Sign the petition - stop Keystone XL

2seaoat wrote:Granted the current rail and truck configuration could remain.  However, there is a carbon footprint on the pipeline and the truck, rail combo.  Long term we need to reduce our carbon footprint, and absent the underlying debate of the use of oil at all, the pipeline is carbon footprint reduction choice.

Gunz wrote:Have you ever even seen a train with 2,000 cars?- Markle       No sir and I doubt I will since you were referring to 2000 barrel capacity and not a 2000 unit tankcar consist.    I left out the other part of your opinion because I didn't need it to make my own observation.

knothead wrote:

Markle wrote:

Gunz wrote:The railroad-equivalent of this single pipeline would be a train of 75 2,000-barrel tank rail cars everyday- Markle                            That doesn't seem like a very big consist in terms of product movement.    I'm surprised that its not cheaper to move the oil by rail versus pipeline.

Have you ever even seen a train with 2,000 cars?  Much less 75 of them every day.

You left this out of your excerpt.

"It would take a constant line of tanker trucks, about 750 per day, loading up and moving out every two minutes, 24 hours a day, seven days a week, to move the volume of even a modest pipeline."

Quite an exaggeration there, the railroads can move any bulk commodity efficiently and ship regularly.  A 100 car train of tank cars with each holding 280,000  gallons would be a routine movement with today's technology. The only limit would be adequate supply of tank cars dedicated to unit train movement.  These, also, are good jobs that pay a very good wage with benefits and coupled with the current 500 trucks per day departing ND would more than suffice to move this product to its destination . . . it's just a fact.

The Dude wrote:The refined oil will be sold to Latin America it will not stay in this country that was already decided in Congress.

Trans Canada is using eminent domain to condemn American land for an oil pipeline. The criteria for eminent domain seizure for an oil pipeline by a foreign corporation that does not benefit the public good would be illegal.

I have a problem with a foreign company using eminent domain in this country period.

Markle wrote:

The Dude wrote:The refined oil will be sold to Latin America it will not stay in this country that was already decided in Congress.

Trans Canada is using eminent domain to condemn American land for an oil pipeline. The criteria for eminent domain seizure for an oil pipeline by a foreign corporation that does not benefit the public good would be illegal.

I have a problem with a foreign company using eminent domain in this country period.

Not true about the eminent domain for an oil line not being for the public good so it is perfectly legal.

knothead wrote:

Markle wrote:

The Dude wrote:The refined oil will be sold to Latin America it will not stay in this country that was already decided in Congress.

Trans Canada is using eminent domain to condemn American land for an oil pipeline. The criteria for eminent domain seizure for an oil pipeline by a foreign corporation that does not benefit the public good would be illegal.

I have a problem with a foreign company using eminent domain in this country period.

Not true about the eminent domain for an oil line not being for the public good so it is perfectly legal.

The only real benefit is it saves transit cost and reduces green house emissions . . . the savings go to Trans Canada not to lower fuel costs.

Markle wrote:

knothead wrote:

Markle wrote:

The Dude wrote:The refined oil will be sold to Latin America it will not stay in this country that was already decided in Congress.

Trans Canada is using eminent domain to condemn American land for an oil pipeline. The criteria for eminent domain seizure for an oil pipeline by a foreign corporation that does not benefit the public good would be illegal.

I have a problem with a foreign company using eminent domain in this country period.

Not true about the eminent domain for an oil line not being for the public good so it is perfectly legal.

The only real benefit is it saves transit cost and reduces green house emissions . . . the savings go to Trans Canada not to lower fuel costs.

So what is the problem?  They're the ones investing the money are they not?