Comments about ‘Train accidents stir worries about crude transport’

Return to article »

Published: Monday, Feb. 17 2014 12:00 a.m. MST

  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
American Fork, UT

We are going to rely heavily on oil as an energy source for decades to come. As we ramp up north american production, we need to look at the safest way to move it.

deseret pete
robertson, Wy

OK the keystone pipeline . Much safer than rail or truck where possible.

What in Tucket?
Provo, UT

The US consumes 20 million or so barrels of oil per day. 3 million in a spill is not good, but won't ruin the country. Surely tank cars could be improved.

Baron Scarpia
Logan, UT

People don't realize that rail is THE principle means of transport for so many of our needs -- from products to food to energy (e.g., coal and oil). Sadly, there are only FOUR major railroad companies in the country, and they charge significantly to transport those needs. There was an article in Fortune Magazine a few years back that talked about how farmers and coal companies were upset that the railroad companies take a significant slice of their profits because rail literally monopolizes any way for those companies to distribute their product into the marketplace.

The problems with Keystone are (1) a leak could contaminate the Midwest's aquifer under Nebraska that is key to the Midwest's food production (hence, opposition still lingers in rural farm country); and (2) that Canadian tar sands oil will go to Texas refineries to export outside the U.S., so it really don't help domestic supply.

For the five or 10 years to build that Keystone pipeline (dealing with all the local permits, extracting subsidies from Congress to build it, etc.), imagine how far natural gas and electric vehicles could be by 2020 and beyond. That oil may not be as valuable as people think.

to comment

DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.
About comments