NY Times Story Today on Hazards of Shipping Oil by Rail

Interesting read.  I like how the person quoted said rail has gone from obselescense to critical overnight.  Where do they get their facts.  Freight rail has been booming for decades.

If they built the pipeline, a lot of the issue here would go away.

Wouldn't fully trust or believe anything that newspaper prints ..

They are about 50% correct. They have missed some things and got some others wrong. BUT!! They are better than most of the stuff you read. Take all journalism with a grain of salt.

Pipelines have their own issues. Here is something that happened last Saturday, affecting thousands of people, and there's been little coverage in the Main Stream Media.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/...-explosion-1.2512312

http://thinkprogress.org/clima...-pipeline-explosion/

Right, I agree.  The train derailment issues would go away…but would be replaced by a bunch of new pipeline issues.  "The pipelines are prone to bursting…they impede the migratory path of (fill in the blank) animals…they're an eyesore…etc. etc."  Every option has its own set of trade-offs and disadvantages.

- Mike

The New York Times is a Biased Liberal paper. 

If it is a business making money, even if they are following all rules, both governmental and moral, it is an evil organization to some people.

I believe Hatch was speaking to crude transportation.

Thanks for the tip. I just cancelled my subscription. I now have FoxNews.com streaming onto my computer. Sarah Palin for President!!!!

Gentlemen,

I don't disagree with either of you -- all energy options, and the means to transport them -- may raise issues.  But as a general rule in life, and in public policy, it makes sense to have different options.  One of the reasons I really am excited about the oil boom going on here in the US and Canada is that because it is on our "turf" we have the ability, with our Canadian friends, to make sure that energy extraction and transportation is done to the highest and most responsible standards.  This is important to me personally because the simple reality is that fossil fuels are not going away any time soon -- any other talk is just hope triumphing over reality -- and so while we continue to develop alternative energy sources it is critical that fossil fuel production and use be governed by good standards and technology.  Ensuring such standards when the energy exploration, extraction, and transportation is going on, for instance, in the third world, is far more difficult. Further, working people have been getting smacked around by globalization now for about three decades.  These are good jobs that would be created, here at home.  Yes, we need to be careful and responsible, but the pipeline should be built.  Rail will still play a huge role, it will just not be over-burdened by the energy boom, as it is now (at least according to a friend who works at the FRA).

As far as which papers to "trust," I am in a field where alot of what we do is reported on in the press, none of it very accurately by any of the big papers, and all with a big axe to grind.  After a lot of years of banging my head against the wall, my view is to read an openly "leftie" (say NYT) and "rightie" (say WSJ) paper and make your own decisions.  Many of the reporters, and I speak from personal experience, are remarkably arrogant in drawing conclusions when they lack the facts.  The other news source I use is the local high level news radio station.  If there is a topic that interests me more, I can delve into it / research it more later, and come to my own decisions on matters.

I wonder if the NYT knows:

1.  Whit is travelling on its freeways and toll roads.

2.  NYC has garbarge trains taking stuff to a location not even in the State of New York!

Pipeline v.s. Tank car may be a dead discussion.  It has been mentioned that Bakken Crude is corrosive.  It may not be pipeline friendly.  The same applies to Ethanol which is an end product add at the distribution points.  Though numbers would indicate that Ethanol could only be 10% at most of any transportation problem. 

I certainly agree with your statements, and I synthesize "news" as you do...I read many sources of all points of view(both domestic and foreign), and draw my own conclusions. 

Maybe people who are reporters for the media should watch old DVD's of DRAGNET, and understand the theory of, "Just the facts, mam."

I think safer rail cars will be on the railroads soon.  No reason for them not to replace and older fleet of tank cars.  Also, I'm sure there will be updates to operating procedures.  Pipelines may be great for certain things but rail does give refineries the flexibility to get oil from anywhere at any time...in any amount.

I think some of the comments are funny.  One poster states "Railroads will not spend on any new developments or cars...as this is a temp boom to a flagging industry"  Where do these people get their facts?  Do they not read basic stock and other info about rr's?