While the pipeline will be buried, no permafrost, it will still be a potential disaster, more for the end product than the line. Now that Wyoming natural gas comes through Oregon on it’s way to California, where it’s so “desperately needed” for “clean” energy at home, the new plan is to ship it from Malin to Coos Bay, so it can be turned into LNG, and sent by ship, to China and points west. So much for the “gas lady” making America a better place from that number one leader in natural gas production, including fracking.
The Trans-Alaska Pipeline has had 7 incidents involving leaks in the past 40 or so years. The largest two were intentionally caused by individuals. Between the two of them, approximately 25,000 barrels were spilled. One supertanker carries between 500,000 and 2,000,000 barrels of oil, so one lost ship would be worst than 25 times all of the spills from the pipeline. Further, trains derail and trucks have accidents fairly regularly, in comparison. It would seem that to oppose the demonstrably safest and most efficient long term means of moving oil would have absolutely no basis in any sort of logic.
Just a note: Texas alone had several gas line explosions last year, a couple in about a one week period. Washington state had an incident that incinerated a few kids. Natural gas lines ARE more hazardous than less volatile fluid lines. The big point is, why area we EXPORTING all these “critical resources”, is it for the good of the country? Yeah, right.
Diversification from dependence on oil is happening, but the world is a long way from being carbon independant. In the meantime the challenge is to use carbon sources responsibly and with as little damage to the environment as possible.
Dtroutma about 10 years ago
While the pipeline will be buried, no permafrost, it will still be a potential disaster, more for the end product than the line. Now that Wyoming natural gas comes through Oregon on it’s way to California, where it’s so “desperately needed” for “clean” energy at home, the new plan is to ship it from Malin to Coos Bay, so it can be turned into LNG, and sent by ship, to China and points west. So much for the “gas lady” making America a better place from that number one leader in natural gas production, including fracking.
Charles Phipps Premium Member about 10 years ago
The Trans-Alaska Pipeline has had 7 incidents involving leaks in the past 40 or so years. The largest two were intentionally caused by individuals. Between the two of them, approximately 25,000 barrels were spilled. One supertanker carries between 500,000 and 2,000,000 barrels of oil, so one lost ship would be worst than 25 times all of the spills from the pipeline. Further, trains derail and trucks have accidents fairly regularly, in comparison. It would seem that to oppose the demonstrably safest and most efficient long term means of moving oil would have absolutely no basis in any sort of logic.
Dtroutma about 10 years ago
Just a note: Texas alone had several gas line explosions last year, a couple in about a one week period. Washington state had an incident that incinerated a few kids. Natural gas lines ARE more hazardous than less volatile fluid lines. The big point is, why area we EXPORTING all these “critical resources”, is it for the good of the country? Yeah, right.
Gypsy8 about 10 years ago
Diversification from dependence on oil is happening, but the world is a long way from being carbon independant. In the meantime the challenge is to use carbon sources responsibly and with as little damage to the environment as possible.