Grain or oil

[waldo]

Is this a serious point?

Or maybe statistics Canada:

http://cf.datawrapper.de/BAk5N/1/

that graphic is not from StatsCan... it was slapped together by a Global News reporter. Interesting you wouldn't link to the original article. In any case, the graphic/article doesn't put any time line around it... is it a single year snapshot, 5 years... or what? By the very definition, it only includes pipelines internal to Alberta and those that cross provincial boundaries... the internal pipelines of all other provinces are not included. Most pointedly, what does "average spill volume say about anything... say about the number of spills... say about the total volume of spills?

oh, and ya... like you said... was yours a serious point?

[waldo]

Is this a serious point?

This problem is known and accepted everywhere, including in the US. Maybe the NTY can get through to you:

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/26/business/energy-environment/accidents-surge-as-oil-industry-takes-the-train.html?_r=0

get through to me??? Buddy, you now have my interest! Here... let your apparently favoured NYT... get through to you: "Since 1990, more than 110 million gallons of mostly crude and petroleum products have spilled from the U.S.' mainland pipeline network"

per that linked NYT article, data (1990-2011) was sourced from the U.S. Department of Transportation, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA). The following data (2005-2009), from that same PHMSA source... in spite of the much touted safety of pipelines, pipeline spills account for more volume leak than rail, but less than road transport: (note: I trust you don't want me quoting the 'average product release' like you did in your initial reference... yes?).

oh, and ya... like you said... was yours a serious point?

[hitops]

You've pointed out that a graphic, using statscan data, was created by a news reporter. The shame!

I'm doing my best to figure out what your point is. Let me give it a try - "any bar graphs using statscan data, must only be produced by a statscan employer or the stats magically change to become false." I guess you think this is a legitimate argument.

Regarding your NYT assessment. Obviously pipelines will have more spills, they carry far more oil, far faster and further. The issues is the massive spiking of train accidents due to the spike in train oil traffic, and their consequences including environmental. Rail accidents kill people and burn things, pipelines generally just spill oil and kill very few. Rail incidents cause 30x more injuries. That might actually be seen as a plus by enviros, I don't know. But I doubt the resultant explosions, fires and use of equipment for rescue and cleanup (and their consequent greenhouse emissions) would. For your consideration:

http://www.fraserinstitute.org/research-news/news/display.aspx?id=20750

Another great data-rich article.

http://www.manhattan-institute.org/html/ib_23.htm#.UyRoZijXF94

Rail is the worse choice, it is far more dangerous and damaging.

Edited March 15, 2014 by hitops

[waldo]

You've pointed out that a graphic, using statscan data, was created by a news reporter. The shame!

I'm doing my best to figure out what your point is. Let me give it a try - "any bar graphs using statscan data, must only be produced by a statscan employer or the stats magically change to become false." I guess you think this is a legitimate argument.

I pointed out you linked to a graphic created with an open source tool while stating it was associated with StatsCan... and it isn't. Again, a news reporter created that graphic... and in the related article you actually sourced that graphic from, there is no reference to StatsCan in relation to that graphic.

I note you have nothing to say about my following up on your favoured NYT article - go figure!

as for your latest reference/article, I don't see any actual summary data. Perhaps I should quote from your latest article and let it reaffirm the data I just provided you in the prior post: again, from your latest reference link... but hey now... that data reference looks very familiar to what I just provided in the prior post!

[waldo]

Another great data-rich article.

I note that, 'on edit', you switched out your initial "troymedia.com" link... regardless, all 3 of your links pertain to the same author/article source... as "data rich" as you claim. But again, as I snickered above, that's the same source I drew my prior data/graphic reference from. You know, where the author (you now reference 3 times, in 3 separate links) states, "pipeline spills account for more volume leak than rail, but less than road transport".

[Scotty]

get through to me??? Buddy, you now have my interest! Here... let your apparently favoured NYT... get through to you: "Since 1990, more than 110 million gallons of mostly crude and petroleum products have spilled from the U.S.' mainland pipeline network"

You make that sound like it's a big deal.

In the news today, Canada's oil output reached a record 4.3 million barrels per day.

Anti pipeline people and the media use gallons to denote spills beause it sounds more impressive that way. But 110 million gallons works out to about two and a half million barrels... over fourteen years. So what you're complaining about is that over a period of fourteen years throughout the entire United states, approximately half a day of Canadian oil production was spilled. I use CDN because it's handy. A little research seems to indicate US oil production is about 7.5 million barrels per day. So about one third of one day's oil production was spilled over the course of a 14 year period.

My math sort of sucks but doesn't that work out to roughely 0.0000654%? Doesn't that make the pipelines pretty close to perfect at transporting oil without spilling it?

[waldo]

You make that sound like it's a big deal.

relatively speaking... it wasn't I that started the rail vs. pipeline comparison. In any case, your 2.5 million barrels figure is accurate. What's also missing in this comparison is the property damage cost of pipeline incidents... and how it is increasing in recent years... seemingly coincident with the introduction of tarsands dilbit into pipelines - yes?. Per that same prior U.S. PHMSA data:

- the 20-year average (1993-2012) @ $318 million dollars per year

- the 10-year average (2003-2012) @ $494 million dollars per year

- the 5-year average (2008-2012) @ $545 million dollars per year

- the 3-year average (2010-2012) @ $662 million dollars per year

the cost of cleaning up after pipelines just keeps getting more expensive. Over that 20 year period of time total property damage was over $6.3 billion... with an average of 250 pipeline incidents per year. The existing, very dated, pipeline infrastructure is suspect and, of course, we now have an oversight process that doesn't include public consultation for the reversal of pipelines.

[bush_cheney2004]

...the cost of cleaning up after pipelines just keeps getting more expensive. Over that 20 year period of time total property damage was over $6.3 billion... with an average of 250 pipeline incidents per year. The existing, very dated, pipeline infrastructure is suspect and, of course, we now have an oversight process that doesn't include public consultation for the reversal of pipelines.

Not unexpected, as the cost of most industrial accident/incident remediation would not be getting less expensive. How does "we" apply to Canada in the context of the presented U.S. data, costs, and regulatory framework ?

[waldo]

Not unexpected, as the cost of most industrial accident/incident remediation would not be getting less expensive. How does "we" apply to Canada in the context of the presented U.S. data, costs, and regulatory framework ?

oh, there's a surprise - not! Once again you raise your trolling uber-sensitivity to U.S. data being referenced! I responded, in kind, to the NYT article dealing with U.S. spills. I suggest you take your concern up with the MLW member who originated that reference. As for the "we" oversight reference... here's one from your claimed country... I'll leave it up to you to find and present just what changes Harper Conservatives incorporated into the NEB oversight that precludes public consultation for pipeline reversals:

Federal Rules Don't Control Pipeline Reversals Like Exxon's Burst Pegasus

.

[bush_cheney2004]

oh, there's a surprise - not! Once again you raise your trolling uber-sensitivity to U.S. data being referenced!

.

It is unclear to me how such a derail (pun intended) would apply to the 'grain or oil' topic in Canada. At best, the referenced American data only illustrate the cost of doing business, which has/will be paid. Try harder...the topic is for Canada.

[waldo]

go troll somewhere else

[bush_cheney2004]

go troll somewhere else

Oil spills from rail transport are so common that they are not even reported in many cases. Here is some more American data: A Canadian Pacific train dribbled about 12,000 gallons (sorry, metric units are not used in such things) just last month in Minnesota, and the extent of the environmental damage is just now being realized because the snow pack is melting. No big deal...happens all the time.

http://peoplesworld.org/minnesota-oil-spill-largely-unreported-spills-by-rail-hit-new-high/

[waldo]

I'll see your puny 12,000 gallons and raise you 210,000 gallons of tarsands sludge spilled from the aforementioned Arkansas Exxon Pegasus pipeline spill - no big deal... happens all the time.

[bush_cheney2004]

I'll see your puny 12,000 gallons and raise you 210,000 gallons of tarsands sludge spilled from the aforementioned Arkansas Exxon Pegasus pipeline spill - no big deal... happens all the time.

So what's the big deal ? How is it relevant to 'grain or oil' decisions in Canada...you know...this thread's topic ?

[hitops]

I pointed out you linked to a graphic created with an open source tool while stating it was associated with StatsCan... and it isn't. Again, a news reporter created that graphic... and in the related article you actually sourced that graphic from, there is no reference to StatsCan in relation to that graphic.

I gave you statscan data, and you don't like it. To avoid dealing with it, you are fixated on who made the graph, as if that is in any way relevant. Deal with the point. In the article, they cite statscan RIGHT IN THE BOTTOM OF THE GRAPH. Because.....that's where the data is from. That graph represents statscan data, I don't know how much clearer this can be.

I could take your logic and say the NYT graph on pipeline spills is somehow wrong because the graph was made by journalists and not by the source providing the data. But unlike yourself, I like to make points salient to the discussion and not just bizarre attempts at distraction.

I note you have nothing to say about my following up on your favoured NYT article - go figure!

Actually I did, but reading is not your strong suit.

as for your latest reference/article, I don't see any actual summary data. Perhaps I should quote from your latest article and let it reaffirm the data I just provided you in the prior post: again, from your latest reference link... but hey now... that data reference looks very familiar to what I just provided in the prior post!

That's great but has nothing to do with the point. Railways are more dangerous in terms of lives, injuries and damage (including environmental). The ONLY advantage railways have over pipelines is volume of oil spilled per unit moved. You are fixated on that single issue, because of a desperate need to feel like you are right. Every single source linked by anyone so far demonstrates pipeline is superior on the critical questions, you just don't like it.

But anyway, distraction is your preferred tactic. You believe it doesn't matter that only 2% (your number) of railway goods are oil. But it does matter, because rail is suddenly now having to take up more oil traffic, leading to massive increases. There were more oil spills in 2013 that the previous 4 decades, as indicated in that article. We are also seeing and hearing about tons more accidents. These are not unrelated issues, and it takes willful blindness not to see the connection.

Edited March 15, 2014 by hitops

[hitops]

go troll somewhere else

Take your own advice.

The entire point of the NYT article, was the increases in oil traffic and the hazards therein. You grabbed one graph and focused on it to the exclusion of all other information, missing the entire point. Given the hazards of all methods, this very thorough article clearly explains why diverting oil to rail is a large and growing problem and many accidents and injuries/deaths and directly the result of lack of regional pipeline capacity.

The manhattan institute article has numerous tables with data that clearly shows the advantages of pipe over rail. It also explains that much of the oil spilled in pipeline accidents is recovered, a fact not corrected for in the comparative volume numbers. There are clearly, with no dispute, far more incidents per unit moved on rail, far more injuries and fatalities, and far more things blowing up and burning (and thus enviro damage). To add insult to injury (pun intended), it also costs more.

But why focus on that right? Let's just keep talking about how statscan data is wrong when put into blue bars.....

Edited March 21, 2014 by hitops