko friends going to protest the new rails? (Sure they will...) If rail could be economically electrified, it would be, ;cuz the rail companies are all about doing things with least cost. But erecting overhead wires to power locomotives everywhere, and building nuclear power plants to run them are both so expensive that its not happening, plus envirowackos won't let it happen even if it gets cheap.

    81. Re:Shouldn't have to run oil by rail by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      In complete agreement with what I said. Take care with volatile compounds. They didn't take sufficient care. There was documented negligence (no idea if it was prosecuted, but your link made it clear it existed).

    82. Re:Shouldn't have to run oil by rail by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your envirowacko friends ... plus envirowackos won't let it happen even if it gets cheap ...

      This 'envirowacko' term you use harms your credibility, because it shows you're hoping to marginalize people who disagree with you by sticking a label on them. It paints you as an ideologue. Many of your points are quite reasonable, but it's still a red flag.

    83. Re:Shouldn't have to run oil by rail by rally2xs · · Score: 1

      OK, we'll reduce the population just because you don't like oil. You first.

    84. Re:Shouldn't have to run oil by rail by rally2xs · · Score: 1

      There was that premise early-on by someone that we should leave the oil in the ground. That implies a 100% "something else" solution that we do not have. Yet.

    85. Re:Shouldn't have to run oil by rail by rally2xs · · Score: 1

      Are there any non-environmentally sensitive areas? Of course not. The definition of "environmentally sensitive" is that someone wants to build something there.

    86. Re:Shouldn't have to run oil by rail by rally2xs · · Score: 1

      They're AMERICAN oil refiners employing AMERICANS that refine the oil, and then AMERICANS load the petroleum products onto the ships to be exported. We desperately need to export to help the balance of trade, too.

    87. Re:Shouldn't have to run oil by rail by rally2xs · · Score: 1

      Maybe I should say, "Anti-American environmental obstructionist leaders, followed by their supporters and useful idiots, are again attempting to block any significant progress in the United States, and putting the country closer to economic disaster."

      Look, I believe the leadership of these groups are enemies of the country, attempting to sabotage its prosperity and people, so that is the reason for the pejorative. If they were ever reasonable, that'd be one thing. But they cannot be serious in their demands given all the facts, so I think they are simply equivalent to another branch of Al Qaeda, people to be defeated.

    88. Re:Shouldn't have to run oil by rail by rally2xs · · Score: 1

      Agree. Build it above ground. Building it above ground would likely be cheaper, too, by eliminating the digging cost. Build it elevated, say 20 feet in the air, and you don't even have right-of-way as a big issue, since the land underneath can still be farmed. Only real challenge would be keeping it warm enough to flow in the winter.

    89. Re:Shouldn't have to run oil by rail by rally2xs · · Score: 1

      Simply making an assertion is insufficient. Show us how, in an affordable manner, we can stop using oil. You can't, because we don't have that technology.

    90. Re:Shouldn't have to run oil by rail by Rix · · Score: 1

      And I did not say we could. I simply said we could stop using that oil.

    91. Re:Shouldn't have to run oil by rail by rally2xs · · Score: 1

      We could, but that'd kill a lot of people. I wasn't aware you were OK with that. BTW, you first.

  2. Thanks Obama... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...and all his sycophant anti-pipeline supporters.

    Now show us your hate. Get typing on that Chinese hardware. Use that inexpensive gear manufactured far beyond the reach of your EPA to make it clear just how environmentally conscious you are.

    1. Re:Thanks Obama... by Z00L00K · · Score: 2

      Add to it the fact that the quality of most of the railroads in the US are a century or more behind the leading railroads in Europe and Japan. Only a few have a reasonable quality standard, and even fewer are electrified.

      --
      If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
    2. Re:Thanks Obama... by Derec01 · · Score: 2

      That's not true at all. If you are considering *passenger* rail, then yes, it's terrible. But we don't really use much passenger rail. That chicken and egg problem aside, US freight rail is pretty good.

      For instance: http://www.economist.com/news/business/21576136-quiet-success-americas-freight-railways-back-track

      "Even the American Society of Civil Engineers, which howls incessantly (and predictably) about the awful state of the nation’s infrastructure, shows grudging respect for goods railways in a recent report."

    3. Re:Thanks Obama... by colfer · · Score: 1

      NPR ran without follow-up a rail industry spokesperson saying "99.9997% of all rail trips occur without serious incident." Without giant fireballs in the sky? Yes, we knew that already!

      The workers on the train managed to unhook some of the cars that had not yet caught fire. No free speech for them though, so we get the shill.

    4. Re:Thanks Obama... by rally2xs · · Score: 1

      The US has a freight rail system that is unmatched in the world. Other countries do passenger rail just fine, but nobody beats the USA at freight rail.

    5. Re:Thanks Obama... by mbstone · · Score: 1

      I'm waiting for Google to buy the railroads and integrate them with personal rapid transit.

    6. Re:Thanks Obama... by rally2xs · · Score: 2

      If we built a PRT that handled automobiles instead of just people, we could get millions of cars off roads, run transportation more on electricity which is cleaner and cheaper, and avoid millions of auto accidents that kill and injure people and animals (deer, dogs, cats,skunks, & possums, mostly.) With cars carrying families, it would be far cheaper than airlines, and at an operating speed of 80 mph, would be fairly efficient and fast enough to get coast-to-coast in about 40 hours, with their own cars (no renting) and with the luggage in the trunk, and not "handled" to wind up in Acapulco when you're in Anaheim.

    7. Re:Thanks Obama... by Z00L00K · · Score: 1

      The railroads themselves don't care about the cars running on them, but my word for some the US rails where they transport goods is "scary".

      Ties that are overage, crooked tracks, missing track binders etc. And on those tracks trains there's a lot of dangerous goods transported. Crude oil is harmless compared to some stuff that's transported.

      I'm just waiting for an upcoming accident with a chlorine car in a city...

      --
      If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
    8. Re: Thanks Obama... by kenh · · Score: 1

      You do realize a century is 100 years, right? You argue that the the US rail system is over 100 years behind 'everyone else'?

      What, exactly, did the European rail system look like in 1914? Is THAT what the US Rail system looks like in 2014? I think not.

      The US freight railroads are doing fine, passenger service is limited to regions it makes either practical or political sense - rail service isn't cost-effective, and is typically subsidized extensively. I am not aware of ANY passenger railroad in America that can operate on the ticket & light freight revenue their services generate, period.

      In California there is a massive 'high-speed' rail service going in between SF and LA, it will cost hundreds and hundreds of billions of dollars, take over a decade to complete, and once operational will NEVER be faster or cheaper than a commuter air flight between SF and LA.

      --
      Ken
    9. Re:Thanks Obama... by cusco · · Score: 1

      You don't walk the rails, I take it. I've spent plenty of time walking down miles of railroad track over the years, and it has always surprised me how few incidents there are considering the state of the tracks.

      --
      "Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
    10. Re: Thanks Obama... by adri · · Score: 1

      It doesn't have to be faster or cheaper than a commuter air flight. It just has to scale better.

      I don't know how often you fly SF LA, but there are a lot of flights going on there and frequently I've been bumped or heavily delayed because of something that happened far before I even turned up to the airport.

      Anything that can change how the transport system works and scales over changing loads will be welcome.

    11. Re:Thanks Obama... by Nethead · · Score: 1

      It's that last bit in the article: In the last quarter of 2009 about 2,700 carloads of crude oil were moved by rail. This had grown to 81,100 in the last quarter of 2012.

      One main problem is that they are so swamped with crude orders that they are running old and out of date DOT-111 tanker cars.

      The train that derailed would have, about 20 hours later, come next to my office and then under downtown Everett, WA. That concerns me a bit.

      --
      -- I have a private email server in my basement.
  3. This happened monday by rossdee · · Score: 2

    It dominated the news broadcasts at the end of last year.

    They said most of the people in that town could return to their homes on th 6pm news on 31 december.

    I bet the cold weather was the cause. W've been having January temperatures for most of the last month in the region.
    Although at the moment it has warmed up to 245 Kelvin, and not much wind.
    (I live about 90 Km SE of Fargo

    1. Re:This happened monday by Z00L00K · · Score: 2

      I have seen railroads in both the US and in Europe, and even though we in Europe complains that the railroads here aren't up to the standard they run in Japan I would say that many of the railroads in the US are really lagging behind when it comes to capacity, reliability and safety measures.

      I don't think that blaming cold weather is a good point - if you have correct safety precautions you would compensate for that.

      --
      If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
    2. Re:This happened monday by NicBenjamin · · Score: 3, Insightful

      What apparently happened is that a grain train derailed and hit the oil train. Apparently only one of the trains belonged to a major carrier which can afford the latest safety equipment. I suspect that a) the derailing grain train was the one that didn't belong to BNSF, or b) the oil train wasn't supposed to be on that track at the same time as another train was on the other track due to high risk of derailment.

      North American railroads are actually quite advanced at doing what they do, which is move ridiculous amounts of freight very long distances very cheaply. Diesel is cheap, electrification is expensive because it means you have to add power equipment of some kind to every mile of track, therefore they don't use electric motive power. Diesel dominance makes electrification even more expensive because your second-hand locomotive market is all diesel. Mechanics all have extensive training on Diesel engines, some of which transfers over to electric, but some doesn't. Any employee you poach from another road because he's got decades of experience you can;t get from a fresh-faced college kid has that experience with diesels. There are virtually no North American vendors selling electric motive power. The fact that government doesn't support railroads anymore means this won't change. It's not like the bond market would actually give a rail executive enough money to electrify all his track, re-train his mechanics, etc. just because he thinks it will pay off in 25 years.

      Speed of any kind is expensive. It leads to wear on mechanical parts, which need to be replaced more often. It requires higher grades of track. Accidents (mostly derailments) are worse because you have more momentum at greater speeds; which in turn means your insurance rates go up. And if you're a transportation company in a country that pays jet pilots $20k, still has a postal monopoly that delivers to every house in the country within a week, and also has multiple package companies that pride themselves on doing it tomorrow, there just isn't much demand for fast freight. So instead of investing money in figuring out how to get your locomotives to break 100 MPH, you invest money in reliability at 30 MPH. If your double tracks are only running 150% of the trains of your single tracks you don't invest money in marketing to get them up to capacity, you invest money in increasing your single tracks capacity so that you can tear up the double-track and stop maintaining it.

    3. Re:This happened monday by ebno-10db · · Score: 1

      I have seen railroads in both the US and in Europe ... many of the railroads in the US are really lagging behind when it comes to capacity, reliability and safety measures.

      It's true that passenger rail service is much better in Europe, but for freight it's the exact opposite. Many people, European and American, don't realize that because mostly they see passenger trains. For all the integration of passenger train service, there are still compatibility problems between different European countries in freight service. The fancy railways are almost entirely passenger service. How much freight does the TGV carry?

      The US moves a much larger percentage of its freight by rail than Europe. People don't even see much of that rail network because a lot of it runs through large but thinly populated parts of the country, using different rights-of-way than the roads.

    4. Re:This happened monday by miller701 · · Score: 2

      I grew a block and a half from that line that goes through Casselton ND and have lived most of my life within a mile of it, It's one of the main lines from Chicago to Seattle and there's trains about every 20 minutes. There is a derailment around Casselton about every 15 years or so (usually there's no giant fireballs).

      I think this story gets attention from the right who want to criticize the environmentalists delaying the XL pipeline expansion. Other criticisms fall on Warren Buffet/Berkshire Hathaway who is/are major investors in BNSF and stand to lose a lot of money if it gets expanded.

      The horribly tragic story from Canada last year is still fresh in some people's minds. I listen to CBC radio at night and the story is much worse than just the explosion & deaths; the chemicals were so nasty people couldn't go back to their homes, bodies could not be recovered. That seemed to be a completely avoidable incident.

      There was a big stink about 20 years ago about BNSF not wanting to slow down for the residents in Casselton, but residents complained that when they go through at full speed the vibrations actually break windows. I've had to live with the effects of BN/BNSF most of my life. It took years of work and negotiations to get Fargo ND/Moorhead MN whistle free but the side effect was fewer crossings. There's also the effect of the Dilworth MN switching yards causing unnecessary traffic stoppages in Moorhead (Train starts moving west, sets off the sensors that trigger the traffic lights to go into a special mode; Trains slows/stops/reverses direction before it reaches the intersection).

      I realize that both Casselton and Fargo/Moorhead wouldn't be where they are without the railroad going through it, but I have to deal with its existence pretty much every day.

      Does anyone else have a similar story?

    5. Re:This happened monday by mysidia · · Score: 1

      Apparently only one of the trains belonged to a major carrier which can afford the latest safety equipment.

      There you go.... the government should ban operation of any train without the latest safety equipment.

    6. Re:This happened monday by R3d+M3rcury · · Score: 1

      I live about 90 Km SE of Fargo

      Why?

    7. Re:This happened monday by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because major urban areas are full of douchebags that ask questions like that.

    8. Re:This happened monday by miller701 · · Score: 1

      Because it's Lakes Country. It's actually quite nice, peaceful. I'd say unspoiled, but for that you need to go to the Canadian Border:

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

    9. Re:This happened monday by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      make that diesel electric

  4. Railway to 2014 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Remember, the ride never ends...

  5. Where was the dispatcher? by buss_error · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Ordinarily tracks next to a derailed train are closed, being considered unsafe until a track inspector or officer OKs it's use.

    --
    Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.
    1. Re:Where was the dispatcher? by NicBenjamin · · Score: 1

      According to the article only one of the trains belonged to BNSF.

      I would not be surprised to find out that the other train belonged to one of the short lines that takes over routes that big lines can't afford to run profitably. They manage to pull it off by running with decades-old equipment, which means that the safety equipment is decades-old, and the engineer (who is being paid less then he'd make at the big line) is expected to be so good he makes up for that. That's pretty much what happened with that Quebec incident.

    2. Re:Where was the dispatcher? by antdude · · Score: 1

      FYI, it's = it is/has. ;)

      --
      Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
  6. Deregulation = by Tablizer · · Score: 1

    Business is booming!

  7. This is old news... they're already back at home by iONiUM · · Score: 1

    As per CNN: http://www.cnn.com/2014/01/01/us/north-dakota-train-fire/, the people have been given an all clear and returned home... this happened a long time ago.. why is it being posted now?

  8. Re:Stupid unnecessary consequences by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It is up to private property owners ( or supposed to be ) whether to let oil pipeline through their property, not up to govt.

    Go go gadget government! http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/texas-judge-rules-in-favor-of-transcanada-in-eminent-domain-case/2012/08/23/87744776-ecda-11e1-a80b-9f898562d010_story.html http://www.businessweek.com/news/2013-09-27/keystone-pipeline-eminent-domain-foes-seek-nebraska-court-order http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/08/26/oklahoma-keystone-pipeline-tar-sands_n_937748.html http://www.washingtonpost.com/keystone-xl-pipeline-is-issue-of-property-rights-for-some-ranchers/2012/07/27/gJQAqlQgDX_story.html http://leg.mt.gov/content/Committees/Interim/2011-2012/EQC/Meeting-Documents/January-2012/public-uses-eminent-domain.pdf

    Kansas is excluded because Keystone XL uses the existing Keystone segment for that state, but I'm willing to assume that they had the government come and turn out people who didn't want their farms and ranches divided in half by a pipeline back when that was built too. God forbid they spend the extra few bucks to make the pipe go along property lines.

  9. Re:Stupid unnecessary consequences by MobSwatter · · Score: 2

    Don't forget the crony capitalist resistance from the railroad to the construction of the pipeline in order to prevent loss of revenue.

  10. WMD on credit cabalist steal our babys breath by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    stealing from (our kids') the future is so advanced we cannot even detect it? free the innocent stem cells,,, we'll all feel better fast,,, thanks mom(s)

  11. Can't Plan For What You Don't Know by rueger · · Score: 3, Interesting

    One problem is that the trains go through small towns with volunteer fire departments, not well schooled in handling a derailment and explosion.

    More importantly, the towns through which these trains travel aren't told what's being shipped through them. Even after Lac Megantic the Canadian government is doing everything possible to allow rail companies to not provide prior details of dangerous cargo being shipped by rail.

    1. Re:Can't Plan For What You Don't Know by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For major rail lines you might see 20-30 trains a day with over a hundred cars per train. "They" (presumably the rail road lines) would need to make available that data to every fire department along the (many different) lines that each car might traverse. In general unless all of those fire departments hired new staff to collect and collate all the bills of lading nothing would actually ever be done with that information. Generally several hundreds of millions of rail cars are shipped every year WITHOUT incident. And you now want to have several hundred fire departments along each of those shipments process some paper for an effective benefit of what? (Think several hundreds of millions times several hundreds of fire deparments for each car!)

      The cars are labelled and in most cases the fire departments can quickly determine the range of product that might be inside and should be able to deal with it. Trying to shuffle through some paper back at the office won't help the process much.

    2. Re:Can't Plan For What You Don't Know by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      More often than not, city councils are filled with retards.

      A recent ice storm caused havoc in Toronto with 1/4+ million locations had no power and many had no power for around a week. Wacko environmentalists made it virtually impossible to trim trees and/or cut them down in their advanced age and/or deceased state -- so every storm that comes through results in extensive power outages due to branches & trees falling on power lines. Very often it is lack of thought to the consequences of extreme "environmentalist" laws & by-laws.

      To add insult to injury a not-too-bright premier dynamited clean coal generating plants (that had the latest in pollution control systems) in favour of windmills that typically run at 3% capacity. Yes $20 billion spent on windmills, where money could have been spent on updating infrastructure and/or burying main feeder lines in the cities instead of having them exposed to falling trees. $20 billion could have gone a very long way to implement upgrades.

      To add insult to injury, several of the destroyed coal generating plants were to be replaced with gas powered plants placed in the middle of heavily populated areas -- during the licensing portion the government ignored the local people and moved forward -- when faced with an election loss, they cancelled the power plants in the last week of the election at a cost of $1.1 billion to the taxpayers.

      It was political interference in the government owned power companies that resulted in retarded decisions being made with expensive consequences and much worse service.

    3. Re:Can't Plan For What You Don't Know by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      For major rail lines you might see 20-30 trains a day with over a hundred cars per train. "They" (presumably the rail road lines) would need to make available that data to every fire department along the (many different) lines that each car might traverse.

      The railroads already have that data. An RSS or XML feed could make it available to those who need it (securely, of course, because we wouldn't want everyone to know what is moving where). Hell, they could even make alerts available to the local fire companies & fire departments when specific types of materials are going to be going through their towns.

    4. Re:Can't Plan For What You Don't Know by djmurdoch · · Score: 1

      Wacko environmentalists made it virtually impossible to trim trees and/or cut them down in their advanced age and/or deceased state

      That's an interesting twist on it. I would have said it was budget cutters who decimated the urban forestry budget. The trees on private land were in much better shape than the ones on public land.

    5. Re:Can't Plan For What You Don't Know by djmurdoch · · Score: 3, Informative

      The cars are labelled and in most cases the fire departments can quickly determine the range of product that might be inside and should be able to deal with it.

      In the case of the Lac Megantic accident, the cars were labelled to be less volatile than they really were. If they had been correctly labelled, maybe someone would have objected to leaving the train unmanned at the top of a hill on the main line overnight.

    6. Re:Can't Plan For What You Don't Know by swb · · Score: 1

      The population of Casselton, ND is 2500.

      In a town that size, who, exactly, is going to be keeping track of what runs on the tracks through town? I would wager that the entire fire department is a volunteer operation.

      There's some chance that the chief is a full-time employee (Devil's Lake, where my wife is from, has a paid chief and a couple of salaried employees, but they're also a town of nearly 8,000 people), but I would bet they are all-volunteer and rely on nearby Fargo for anything beyond a car fire or grandma burning a batch of cookies.

      Even if they somehow had the resources to keep track of everything remotely hazardous on every train, what are they going to do for the labor and equipment to deal with it should they need to? It's not like they have a budget capable of supplying them with millions of dollars worth of equipment and trained personnel at ready 24/7.

    7. Re:Can't Plan For What You Don't Know by NicBenjamin · · Score: 1

      If I had to guess, I'd assume that the actual town of Casselton has two employees. A full-time cop, and a part-time cop for when the full-time guy is on vacation. So they probably don't even have a guy who could read all the reports from the rail companies about every train.

      What they probably actually want is for their volunteer fire Chief to be able to read the report when something goes wrong. Then he'll know what his guys are getting into, and he knows if he should call the Governor for reinforcements.

      I have no idea if the volunteer Fire Chief actually has the time to learn enough to digest all the info that's in the report, but small town governments don't actually have much to do except bitch about might-bes, and in a state like ND the governor's job is to make small towns happy, so they'll get their reports eventually.

    8. Re: Can't Plan For What You Don't Know by kenh · · Score: 1

      Of course, their over-reliance on above ground power lines that can be knocked over by trees in the first place couldn't be to blame, could it?

      Trees don't take out high tension power lines, trees take out neighborhood and individual power feeds to buildings...

      --
      Ken
    9. Re:Can't Plan For What You Don't Know by Bing+Tsher+E · · Score: 1

      Perhaps the 'fix' for the problem, then, is for there to be less public land. Clearly the private landholders take better care and the trees in better condition than some paid bureaucrat in an office in the state Capital.

    10. Re:Can't Plan For What You Don't Know by djmurdoch · · Score: 1

      Sure, and they could charge tolls to fix the potholes in the streets, too.

    11. Re:Can't Plan For What You Don't Know by Overzeetop · · Score: 3, Insightful

      (securely, of course, because we wouldn't want everyone to know what is moving where)

      Wait...why? This is a commercial shipment. It's not the old west where we have regular train robberies. There's no reason why the DOT hazard designation and classes can't be accessible. Except, of course, the people who go cray when you try and ship tankers of hazardous materials through their back yards. Best not to let them know or they might make a stink about it.

      --
      Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
    12. Re:Can't Plan For What You Don't Know by Kilo+Kilo · · Score: 1

      The Fire Dept's ignorance is their own fault. I can't speak for BNSF, but I have gone through training with CSX and Norfolk Southern. Both of those companies spend a lot of their own money to educate local FD's. There are tons of free training opportunities out there that most small FD's avoid because of the "can't happen here" mentality.

      Yes, the Smallville-Rural Volunteer Fire Company might not be equipped to deal with dozens of derailed crude tank cars, but that doesn't mean that they can get off burying their heads in the sand. Even if your plan is, "secure the scene, call for better equipped organizations," you need to practice that. You need to do the drill for the once-a-decade event. Obviously you don't need to make it your priority, but you need to have a plan and practice it.

      These kinds of incidents need to be wake up calls. Any time we don't learn from these disasters, we just guarantee that the next time it happens it will be worse instead of better.

    13. Re:Can't Plan For What You Don't Know by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      One problem is that the trains go through small towns with volunteer fire departments, not well schooled in handling a derailment and explosion.

      More importantly, the towns through which these trains travel aren't told what's being shipped through them. Even after Lac Megantic the Canadian government is doing everything possible to allow rail companies to not provide prior details of dangerous cargo being shipped by rail.

      Because if it's publicly known, the "terrorists" could choose to target the shipments.

    14. Re:Can't Plan For What You Don't Know by ebno-10db · · Score: 1

      Don't disturb his paranoid fantasies about civilization being destroyed by "wacko environmentalists". Next he may start talking about "enviro-terrorists". After that, Sasquatch. The entertainment is priceless.

    15. Re:Can't Plan For What You Don't Know by miller701 · · Score: 1

      Then he'll know what his guys are getting into, and he knows if he should call the Governor for reinforcements.

      I have no idea if the volunteer Fire Chief actually has the time to learn enough to digest all the info that's in the report, but small town governments don't actually have much to do except bitch about might-bes, and in a state like ND the governor's job is to make small towns happy, so they'll get their reports eventually.

      Strangely enough, the current governor's family farmstead is a few miles east of Casselton (accident was on the west side of town). I'm sure they have his direct number.

    16. Re:Can't Plan For What You Don't Know by tlhIngan · · Score: 1

      One problem is that the trains go through small towns with volunteer fire departments, not well schooled in handling a derailment and explosion.

      More importantly, the towns through which these trains travel aren't told what's being shipped through them. Even after Lac Megantic the Canadian government is doing everything possible to allow rail companies to not provide prior details of dangerous cargo being shipped by rail.

      Firstly, to be fair to the train companies - a lot of early towns were set up along rail lines, so it's not that they intentionally ran tracks through towns - the towns either petitioned for the line to run through their town (a station in the early days brought forth a pile of tourism and was pretty much the only way in and out short of multi-day horseback). Early North America was basically ruled by the rail companies - if you didn't appease the rail boss well enough, he could simply not build a track near your town.

      Anyhow, back to the Harper Government (that's the official name). Well, Harper hails from Alberta, and no matter what it is, his heart is in Alberta (think Canadian version of Texas, with Harper as well, Bush Jr.). If the public knew what was being carried by rail, they'd petition to shut it down - Lac Megantique was probably the expected result. It could be any sort of dangerous goods and the end result is the same. It just happened that this one carried crude. But it could be chlorine gas, hydrogen sulfide (sour gas), whatever.

      As such, Harper's a guy of "sell everything, - let's make money and companies make money". Beholden to the corporations assuming that when they make money, they make jobs (which is to a basic extent, true). However, no one asked if they produce good jobs (not really) or if they're just cheaping out so the CEO can pocket another yacht in bonuses.

      Heck, Harper pretty much called every Canadian opposed to Keystone XL a traitor. (And to be honest, I would be highly surprised if Obama didn't approve it without some rather tasty kickbacks to the US - namely carbon neutrality with carbon credits purchased from the US).

  12. Re:This is old news... they're already back at hom by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    The crash happened about 36 hours before the article was posted. Hardly the definition of "a long time ago". And it's probably being posted now because it wasn't posted earlier.

  13. What can you do? by ddt · · Score: 0

    Who is John Galt?

    1. Re:What can you do? by Bing+Tsher+E · · Score: 1

      If they'd just made the rails out of Rearden metal....

    2. Re:What can you do? by ebno-10db · · Score: 1

      If they'd just made the rails out of Rearden metal....

      They'd have a railroad just as realistic as any of Ayn Rand's fantasies.

  14. Re:Stupid unnecessary consequences by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    You know a pipeline is underground, right? During construction, there's about 20 feet of right away, then it's covered by six feet of dirt and isn't seen again for 30 years and the gas company plants grass over the ROW. It's not like there'll be a highway there.

    God forbid they spend the extra few bucks to make the pipe go along property lines.

    A single 40' joint of 36" pipe is $2000+, and welders get $50+\h, and those tractors can easily burn 50 gallons of diesel a day. A large part of time isn't spent laying the actual pipe, but in tying it in, which involves using angled joints of machined pipe (very expensive) to go around things. It's not just a "extra few bucks". If you went around every 500 acre ranch then the price of a good sized pipeline would be millions more.

    And no, much of the objections from the land owners isn't from the idea of having their land divided in half, but that they want to become millionaires because their neighbor's oil well travels through their land for 3000 feet. That, or they don't like pipeliners. I can sympathize with that though, they are terrible people and I wouldn't want them near my home either.

  15. Drill Baby Drill! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Burn, Burn Baby Burn!
    Disco inferno!

  16. I'm sending in more trains! by loshwomp · · Score: 2

    At some point, another train collided with the derailed train

    I'm sending in more trains!

    1. Re:I'm sending in more trains! by wonkey_monkey · · Score: 1

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Zr3H8inpNw

      This one, at least, still has the right words.

      --
      systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
  17. Re:This is old news... they're already back at hom by NicBenjamin · · Score: 1

    Slashdot frequently has a day or so lag between interesting things happening and them being posted.

  18. Major evacuation plans underway by Dogtanian · · Score: 1

    I hope they're not going to have to evacuate the *whole* of North Dakota- the congestion caused by three or four busloads of people would be awful.

    Besides which, the South Dakota village hall doesn't have enough space to hold them all.

    --
    "Slashdot - News and Chat Sites Deviant". (Click "homepage" link above for details).
  19. How volatile is crude oil? by swb · · Score: 1

    Apparently quite when you run into it with a train, but for some reason I would have thought that crude oil was ultimately flammable with high enough ignition temperatures or in the presence of an accelerant capable of burning alongside it but generally difficult to ignite.

    I would think that it would be hard to get it to ignite, especially in the winter when the temperature of the crude would be pretty close to the ambient air temperature. The low temperature for three days prior to the accident in nearby Fargo was between -12F and -19F and the highest temperature two days prior was 2F.

    1. Re:How volatile is crude oil? by rmdingler · · Score: 1
      Depends on the quality of the crude oil. Crude's desirability, indeed its market value, depends on its API (specific) gravity.

      Crude such as North Sea Brent has a high API gravity & viscosity, is considered sweet (low sulphur) and is more flammable.

      Crude from the Alberta tar sands (bitumen) is low in API gravity, worth less commercially, is sour (more sulphur), and way less flammable.

      --
      Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.

      Ernest Hemingway

  20. Re:Shouldn't need oil period by ganjadude · · Score: 1

    im not sure if this is an excellent troll, or just a brain dead moron

    --
    have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
  21. As someone who grew up in a railroad family... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    As someone who grew up in a railroad family, I will tell you that this year is just an outlier. I know the guy who owned the Canadian railroad that had the explosion that killed people. Ed use to own a railroad called the WC. WC had an accident in Wisconsin and the railroad did everything in its power to take care of the he town. Short of this year and the many years ago in the WC, I do not recall major catastrophes of this scale. As a kid, I remember reading the FRA yearly accident reviews and this year is an anomaly.

    I would point out two facts:
    1. Trains carry a lot more hazardous chemicals than oil. If a single tank car broke open in the Chicao hump yard, a shit load more people would be killed if that tank car was full of chlorine.. Trains do not have regs on how many cars of what types have to be on trains. Trains have ALWAYS carried caustic chemicals, just because you did not know of this risk does not mean it was not there and you lived with it just fine.

    2. Trains are a LOT safer than other modes of transportation. You are not going to ship chlorine by pipeline. You are not going to ship all of the other hazardous non-chlorine stuff by any other non-existent pipeline. The railroad industry's tonnage by miles driven safety numbers are well beyond pipelines, cars or trucks. Let us not forget, pipeline spills hurt water supplies that can cause cancer. IOW, just comparing raw deaths to impacts of pipelines are not apples to apples comparisons.

    IOW, quit equating this to an oil problem because it is not.

    There is a movement to take trains to use positive train control. Look it up if you do not know what that is. However, even that is a pain in the ass. The FCC is requiring the railroads to get individual transmitter tower permits even though the railroads need -11,000- towers to cover the man thousands of miles of tracks they have. IOW, your safety is impaired by a lot more than just oil cars.

    1. Re:As someone who grew up in a railroad family... by dj245 · · Score: 1

      As someone who grew up in a railroad family, I will tell you that this year is just an outlier.

      Too soon to tell about the North Dakota one, but the accident on the Maine/Canadian border was an accident waiting to happen. I lived in Maine for 22 years. Back in the 1950/60s, rail had its day. The roads were nonexistent or in very poor shape. The interstate wouldn't come until the mid-late 1970s. 1 entire potato harvest was ruined due to the train cars running out of fuel for the heaters/chillers, and the farmers switched from rail to truck transportation. The last Canadian passenger train crossing through Maine (a shortcut to New Brunswick) was in the 1980s. In the past 20 years the trend for the forestry industry is toward Canadian lumber and Chinese paper, so that traffic is gone too. Maine railways had bankruptcy after bankruptcy, leaving hundreds of miles of abandoned track. You can look at the rail crossings and see that they aren't maintained very well. I saw a lot of empty flatbeds and boxcars. Traffic on most of the lines is low so the companies are cash-strapped and the rails don't get inspected as much. Safety in industry in Maine is, in general, lacking also. There are too many desperate people who are afraid of losing their job or bringing even more economic challenges to their company. Maine doesn't see a lot of industrial accidents so people have let their guard down. It is really a wonder to me this didn't happen sooner.

      I've seen rail in other areas of the country including the Northeast Corridor, the Midwest, and in Nebraska, and the difference is night and day. Rail in those areas looks reasonably-well cared for. Traffic is high enough that tracks get multiple trains per day and have more eyes on them. Many states do rail the way that it should be done. Maine is not one of those states.

      --
      Even those who arrange and design shrubberies are under considerable economic stress at this period in history.
  22. Re: Stupid unnecessary consequences by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That would be Warren Buffet. He owns the Rail lines that the pipeline oil would cease to be hauled on.

    Fucker would rather we focus on how much tax his secretary pays.

    He doesn't fellate Obama. It's the other way around.

  23. Two things... by kenh · · Score: 1

    Though railroads have sharply improved their safety in recent years, moving oil on tank cars is still only about half as safe as in pipelines, according to Eric Smith, associate director of the Tulane University Energy Institute. 'You can make the argument that the pipeline fights have forced the industry to revert to rail that is less safe,' says Smith.

    Well, duh. Refusing to build pipelines hasn't caused oil production to be capped, the increased supply has simply found alternative paths to market that are less safe...

    One problem is that the trains go through small towns with volunteer fire departments, not well schooled in handling a derailment and explosion.

    Wait, is the problem what the firemen do on e the oil train derails and bursts into flames OR that the oil train derails and bursts into flame? Seems to me that the training of the firemen in the town when the trai derails makes very little difference: their training won't prevent derailments or other accidents with trains, and the firemen are not 'on the scene' when the accident happens - their training and professional status has very little to do with anything.

    --
    Ken
    1. Re:Two things... by Overzeetop · · Score: 1

      Exactly - the problem isn't that the firemen aren't prepared or that pipelines aren't available - it's that the train companies are so unbelievably lax in their safety requirements and testing that they cause catastrophes when their "usual and customary" business practices of crashing on a regular basis with non-volatiles gets used for volatile shipments. Besides, pipelines take a long time to actually build and have collateral damage which is not as immediately spectacular as a train explosion, so it's not like a pipeline is some magic fix.

      --
      Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
    2. Re:Two things... by mysidia · · Score: 1

      when their "usual and customary" business practices of crashing on a regular basis with non-volatiles gets used for volatile shipments.

      Yes.... you do realize the railroads carry a lot of "non-volatile" hazardous industrial chemicals, many that are highly flammable or explosive -- and many that are likely to be released in a derailment -- and in sufficient quantities to cause immediate threat of death upon inhalation for large populations --- materials, such as Chlorine gas, Anhydrous Ammonia, Hydrogen Cyanide gas/Sodium Cyanide/Potassium Cyanide, Sulfudr Dioxide, Sodium hydroxide, Vinyl Chloride, lube oils, Sodium Chlorate, Phthalic anhydride, Ethanol, Nitrous Oxide ?

  24. I live within driving distance, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    gonna go check it out later. I know the evacuated the town to within 10 miles because of the massive cloud of smoke.

    1. Re:I live within driving distance, by miller701 · · Score: 1

      Maybe I'll see you there!

  25. Re: Stupid unnecessary consequences by kenh · · Score: 1

    The real issue with the Keystone XL pipeline is that it crosses an international border, allowing the Federal government to play an over-sized role in the approval process. Were this a truly domestic pipeline, the impacted states would be the decision makers... Once federal land or national borders are crossed, the Feds take over, and it's much easier for the anti-pipeline groups to petition the federal government than a handful of individual states.

    --
    Ken
  26. Re:Stupid unnecessary consequences by ebno-10db · · Score: 1

    Don't forget the crony capitalist resistance from the railroad to the construction of the pipeline in order to prevent loss of revenue.

    Do you know for a fact that this is a serious factor? There's lots of crony capitalism in the US, but I haven't heard of railroads trying to stop pipelines.

  27. Mod parent up! by ebno-10db · · Score: 1

    It seems like Slashdot mods are becoming worse censors by the day, trying to hide any opinion they don't agree with.

    I completely disagree with the PP, which is an extreme libertarian PoV. However, it's not a troll or flamebait in any way. I was going to tell him just how wrong he is, but instead find myself complaining about the fact that in order for a non-AC poster to get a -1, he had to have been modded down by at least 2 points.

    1. Re:Mod parent up! by cusco · · Score: 1

      I might be wrong, but I think roman_mir has been downmodded so many times he posts at 0 to start with, so it would only take one moderator.

      It would have been a waste of electrons anyway, he's of the opinion that absolutely everything on the planet should have a private owner, up to and including the fucking Great Lakes (really). He probably thinks the same about the oceans as well, although I haven't seen him explicitly say that. His solution to any issue that might have to do with the concept of the Commons is private ownership and thundering herds of lawyers suing everyone on the planet. He's quite a fanatic about it.

      --
      "Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
    2. Re:Mod parent up! by ebno-10db · · Score: 1

      It would have been a waste of electrons anyway, he's of the opinion that ...

      I think his opinion is, to put it nicely, ridiculous. So what? I don't know about roman_mir in particular, but I see a lot of this downmodding of posts that are clearly not trolls or flamebait.

  28. A plethora of conspiracy fodder by RogueWarrior65 · · Score: 1

    So let's see here. One could posit that the tracks or the rolling stock were intentionally damaged to cause the derailment because the environmentalists are hell bent on casting a dark shadow on fossil fuels. One could also posit that the derailment was created by people who are are trying to encourage the completion of the Keystone pipeline. One could also look to see if anyone shorted BNSF stock. One could also posit that sh*t happens no matter who is doing what even though there is plenty of regulation in place with the goal being to create more expensive bureaucracy and paperwork that translates to more people to be employed doing nothing productive.

    Drill local. It's organic and free-range too.

    1. Re:A plethora of conspiracy fodder by mysidia · · Score: 1

      So let's see here. One could posit that the tracks or the rolling stock were intentionally damaged to cause the derailment because the environmentalists are hell bent on casting a dark shadow on fossil fuels.

      This is unlikely.... the tracks are fairly robust, and attempts to damage them would likely be detected and set off alarms and alert the railroad security patrols, resulting in the perpetrator being quickly apprehended, and tossed in jail with the felony charge of trespassing on railroad property.

    2. Re:A plethora of conspiracy fodder by RogueWarrior65 · · Score: 1

      The rolling stock could also be rigged. And long-range wireless transmitters are a dime a dozen these days.

  29. Re:Stupid unnecessary consequences by couchslug · · Score: 1

    Then anyone could hold the rest of the nation hostage and block development.
    The deaths and injuries from both pipeline and rail accidents are trivial compared to the enormous national benefit of the rail and pipeline systems which were built largely by granting rights of way and could not be done affordably any other way.
    Ideals are adorable but often the greater good is attained by making practical choices.
    ANY transportation choice has casualties, including tens of thousands dead each year from auto crashes. Even that rate is trivial in a nation of over 300 million people.

    --
    "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
  30. 100% agree! by p51d007 · · Score: 0

    Should have used the pipeline, but thanks to Warren Buffet striking a deal with his buddy Obama, he talked him into canceling the pipeline, in return for a HUGE campaign donation, it all goes by rail & truck...via WARREN BUFFET's own rail system.

    1. Re:100% agree! by cusco · · Score: 1

      Most of the Keystone Pipeline is already in operation, another portion is being built. The only part currently being blocked is the portion that would bring Alberta Tar Sands product to the Gulf Coast, which is not what this train was carrying anyway. Face it, that portion of the pipeline is a retarded idea anyway, the Canucks should be refining it nearby rather than sending it several thousand kilometers away for refining. The only reason they wanted that portion of the pipeline is because oil company executives are so resistant to investing in new infrastructure with more than a 3 year payback (why would they spend that money if it will reduce the value of their stock options when they hop to another job, after all?)

      --
      "Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
  31. eminent domain by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Has anyone ever heard of a railroad taking someone's land via eminent domain? I have not. This seems to be a big part of the problem with pipelines.

    1. Re:eminent domain by innerweb · · Score: 1

      The railroads did exactly that in many cases when they were first laid down.

      --
      Freud might say that Intelligent Design is religion's ID.
    2. Re:eminent domain by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're high.

  32. Re:Oil Executives by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The Oil Executives are to stupid to create the "KeyStone XL Pipeline", don't hold your breath!

  33. Re:Compete with SOLAR by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Oil supporters seem to me like Nuke supporters,Bring It On!

  34. Dilbit is corrosive, abrasive, toxic. by hoboroadie · · Score: 1

    If you want to pipe it through my yard,*
      fuck you.
    I suppose its important to some folks that we continue the quest for global desertification through carbon augmentation, but I can do without that, as well.
    * The Enbridge Northern Gateway will run through my yard, so I reiterate, FUCK YOU.

    --
    They feared that it could be used to suppress protest or support unpopular rule.
    1. Re:Dilbit is corrosive, abrasive, toxic. by rally2xs · · Score: 1

      So, pioneers in covered wagons risked Indian attack, deadly bad weather, rain-swollen streams, and so forth to build this country, but you can't possible stand a pipeline in your yard to further the country's competitiveness and prosperity, eh?

    2. Re:Dilbit is corrosive, abrasive, toxic. by hoboroadie · · Score: 1

      I bought that property as a refuge from the collapsing climate, I'd rather not participate in causing that failure.

      --
      They feared that it could be used to suppress protest or support unpopular rule.
    3. Re:Dilbit is corrosive, abrasive, toxic. by rally2xs · · Score: 1

      There is no collapsing climate, the earth is just fine, the global warming nonsense is a fraud. Come out and enjoy the sunshine.

    4. Re:Dilbit is corrosive, abrasive, toxic. by hoboroadie · · Score: 1

      Well, seeing as I am not enjoying the "not collapsing" East Coast climate, today I will.

      --
      They feared that it could be used to suppress protest or support unpopular rule.
  35. Pipeline evacuation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Oil trains. People evacuated. Lives upset.
    Chlorine trains. People evacuated. Lives upset.
    Chemical trains. People evacuated. Lives upset.
    Nuclear waste trains. No evacuations. Activists upset.
    We are worrying about the wrong things.

  36. Railroads run cheap by danbuter · · Score: 1

    The main problem is that the railways are now run as profit. Many companies have been bought out by a few large companies (similar to the banks), and when that happened, a LOT of experienced railroad employees were fired. They were replaced with inexperienced people who get paid a lot less, but also make dumb mistakes. The fact that this was an oil shipment means little. They are actually pretty lucky, because a lot of rail cars carry industrial amounts of poison gases. THAT would have caused a lot more problems than an oil spill.

  37. Re:Stupid unnecessary consequences by ebno-10db · · Score: 1

    Wow. Talk about a tenuous implication (to put it as politely as possible).

  38. Loud Buzzer! No Points. by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

    Fundamental error in one part of OP raises serious credibility issues in all of OP.

    A tanker did not just "roll downhill"!!!

    From the Bakken offices in ND to Lac-Megantic QC is 1,939 miles!

    Pretty big fucking hill.

  39. Ugh by Velex · · Score: 1

    Looks like there's nothing but partisan hacks who can't comprehend anything more complicated than a 5 word sound byte in this discussion.

    Let me summarize what I just read, even as implied in TFA. Obama and anyone who opposed the Keystone XL pipeline are at fault for the explosion and not the rail company.

    Because it's impossible to improve rail safety. Because it's impossible to address the concerns raised about the Keystone XL pipeline. Because from what I can gather big oil has decided to throw a temper trantrum because they didn't get the instant gratification of having *their* way *now* and many of our right-wing authoritarian members here are in full "authoritarian aggression" mode carrying out that temper tantrum.

    Why, in this day and age of information technology and satellite tracking systems, do we have trains colliding with each other AT ALL?

    Oh, I know why, because a good deal of you posting today, and you know exactly who you are, are too busy holding the POTUS and environmentalists and hippies and anybody else you don't like accountable while giving the rail company an implicit pass.

    Jeebus. Oil *will* run out some day. The shit fits some of you are having are so utterly stupid. We need to reduce our reliance on pumping crude out of the ground NOW. The best ways we have of doing that is nuclear fission and biodiesel (NOT corn, there are better ways to make the stuff--apparently an algea process or hemp if I recall are the most promising, so take your pick). Then we can still have the crude for better uses than just literally burning it up while we figure out how to replace those things with alternatives then too.

    The paranoid, outraged, partisan world some of you live in is frightening.

    I refuse to believe that in some abstract sense a species that can put one of their own on their own moon and has sent robots all over its home solar system can't tackle the problem of growing energy demands and dwindling supply of the easiest energy source available. Thank goodness we live in a world where crude oil from the ground isn't the only energy source and when it's gone it doesn't need to be all over, go back an live in caves! Thank goodness there are other ways! However, take that same species, convince them they're all "temporarily embarassed millionaires" and then pit them against each other on issues as asinine as how to get something safely from point A to point B and then convince them that if their side doesn't win, they'll never be millionaires again!, then we are headed straight for another dark age.

    And this shit is only gonna get worse in 2014, isn't it? At least maybe in a few years I'll be able to buy some cannabis downtown so I can just tune all this shit out and be happy and drugged (no, not all of us who are interested in using it know where to get it).

    --
    Join the Slashcott! Stay away entirely Feb 10 thru Feb 17! Close all tabs to prevent autorefresh!
  40. Can we get the fucking pipelines approved already? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Jeez.

  41. Has the price of gasoline gone up yet? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Has the worldwide price of gasoline shot up yet in response to this major loss of crude supply?

  42. Basically... by TobyMacdonnell · · Score: 1

    Basically we should stop digging for oil! :-\

  43. We were stuck on eastbound Amtrak Empire Builder by theoldmoose · · Score: 1

    We were on the eastbound Amtrak Empire Builder (runs from Seattle to Chicago in two days), and found out the evening of the derailment when we reached Minot, ND. All eastbound passengers that were to get off between Minot and Grand Forks were removed from the train, and bused to their destinations. They were the lucky ones.

    Since we were ticketed through to Minneapolis, we were told to stay on the train, while it was re-routed SE directly towards Fargo. The idea was that BNSF was routing all eastbound traffic east of Minot directly through Fargo, and all westbound traffic from Fargo via Grand Forks and the northern tier (which is the normal Amtrak Empire Builder route) to lessen two-way congestion on those segments of the rail lines.

    This worked OK until we found ourselves about 30 miles northwest of Fargo (not on the same rails as the derailment, which was due west of Fargo) behind two freight trains that ran out of time for their crews, due to their detour from their regular route along the northern tier. There is a hard and fast and apparently completely unbreakable rule that requires crews to park their train when they reach 12 hours, even if the train is on the main line, and will block all trains behind it. There they will sit, until a relief crew can reach them by car. Sometimes the only available relief crew must come from their original relief station, which may be hundreds of miles away. In the meantime, everyone else on the line behind them can simply just pound sand, including a passenger train filled with 300 passengers. If the freights could have run just a half-hour longer, they would have reached the Fargo yards, and we could have proceeded. It occurs to me that there should be some means of allowing 'bending the rules' in extraordinary circumstances, but I realize that permission to do so would have to come 'from the top', say the Secretary of Transportation, otherwise there could be all sorts of abuses.

    So we sat all night, waiting for the two freights to get their relief crews. The outside temperature was well below zero, and there had been recent snow, not conducive for anyone attempting to travel the roads in the area. I bet you can guess the next issue -- yep, our crew was about to 'expire'. So we backed up about 10 miles at about 10 miles an hour to a convenient US highway crossing, and waited for our relief crew to come from, you guessed it, St. Cloud, MN, which was almost all the way to Minneapolis on the far side of Fargo.

    So, after a long wait, we were finally under way, but we were told that for some reason (supposedly something to do with the track conditions) we were not allowed to proceed any faster than 10 miles an hour all the way to Fargo, a distance of some 30 miles. Another 3 hours go by, and we arrive in Fargo now about 12 hours late. The train proceeds to serve lunch, since it had provisions for all the way to Chicago, which it normally arrives by mid- to late-afternoon. In spite of Fargo being a 'service' stop, they DO NOT TAKE ON ANY PROVISIONS. In fact, the only time the Empire Builder takes on provisions is in Seattle and Chicago, carrying everything they need for the two day trip. The only other thing they do on 'service stops' is to drain the black tanks on the cars, and take on water, and fuel the engines. So you can guess the next thing that happens on a train that is running more than 12 hours late -- they start to run out of food. More about that later.

    So, after leaving Fargo, we get all the way to Moorhead, MN, which is only a couple miles east of Fargo, when we stop again, and the announcement this time is that our whistle is broken. That means that we can only go at 10 miles an hour (maybe this is the reason for the slow trip into Fargo, but that was never explained as being related to a broken whistle). So, the plan was to wait for a freight engine to arrive, hook to the front of our train, and then use the freight engine's whistle. After waiting another hour or so, some bright guy with a blow torch managed to thaw

  44. What about DilBit? by hoboroadie · · Score: 1

    I heard the Kalamazoo Disaster was related to pushing asphalt through a pipe built for oil.
    Sounded like a bad idea that required an MBA to engineer.

    --
    They feared that it could be used to suppress protest or support unpopular rule.