You Say No to Shipping Crude by Rail
Wednesday, May 15, 2013 @ 3:53 AM
Prince George, B.C. – It is a small player, but CN is actively involved in transporting Canadian Crude to the United States.
According to recent article in the Edmonton Journal, CN’s CEO Claude Mongeau is quoted as saying CN hopes to double its crude shipments to about 60,000 car loads this year. That would, according to the article, bring the shipments up to about 100,000 barrels of oil a day.
250News asked what you thought about shipping oil by rail car. The question in our unscientific poll asked “As opposition to oil pipelines increases, would you support shipping oil to western ports by rail?”
34.6% (865) said yes, they would support rail transport of crude, while 65.4% (1611) said no, they would not.
Even with a doubling of it’s car loads, CN would be moving just a fraction of the amount of crude being shipped Stateside via pipeline now (2.2 million barrels per day), however, with increasing pressure to oppose pipelines, rail shipments are being viewed as a key part of the transportation chain.
Comments
I would like to hear peoples reasons WHY they are opposed…
They said they are opposed because shipping crude by pipeline is immensley safer and sound thinking people know that to be a fact…
Gimmeabreak give me a break! When was the last time you heard about a oil spill caused by a train derailment? Even if a few cars rupture it’s only a small spill. When was the last time you heard of an oil spill from a pipeline? I rest my case!
Oil by rail is safer.
There are no regulations stopping them. With all the opposition to the pipelines I think that’s what will happen.
See the Globe and Mail Jan 30 2013 “Nexen closer to moving crude oil to west coast by train”
Polls are a waste of time. Look what happened in the election! How could the polls be so wrong. People don’t answer polls accurately on purpose these days. I know I do!
I said “no” to shipping by rail because it is too dirty, noisy. Think of all the extra pollution that would add to our environment, running those huge diesel trains across the province all day all night. Both the pipe and train are flawed, but IMO the train is more flawed of the 2.
The pole should have included pipelines
NoWay: “Gimmeabreak give me a break! When was the last time you heard about a oil spill caused by a train derailment?”
Have you got Google?
Don’t be so easily influenced by media sensationalized stories about pipelines. They are statistically far more reliable and safer than rail.
How many train derailments have we had in this reigon the last few years vs pipeline ruptures?
Derailments..
-2002 Mcbride/Dunster
-2007 FT George park.
-2010(2011?) Coal train derailment at shelly
-2013 Skeena
Pipeline rupture.. (you fill in the blanks.) Keep it to this reigon and forget the fact that there is biased media out there..
Even if rail were 100% safe, it takes the crude to the coast where it’s next mode of transport is by super tanker. A spill on land–especially into a watercourse or watershed–is bad enough; a spill on the coast would be devastating.
I chose no not because of a safety issue, rather, I am of the opinion that we are giving ourselves away buy shipping crude out of our country. We should first upgrade it here, and then export it at a higher price, that potentially means more jobs to build and run refineries. I look at it as the same thing as r exporting raw logs.
noway, are you serious? There are train derailments all the time. Increasing crude shipments by rail will only increase this dramatically. Several years ago a derailment of dumped crude into lake Wabamum in alberta. Pipelines are exponentially safer. To duplicate northern gateway barrels by rail would require non stop trains 24/7. That is not an option on so many levels.
Why I am opposed to rail shipping of crude..
1. CN record of derailment is poor
2. Rail lines follow rivers..
3. When (not if) a derailment happens it will be numerous cars involved spilling huge amounts of crude
4. Trains burn deisel.. a known carcinogen.. so more cancer causing agents polluting our air
5. the rail system goes through mountains.. cleanup response would be very long and slow due to areas contaminated
6. The added amount of wildlife (moose, deer) killed by the added trains
Each rail car holds 31,000 US gallons or 750 barrels of oil. The Burnaby oil spill was up to 1,500 barrels or up to 2 rail cars worth.
According to NoWay “Even if a few cars rupture it’s only a small spill” so in your own words all the Kinder Morgan pipeline spills (all under 1,500 barrels) are only small spills and nothing to worry about.
Posted by: P Val on May 15 2013 2:27 PM
Why I am opposed to rail shipping of crude..
1. CN record of derailment is poor
2. Rail lines follow rivers..
3. When (not if) a derailment happens it will be numerous cars involved spilling huge amounts of crude
4. Trains burn deisel.. a known carcinogen.. so more cancer causing agents polluting our air
5. the rail system goes through mountains.. cleanup response would be very long and slow due to areas contaminated
6. The added amount of wildlife (moose, deer) killed by the added trains
—————————————
Almost sounds like you are talking about pipelines and Enbridge.
I agree with Mojo, it does not matter how it is transported to the coast, it will still mean oil tanker traffic off our pristine BC coastline, not worth the risk!
Rather, build refineries in Alberta, then ship a refined product by pipeline, with a finished product gas / diesel distribution terminal in Prince George to supply cheap gas and diesel to the rest of Northern BC by tanker truck!
It would be nice to have lower Alberta gas prices up here, that would reduce transportation costs for a lot of goods and service because of lower diesel and gas prices.
@ BCRacer
BC Rail may have been under provincial jurisdiction when you worked there, but CP and CN are not. Both railways can ship whatever they want regardless of who is in power in Victoria.
Comments for this article are closed.