Pipelines vs. Rail Cars - Which to Choose for Bakken Crude Shipments?

[malthaussen]

4. My vote was to use the rails.

My reasoning is this: pipelines are permanent infrastructure (and highly susceptible to attack, although fortunately we've avoided that). Not only do they require large investment up-front (good for jobs in the short term, I guess), but they will require maintenance. In the current spending environment, maintenance of infrastructure is a pipe dream (so to speak). Of course, that could be an argument in favor of the pipelines, which at least will be new and not dependant on our eroding rail infrastructure.

But if we do find ourselves somehow reducing or eliminating our reliance on oil in the foreseeable future, then the pipelines will be obsolete, but still standing. Hard to imagine that they would be disassembled, since our attitude towards such things is "let 'em rust." Whereas extant rail lines transport other goods besides crude.

Thirdly, a pipeline breach could be much more destructive than a train spill, because the oil will continue to flow until cut off. With isolated pumping stations and few ready personnel, the response time could be significant. And once the pipe is breached, it has to be repaired,
necessitating alternate means of transport until it is fixed. That would be rails, again.

Of course what we need to do short-term is improve our goddam infrastructure, would would have the benefit of employing citizens and increasing safety and efficiency. I daresay it would cut down on the chance of a rail spill as well.

-- Mal