Oil spill specter shadows Minnesota rail towns

  • Article by: Jenna Ross , Star Tribune
  • Updated: July 16, 2013 - 10:36 AM

N.D. boom has reinvigorated train traffic, but what if nags at some who live near tracks.

  • 22
  • Comments

  • Results per page:
rshacklefordJul. 16, 13 4:03 AM

If the Keystone XL pipeline is facing huge resistance due to environmentalists (and I agree with them) because it passes over the Ogallala Aquifer (our country's farming heartland water source), why not build pipelines to more logical locations from its "Hardisty" origin? Logical locations would be all states without the aquifer below them but also in the center latitude of our own country. There is no reason whatsoever to run any pipeline down to Texas! Executives of oil companies tell their PR people to say that a monkey wrench fell into a refinery and took it offline which is causing a gasoline price spike because no new refineries have been built in decades to meet the continuous demand. Well, START BUILDING THEM and in the middle areas of the country! Who are these Texas non-patriots serving? The USA (likely not), themselves, speculators, or other countries? The absolutely stupid excuses for gasoline price spikes that oil companies claim are credible are no longer funny: refinery repair, too few refineries, switching to "winter" gasoline, switching to "summer" gasoline, CEO of company XXX had a bad day, the Middle East is in turmoil (tell me something everyone does not know already), etc, etc. Oil drilling, crude transportation, refining, and distribution have been going on for DECADES. To have NOT solved the problems above means either greedy people and/or morons are running these companies.

26
6
comment229Jul. 16, 13 5:24 AM

Keystone pipeline? Here's a thought. Forget it and instead expedite the building of several new refineries in North Dakota.... what's that? It will take a lot of money to do that..... Maybe we can all send a donation to the oil industry to help them in these difficult times.

13
4
paddlemanJul. 16, 13 5:49 AM

They say we need more refineries, when was the last time you say an "Out of Gas" sign? I was thinking 1978. The whole oil business is a scam on the American people and we need to stop taking it.

14
6
oxboardJul. 16, 13 5:52 AM

Well then tell the EPA and the environmentalists to stick it and b build a refinery on the Canadian border, and a pipeline east to Duluth.

13
3
ctifferJul. 16, 13 6:04 AM

rshackleford - IMHO, your comments are pretty much dead-on correct. One big issue though, is that pipelines are pretty much one way deals. The proposed Keystone XL pipeline would going to Nebraska, not Texas. The reason to bring the crude oil south is to get it to the distribution points already in the nationwide pipeline network. It seams counter-intuitive, but by bringing the crude south to Nebraska, the number of miles of pipeline needed to distribute the crude goes down significantly... . . . . . Also, sending refined products through pipelines is extremely hazardous and, depending on the product, sometimes impossible (Ethanol cannot go through a pipeline - it will explode)............Finally, the Keystone XL has no chance, because the rail lines that are transporting the crude are owned by a very significant supporter of President Obama - Warren Buffett. Mr. Buffett has a long and storied history of not letting ANYTHING getting between himself and his next $ billion. Not the environment, not the farmers, not the residents, and definitely not taxes (psst - he don't pay his income taxes - he has been fighting the IRS for over a decade)

8
11
nessmessJul. 16, 13 6:30 AM

Remember who benefits the most from delivering oil through railway.... Warren Buffet... yes, the oracle of omaha... The XL pipeline would eliminate the potential for large spills (They can detect and stop leaks in oil pipelines quickly). In regards to the pipeline going over the Ogallala Aquifer. 1) The aquafer is roughly 300-500 feet below the surface. 2) It is virtually impossible for even a large oil spill to reach the sub surface water (oil is lower density than water) the ability to shut down sections of a pipeline would reduce the potential even more). 3) There are already dozens of oil/chemical pipelines going across the Ogallala. 4) If they want to avoid the Ogallala all together, they could route the pipeline east of the Ogallala (there are virtually no aquifers running parallel to the Missouri river valley, extending from North Dakota to Texas).... P.S. the Canadian train wreck was an act of sabotage

7
10
mjcmspJul. 16, 1310:03 AM

"The XL pipeline would eliminate the potential for large spills" ---- Oh, like the massive tar-sands oil spill that just occurred in March in Mayflower, Arkansas?

3
1
aj9000Jul. 16, 1310:21 AM

The Keystone pipeline will make moving Canadian oil by rail obsolete. Period.

2
5
dakfanviewJul. 16, 1310:29 AM

The reason there will be no Keystone Excel. It does not pass the smell test. The big question is why doesn't Canada build the pipeline to one of their refineries. Obama Buffet deal hilarious. Warren Buffet bought one of the worlds largest railroads with profits from Dairy Queen. I doubt he needs any help from Obama.

2
1
cyberpunkJul. 16, 1310:30 AM

Eliminate the potential for large spills? Not true. Yes, the CAN detect leaks quickly but they often DON'T install the necessary systems due to cost. How about the Mayflower, Arksansas spill in March 2013? 200,000+ gallons spilled right in a suburban residential area. How about the Marshall, Michigan spill in 2010? 1,150,000 gallons spilled, of which over 200,000 gallons made it into the Kalamazoo River.

4
1

Comment on this story   |  

ADVERTISEMENT

Connect with twitterConnect with facebookConnect with Google+Connect with PinterestConnect with PinterestConnect with RssfeedConnect with email newsletters

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

question of the day

Poll: Who will win the Wild-Colorado playoff series?

Weekly Question

ADVERTISEMENT