LadyJazzer wrote: So much for the argument about "shipping by rail is more costly and dangerous"... :LMAO:
[whrrrrrrr]-[click]...And Fred resets....
#tooinformedtovoterepublican
Where is your proof that shipping by rail is safer?
OVer the past two years we have had two major rail accidents while transporting oil. We have many more miles of oil and gas pipeline that haven't had issues. Plus pipelines tend to avoid human populations wheras rail doesn't.
Thomas Sowell: There are no solutions, just trade-offs.
I didn't say it was.... Please try to READ and pay attention...
Transporting by rail doesn't steal the property of Nebraskans who have had it in the family for generations, and had it seized by a foreign corporation by "eminent domain".
I figure if the governments, state and local, SUE the pants off of every overturned oil tanker car and make it so expensive to clean it up and pay for the damages, both actual and punitive, that pretty soon the accidents will stop.
Frankly I don't give a flip about those 50 jobs. More costly? That's the problem of TransCanada.
I see how those pipelines "avoid residential areas"...Why don't you go tell that to the people in Arkansas...?
Mary Scott wrote: The traffic is ugly out on the highways today, too.
Sorry...Was the tie-in of residential pipeline damage to the assertion that somehow "pipelines are safer" go over your head..?
I'll type slower next time.
Now establish which came first Jazzer - was the residential development built near the pipeline or was the pipeline built in the residential development?
We'll leave aside for the moment the tactic of attempting to compare a pipeline built when Truman was president to one built in the 21st century, which in and of itself a disingenuous tactic that should be noted. That discussion can be had later if necessary.