[rm_-rf_slash]

Pipelines are much safer than trains or trucks at delivering oil or LNG. That subject is not up for debate.

The problem is that when you build this infrastructure, it comes along with long-term financial contracts. Which is to say, if you build it, you're gonna use it.

As a result, it discourages investments in other energy infrastructure projects. Once the pipeline is in, we are stuck with it until it ages out of usefulness or if green energy radically undercuts the profitability of fossil fuels such that the pipeline is abandoned. But because of those long-term financial contracts, the likelihood of the pipeline being abandoned is far less than it would have been if trucks were used instead.

Small short-to-medium-term risk, larger long-term risk.

[clock_tower]

Once installed, pipelines can be -- and are -- used to transport any fluid; they're not limited to oil and natural gas. They can also be used for other purposes: the Williams Companies ran fiber-optic cable through decommissioned pipelines in the 1990s, drastically improving coast-to-coast network connectivity.

Also, remember the article from yesterday about how utilities are building solar plants to insulate themselves from swings in the price of oil and natural gas. The current round of pipeline building and the current round of solar-building are complementary; both are about moving away from coal.

Wind has arrived, solar is arriving, and geothermal and pumped hydro are probably next. The future of the world's energy supply looks pretty bright, and it looks likely that the Saudis were right back in the 1970s when they predicted that the oil age wouldn't end when we ran out of oil, just as how the stone age didn't end when we ran out of stones.

[tzs]

> Pipelines are much safer than trains or trucks at delivering oil or LNG.

What does it mean to be safer in this context? Pipelines have fewer spills than trucks, but a truck spill is generally limited to one truck's worth of oil whereas a pipe can spill a huge amount.

[tzs]

> Pipelines are much safer than trains or trucks at delivering oil or LNG. That subject is not up for debate.

Safer by what measure? Pipelines have fewer spills than trucks, but a truck spill is generally limited to one truck's worth of oil whereas a pipe can spill a huge amount. (I'm not sure where trains fit in. A train carries more oil than a truck, but train accidents won't always break every car).

[nightski]

Modern pipelines have sensors that are monitored continuously and leaks can be detected incredibly quick.

The recent leak in ND was a little worse than normal because it was during a rough blizzard which made it rather difficult to respond quickly.

[cjf101]

Those sensors do fail, however.

http://globalnews.ca/news/2117570/alberta-oil-spill-when-fai... (2015)

Notice how many failure reports are not the sensor, but are due to humans checking up on the pipeline. The conditions these pipelines are installed in can be pretty hostile to equipment and monitoring. Going by those numbers, I'd say sensor systems have a ways to go.

The debate that usually goes around is that pipelines fail less often, but their failures tend to spill more oil, in more sensitive areas.

The other dimension, that isn't often talked about, is which transport system has the best chance to improve. Despite their current shortcomings, I think that a system that is dedicated to one job (moving dangerous fluids) has a better safety ceiling than shared systems, like trains and roads.

[nightski]

I definitely agree. I think instead of spending so much time debating over pipeline vs. rail/truck we should be focusing on how to make our pipelines better and safer. I mean sensor failure detection is pretty common in all the embedded systems I have worked on.

[LungButta]

It is indeed up for debate. I would like to see sources backing that up. I can find sources saying just the opposite. I think it comes down to what you mean by safe. Safer for humans in the immediate area of an accident, safer for the environment, safer for humans as a whole. I would indeed argue that is loses in the later two.

I agree with the rest of your comments.

[gr3yh47]

>Pipelines are much safer than trains or trucks at delivering oil or LNG. That subject is not up for debate.

source(s)?

[cmdrfred]

A pipeline is 4.5 times safer.

https://www.fraserinstitute.org/research/safety-transportati...

[LungButta]

I think we need better sources than research coming from a conservative/libertarian think tank.

[cryoshon]

... we should be resisting any and all modalities of future fossil fuel exploitation. who cares if pipelines are "safer" when we know that there is no planet-safe way to burn the oil they carry. if pipelines are the most efficient way to move the resource of oil, we need to be preventing their deployment because oil will kill us if we let it.

we're in the midgame of climate change... better to take radical action to prevent the worst possible end case.

[Neliquat]

So shoot yourself in the foot and hope to fly? No, the tech will be ready when its ready. The production tech is not ready. Free electricity will always win in a free market, so there is literally no radical fight needed, or wanted. If you actually want influence, buy teslas, build solar panel building machines, refine electric motor and storage tech. Shutting down the infrastructure that gets you there is asinine and counter productive.