Originally Posted by BroncoBeavis
Not saying that's not terrible. But they could've just as easily been killed in a derailment, as two people were in that Baltimore derailment below. I'm not trying to equate one method with the other. It's just important to note that when as a policy, we oppose new infrastructure development, the alternative is almost never zero-cost. Just harder to quantify (or affect)
You're still not thinking about the bigger issue. Pipelines (as they are currently used) are an ecological nightmare compared to rail shipping.
* Pipeline breaks can release orders of magnitude more contaminants into the environment simply because the ability to constrain the leak from a break is much less than with discrete shipping units.
* Small leaks (which always exist) in a pipeline are hard to detect, and can do enormous amounts of damage over time -- particularly to wetlands (even with a relatively small leak). Moreover, companies that run pipelines don't give a flying **** about any leak unless it's more expensive to let the leak happen than to fix it. This is one reason why companies refuse to install leak detectors. It's not just the expense of the detectors -- it's that they don't care about the leaks unless it affects their bottom line so they don't want to detect them, and any leak likely to affect their bottom line is relatively easy to detect using non technological means.
Like I said, when a train derails, it something that's immediately apparent, not concealable and a blocker issue that can't simply be ignored.