On Thu, 22 Jan 2015 04:32:14 -0600, Boating All Out
wrote:

In article ,
says...


Probably is less environmentally dangerous. Depends on how many spills
come from the pipeline, and how big they are.
BTW, TransCanada is going for eminent domain to grab the land needed.
That should go over real good. I can see the headlines.
"Canada Oil Company Grabs American Farmers' Land - GOP Says It's Okay."

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2015/01/2...firm-heads-to-
court-to.html

If you look at spills per million barrels, pipe is by far the safest.

Talking about spills, not even close to true according to this.
http://tinyurl.com/old9pph

"The association has published a battery of statistics to show pipelines
have more and bigger spills than rail operators. It estimates railroads
spill just 0.38 gallons for every million barrel-miles of crude moved,
compared with an estimated spill rate of 0.88 gallons on the pipeline
network."

===

Quoted from the article:

-------------
Which method of transport is "safer" depends on whether the object is
to minimise the number of spills (in which case pipelines have the
advantage) or their size when they do occur (in which case rail
freight is better).

Pipelines are very safe but they move enormous volumes of crude oil
and other liquids under considerable pressure, so if there is a
serious rupture the potential volume of liquid released is much
higher.
--------------

Pipe lines are much less disruprive than railroads however when you
take into account things like noise, vibration, highway hazards and
delays.