5 ms·

In terms of oil transport alone it's worse. Oil is spilled at a significantly higher rate when transported by rail.

by ruste 5y ago

gnopgnip 5y ago
That doesn't mean the impact is as large
notatoad 5y ago
In addition to more oil being spilled, rail lines transit through populated places while pipelines are routed away from them. There's a rail line running right through the central business district of my town, and it's the primary route between Alberta and the Pacific ocean. I sure wish all that oil was travelling through a pipeline instead of my town.
- lupire 5y ago
  Why can't the rail be rerouted?
  - notatoad 5y ago
    because rail is used for things other than oil (the whole reason people in this thread say transporting oil by rail is better), and those things require it to be near populated places. if you build a dedicated oil railway that doesn't go anywhere populated and just goes from the oilfield to the refinery, then you've reinvented a pipeline, but worse.
kajecounterhack 5y ago
> Oil is spilled at a significantly higher rate when transported by rail. That doesn't seem to be correct. Maybe you mean spill incidence is higher when transported by rail? Table 9: https://imgur.com/a/3uIKVZc https://imgur.com/a/3uIKVZc -- this makes it very clear that total volume spilled and volume spilled per incident is far greater from pipelines. FWIW this table is from a paper that is trying to argue that pipelines are safer. But they quantify safety with the metric "how many people get hurt." In making that argument they make statements like: "The majority of incidents occur on road and rail." << duh, people are usually not around when pipelines spill. Also driving is hazardous. Also rail cars and vehicles are monitored, whereas long pipelines are not so easily monitored; some spills may not even be detected for a long time. Related physics explaining a little bit of why long pipelines are hard to build: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=msxMRwQyXI8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=msxMRwQyXI8
- ycombobreaker 5y ago
  No opinion on rail vs. pipeline transport, but I'll note that these two statements are not in disagreement: > Oil is spilled at a significantly higher rate when transported by rail. > total volume spilled and volume spilled per incident is far greater from pipelines. The oil pipelines can spill more per incident, or spill more total volume in aggregate, yet still spill at a lower _rate_ if they transport a yet-larger volume of oil compared to trains. I've noticed this on arguments for/against the Keystone pipeline: the exact same underlying numbers can be framed in terms of rates or amounts, depending on the motivation of the speaker.

In terms of oil transport alone it's worse. Oil is spilled at a significantly higher rate when transported by rail.

by ruste 5y ago

In terms of oil transport alone it's worse. Oil is spilled at a significantly higher rate when transported by rail.

gnopgnip 5y ago

That doesn't mean the impact is as large

notatoad 5y ago

In addition to more oil being spilled, rail lines transit through populated places while pipelines are routed away from them. There's a rail line running right through the central business district of my town, and it's the primary route between Alberta and the Pacific ocean. I sure wish all that oil was travelling through a pipeline instead of my town.

lupire 5y ago
Why can't the rail be rerouted?
- notatoad 5y ago
  because rail is used for things other than oil (the whole reason people in this thread say transporting oil by rail is better), and those things require it to be near populated places. if you build a dedicated oil railway that doesn't go anywhere populated and just goes from the oilfield to the refinery, then you've reinvented a pipeline, but worse.

kajecounterhack 5y ago

> Oil is spilled at a significantly higher rate when transported by rail. That doesn't seem to be correct. Maybe you mean spill incidence is higher when transported by rail? Table 9: https://imgur.com/a/3uIKVZc https://imgur.com/a/3uIKVZc -- this makes it very clear that total volume spilled and volume spilled per incident is far greater from pipelines. FWIW this table is from a paper that is trying to argue that pipelines are safer. But they quantify safety with the metric "how many people get hurt." In making that argument they make statements like: "The majority of incidents occur on road and rail." << duh, people are usually not around when pipelines spill. Also driving is hazardous. Also rail cars and vehicles are monitored, whereas long pipelines are not so easily monitored; some spills may not even be detected for a long time. Related physics explaining a little bit of why long pipelines are hard to build: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=msxMRwQyXI8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=msxMRwQyXI8

ycombobreaker 5y ago
No opinion on rail vs. pipeline transport, but I'll note that these two statements are not in disagreement: > Oil is spilled at a significantly higher rate when transported by rail. > total volume spilled and volume spilled per incident is far greater from pipelines. The oil pipelines can spill more per incident, or spill more total volume in aggregate, yet still spill at a lower _rate_ if they transport a yet-larger volume of oil compared to trains. I've noticed this on arguments for/against the Keystone pipeline: the exact same underlying numbers can be framed in terms of rates or amounts, depending on the motivation of the speaker.