General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsQuebec Disaster Spurs Rail-Versus-Pipelines Debate on Oil
By Jeremy van Loon and Gerrit De Vynck - Jul 8, 2013
A train disaster that killed five people in Quebec promises to touch off debate over the safety of shipping crude oil by rail or pipelines such as TransCanada Corp. (TRP)s Keystone XL.
--clip
People think rail is costless until something like this happens, said John Stephenson, fund manager with First Asset Investment Management Inc., said from Toronto, where he helps manage C$2.70 billion ($2.65 billion). This is another data point that shows how much costlier and riskier rail is compared to pipelines and will probably move Canada closer to having an energy strategy.
The July 6 accident forced the evacuation of 2,000 near the town of Lac-Megantic as Montreal, Maine & Atlantic moved oil to Irving Oil Corp.s Saint John refinery in New Brunswick. The cargo was part of Canadian producers growing use of rail amid tight pipeline capacity.
Its been a real shame that a lot of the public and especially the activists have pushed the public to sway so much from pipelines which are likely much, much safer over time, said Arthur Salzer, chief executive officer of Northland Wealth Management, which oversees C$225 million. It is going to be something thats going to weigh on the publics mind.
more...
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-07-07/quebec-disaster-spurs-rail-versus-pipelines-debate-on-oil.html
GeorgeGist
(25,320 posts)PDJane
(10,103 posts)Especially when one of those comments came from an unspecified agent of the government.
I would point out, however, that the water table tends to be polluted either way, and the companies that run the pipelines are resisting updates and state of the art leak trackers.
gopiscrap
(23,757 posts)Purveyor
(29,876 posts)last 25 years on the scale of this Quebec disaster.
I'm all but certain there have been more 'tragic' incidents involving chemical hauling trains than pipelines.