Rails don't go under the Missouri river either. By rail, the whole train isn't going to spring a leak. If one tank leaks it can be contained or moved to where it is less harmful. I guess a whole train could derail, doesn't mean the tanks would leak though. Since 2000, there have been at least 21 railway spills and 734 pipeline spills of crude oil over 1,000 gallons. So by stats, rail seems to be much safer as far as not spilling. The burning of diesel fuel to run the trains I suppose is valid.
Pretty much we have all the oil we can handle from shale extraction. We already export a lot of it.
Originally Posted by royamcr
Hey Royamcr, I'm not an expert on this, and just googled it, but a lot of the info was written by oil and pipeline companies and groups. This looks like an unbiased source, from the Department of Transportation:
https://www.phmsa.dot.gov/sites/phms...line-32019.pdf
Take a look at the table on page 8. From 2007 to 2016, it shows .001% of volumes transported by pipeline spilled, and .0076% of volumes transported by rail spilled.
Again, I'm not expert, but understand the major oil pipelines are constantly monitored with automatic leak detection equipment, so isolating a spill usually can occur quickly and without much damage.
About your post, there's about 50 to 60 times more oil transported by pipeline than rail, so, yes, the total amount spilled by pipelines is higher than rails. Still, based on the % of oil transported that's spilled, the pipelines are much safer.