The usual response, raise the taxes, which are passed on to the consumer. That always helps, right?
Oh, and let's publish all rail shipments on line, that way any terrorist group wanting to cause harm, or anti oil protestors, will have the info needed to accomplish their goals courtesy of government.
Sure we'll all feel better then, won't we?

LB

 

I don't understand why it's in the national interest to move that oil by rail to PNW refineries and thence to distribution. Wouldn't it make sense to build one or more refineries nearer the oil source, and then transport the final products to their points of use? At some point with increased oil trains, it's gonna' clog up local transportation to the point that this just isn't the most logical alternative. Not to mention that spills are not an "if", but rather a when and how many and where probability that includes spills in waterways and the impacts that attend.

 

No kidding , waiting for the train to pass is getting to be a real traffic snarler in Marysville these days.

 

Salmo_G......I wish you were in congress, but you make too much sense.......You cannot build a grass roots refinery in the USA. Chevron tried it in the early 70s and gave up after several years and millions of dollars, no one has tried it since (45 years ago)...you just cannot get a permit! The current political environment will not let you build pipelines, therefore you must ship by rail, which is more costly and dangerous. This gives the opportunity to reward your buddies if they own railroads and raise taxes, supported by both sides.....It seems you just can't win.

 

Wrong on the refinery. A new refinery was just built in ND two years ago. Although that is the first in a long long time. Another is in the works and a few others were in early planning before the bottom dropped out. The US has plenty of refining capacity. We export a lot of refined products.

 

Let me remind you that Warren Buffet bought B.N & S.F. Railroad back before anyone was talking about this. And he contributed heavily to the Obama campaigns too. Now he wants more coal and oil train terminals built here so he can ship our resources to China.

 

I thought the same when I read this. Funny how both parties are corrupt.

 

Do they prefer to have giant oil tankers cruising along the Pacific Coast from Alaska into Puget Sound? I don't mind the oil trains personally. The biggest risk is a landslide sending a train into Brown's Bay around Mukilteo. By the way, much of the oil is coming from the Bakken formation in North Dakota and Montana and is light crude.

 

It costs Saudi Arabia under $10/per barrel to extract. That's the "lifting" cost.

That's why they can hold out longer than all the other countries. When oil is around $80 - $100/barrel, they laugh all the way to the bank.

 

As a general rule, it's safer to transport crude than refined products. Refined products tend to be much more volatile (compare gasoline vs crude oil), creating a significantly higher risk of fire and/or chemical exposure in case of a spill.

 

As far as Rail roads hauling "BAD" stuff over the lands in the "USA" and the state of Washington. If your concerned about oil spills and what it might do to the lands you might want to think of the things we haul in tank cars that can kill you with one breath! If you want to worry or live by the tracks I would suggest always being clean shaved and having a respirator with you at all times! We haul "CHEMICALS" That if spilled can kill hundreds of thousands of people in a city as large as Seattle..... Oil should be the least of your concerns!!!

Sorry to hi-jack - carry on!!!

 

As far as Rail roads hauling "BAD" stuff over the lands in the "USA" and the state of Washington. If your concerned about oil spills and what it might do to the lands you might want to think of the things we haul in tank cars that can kill you with one breath!

BNSF is running up to 20 trains a week, four miles long, much of it in single walled tank cars. The numbers aren't in favor of them doing this forever without incident.​

 

The trains are typically 100 cars long ( far shorter than 4 miles), and are hauled in double walled tankers. The fact is our economy runs on oil, every trip you take to steelhead fish depends on oil ( unless you walk). We need to find other ways to do things, but for now it is a fact of life as we know it.

In the 80's there was over 300 refineries in the U.S. and today there are around 150. All the small refiners have been bought or gone out of business ( supply and demand), and the big boys like it that way.

 

I guess I could go back to riding my bicycle to my fishing holes like I did in the early 70's. The trouble is travel time to the east side would be time consuming & I'm to old to fish allen creek & Quil ceda creek is now closed to fishing. Life was a lot simpler in the 70's for me.

 

Why is it that everybody wants what oil produces. But don't want to put up with the transporting of it through their states.- You have to take the good with the bad. Oil pipelines are fine but you better to have somebody watching it all the time. Put sensors on it every so often.

 

Amen, brother! My personal opinion, government is a puppet operated by the rich few. The symptom is terrible governance, the cause is the rich spending the money to get our government to look the other way. A generalization, of course, but I think it fits well with what we're seeing.

 

Amen, brother! My personal opinion, government is a puppet operated by the rich few.

Who? I want names dammit!!

 

Yup, read it.

 

We lived 200 yards from the main E/W Union Pacific rail line and 1 mile from the Burlington Northern line when we lived in Spokane. When we moved away we put living away from rail lines at a pretty high priority. We now live 45 miles from the major BN line, and that suits me fine.
I know we need to transport crude and fuel some way and pipelines seem to be the "safest" but I think with a priority for safety we could make all pipelines safer. Is a spill proof pipeline possible??
jesse

 

Is a spill proof pipeline possible??

Probably not at the price most are willing to pay.

 

I'd bet my future the pipeline folks could figure out how to make a sensor and a shut down mechanism that could stop leaks anywhere close to critical areas or wherever they wanted. Sure it would cost more but the payback time in true economics would send it back to them pretty quick. Spill 10 barrels instead of hundreds or thousands of barrels, save a ton of bad press, etc. Give them tax credits to do it and we all win.

 

I believe it is within our ability to build and MAINTAIN pipe lines that would be safe.
I think it should be mandatory in the design of any new lines AND to upgrade all pipelines in "sensitive" areas immediately and then in all pipelines eventually.
The problem is that the Republicans believe that the regulations, read the EPA, are the only reason that we don't have more job creation.

 

I agree - trains, pipelines and other such stuff CAN be made to operate safely and have fail safes should trouble occur. However, I have absolutely no confidence that 1) the corporations that will build and operate these items, and 2) the government (AKA subsidiary of the corporations) to ensure public safety. I used to be pro-nuclear power, until I saw the shenanigans that PGE pulled at the Trojan Nuclear Plant to avoid safety issues. Neither business nor government can be trusted; it's up to the people to lift the veil.

 

Neither business nor government can be trusted; it's up to the people to lift the veil.

But business and government are run by people... quite a conundrum we have here.

 

"But business and government are run by a very few, rich and powerful people..."

Post corrected.

 

"But business and government are run by a very few, rich and powerful people..."

Not exactly true. The vast majority are regular Joe's. If however, it makes you feel better to blame some nameless villains, carry on.

 

The vast majority don't hold controlling interest in Fortune 500 firms. Nor are they nameless. The Koch Brothers, Rex Tillerson, Norman Adelson, Bob Dudley, Lloyd Blankfein, James Gorman, even adding Warren Buffet, that's a start.

 

Why are you "even adding Warren Buffet"... is that your token player (villain) for the left? I'd believe you're sincerity about this had you listed all the left field players and thrown in the Koch Brothers .

Bottom line is that all together, they still represent but a thimble full of the majority who make up our nations businesses and government agencies.

 

I didn't use a political leaning litmus test for my quick list, but just listed CEO's of some of the companies that you know have been lobbying hard to get our government out of their business, and I added Warren Buffet because he is relevant to this thread, as owner (through Berkshire Hathaway) of BNSF.

My point, which I know you understand, is that only a "thimbleful" of corporate bosses are operating the strings that make the puppets in our government do the St. Vitus Dance.

 

From a strictly personal basis, I dread the day that the tar sand trains begin rolling in earnest to the refineries in the and Bellingham areas, particularly if they happen to occur in conjunction with the proposed coal trains. It will be nearly impossible to move around Marysville, Mount Vernon, Burlington, etc. None of the roads that cross the tracks between Burlington and Anacortes have provisions for holding traffic that wants to cross the tracks but are blocked by the trains. Highway 20 will begin to look like I-405, not on the eastside, but in Los Angeles. Burlington Boulevard will become a parking lot as well as College Way and Freeway Drive and Blackburn and etc., in Mount Vernon.

 

When I lived in Marysville I found several ways to get from one place to another. You have to learn to get around a different way. There is always a different way to get around.

 

Perhaps when they get the "Big Stuck" project un-stuck, they should just keep boring a hole all the way to the border to fix this emerging conundrum.

 

Trains are a fact of life, they are a cheap and ecologically smart way to move goods ( not oil). I have a friend who own a business in town, told me he could get 5 semi loads on 1 rail car. We built cities around rail lines, and f**ked up by not doing grade separations @ crossings, we'll have to do it now, for a lot more $$.

 

Trains are a fact of life, they are a cheap and ecologically smart way to move goods ( not oil). I have a friend who own a business in town, told me he could get 5 semi loads on 1 rail car. We built cities around rail lines, and f**ked up by not doing grade separations @ crossings, we'll have to do it now, for a lot more $$. Of course that will take public $$'s and that means taxes on somebody.

 

Trains are a fact of life, they are a cheap and ecologically smart way to move goods ( not oil). I have a friend who own a business in town, told me he could get 5 semi loads on 1 rail car. We built cities around rail lines, and f**ked up by not doing grade separations @ crossings, we'll have to do it now, for a lot more $$. Of course that will take public $$'s and that means taxes on somebody.

 

dp

 

Trains are a fact of life, they are a cheap and ecologically smart way to move goods ( not oil).

They are indeed cheap and ecologically smart way to move good, including oil where that mode of transportation makes the best sense. Why single out oil? Our rail lines all across America, and throughout the world for that matter, haul tons and tons of significantly more hazardous materials.

I should think that Warren Buffet would just do the right thing and invest in the much needed improvements to the railroad he owns and profits from? If we tax payers have to chip in, I want a fractional share of Berkshire-Hathaway.