• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Trump to advance Keystone, Dakota Access pipelines

Page 6 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
In the midst of your sarcasm you are missing one critical point in all of this. Having the oil in a pipeline has minimized the contamination area versus transport by tanker car which exposes much more of the environment to the risk of contamination.

You don't understand the benefits and risk trade off between a pipeline and a tank car.

Tank cars have failures at about twice the rate of pipelines. They can also cause fires if they crash a speed.

Pipelines leak until someone stops the flow. Tank cars can only leak what it's in the tank.

I believe the IEA puts total gallons leaked via pipeline at multiples of loss via tank car spills.

So no, you are incorrect, this pipeline "did not minimize the contamination area". It's only benefit was the reduced likelihood of failure which it lost when it leaked.
 
Didn't they already build a large chunk of it? It's basically just "hold off until the next administration comes in"

The project was phased and has different (non Alberta sands) customers for some phases. Phase 4 was the "XL" portion for Alberta producers.


440px-Keystone-pipeline-route.svg.png


Phase 4 is probably dead for good. They're working on expanding pipeline capacity to Vancouver and Enbridge is replacing Line 3 which will already boost capacity into the US soon.
 
Back
Top