Exploring Hydrocarbon Depletion
Paulo1 wrote: is it suppose to go through Kluane Natl. Park? Down the Whitepass? We're talking rugged country.
ROCKMAN wrote:Rollin - ...can involve new trackage " So far it seems the great majority of the infrastructure expansion has been expanding the terminals. Hooking up unit trains wasn't a problem but unloading 200 tankers in a few hours was the hang up. As I understand the process it involves installing piping that allowed many tankers to be unloaded simultaneously and adding the bulk tankage. Compared to the time and cost factors I gather it's a much easier option. I haven't heard anything yet about laying new track or difficulties with scheduling runs. Perhaps some additional sidings.
Why stop in Alaska:Plantagenet wrote:There is a new proposal afoot to ship Canadian tight oil and tar sands oil to Asia via a rail connection through Alaska.
A new idea is to build a rail link into central Alaska to connect with the trans-Alaska pipeline. The pipeline is already built and oil terminal infrastructure already exists at Valdez. The rail right-of-way can follow the existing Alaska Highway and connect the Canadian rail system to the Alaska rail system.
ROCKMAN wrote:Rose : " I sure hope that if any expansion of transporting oil by rail happens". It's already happened: 2008: 9700 rail car loads. 2012: 235,000 rail car loads. And according to the DOT spillage per mile transported for pipelines was about 3X greater for pipelines than for rail during 2008-2012. OTOH the only way to ensure zero rail spills is to never transport oil by train.
rollin wrote:Another oil train disaster, this time burning in Alabama.
http://www.latimes.com/nation/nationnow ... z2kGFVvSxD
WildRose wrote:so many people living just blocks away from rail lines.
Users browsing this forum: Google Adsense [Bot], nocar and 21 guests