Could Oil Pipelines Be Headed For Extinction? 

Yeah that bordered on dad jokes.😂

I'm surprised they didn't call themselves out on that one 😂

"Boo!" (Patrick Star thumbs 🧽 down meme)

What drill?

Nice "Bit"

Exactly

My first thought "oh I see what you did there"

I like your coat, is it polyester?

Renewable prices have decreased 90% in the last decade. It's now cheaper to build a new solar plant than continue to run an existing coal one. There are also lots of solutions for intermittent renewable electricity, include batteries (also lowering in cost), and pumped hydro.

The fact that Saudi Arabia is spending huge money on attracting tourists tells me that Green Energy is comin sooner.

@@farrukh_taqveem green is buzz nowadays

@key peele Out-dated data misrepresented to support the establishment. Well done, well done.

They don't talk about it because the pipelines are in the US - those heavy metals mines are in Africa, Indonesia, China and South America. These people could care less about these countries and the coming environmental catastrophe.

@@BlackMan614 but they do talk about it. It's just that you only listen to what you want to hear

Manufacturing pipelines, refineries, and plants to actually make end products like plastics is not a clean process either. Transporting fuel for vehicles is also not clean and incredibly ineffective compared to an electrical grid carrying electricity to a home or charge point. Net emissions from an EV vs ICE rolling out the of factory is higher for the EV but within just a few years the total emissions are WAY in favor of the EV due to both efficiency and the ability to use clean energy.

Its a one time extraction of resources that lasts for 25 years. No fuel source can match it. And unlike oil? We have the ability to recycle these things and reclaim those resources.

Yes I agree , wait till they realize that Lithium Batteries are ruining our planet

Most people only like their own grandkids and have no interest whatsoever in supporting yours. - me

@es gee We don't need your support, we need boomers to stop actively destroying our future

Karl Pilkington 😂

@@esgee3829 but you cant keep your grandkids alive while killing everyone else’s, they are all going to die in an extreme weather event together

Never heard of it myself. As for this pipeline, more carbon will be introduced into the environment by the trucks and trains that transport this heavy oil than by the pipeline. Here's another Greek proverb: "“Win by persuasion, not by force”, which the Keystone protesters didn't heed.

In 20 years most road transport and much of sea transport will either be electrified or use green fuel, oil will by then mostly be used for things like the petrochemical industry. Don't underestimate how fast a transition can happen. By 2025 EV's are expected to reach price parity with fossil fuel cars. Renewables already are less expensive than most other forms of power generation. Their main drawback is variability and the consequent system costs (back-up plants, storage, grid infrastructure, ...), but grid storage should be lowered enough around 2030-2035 to make renewables+storage competitive with almost any other power generation source.

@@MDP1702 Ontario's "green plan" solar and wind energy cost 8 times more than nuclear, putting Ontarians into public debt for generations. Socialism at work, wiping out one western jurisdiction at a time.

@@bademoxy how is that Socialism? Plus, I'm pretty sure with the rate of technological advancement That we'll be more efficient in energy, and creating these technology

Nuclear.

ask buffet and his trains

this will be the result of pipeline cancellation ,while the population becomes poorer and middle class decimated .but then those who are behind the carbon scare/tax scam are almost all Leftist socialists seeking to diminish the West....

I am not sure which one you are talking about but you are describing the same accident that happened at Lac-Mégantic, Quebec. Those trains were and are known in the industry as "bomb trains".

@@bademoxy still better then fu ucking up drinking water tables the provide more water then just one town.

@@shoonger001 too bad you weren’t there when it happened pos

@@berryberrykixx That's the one he's talking about.

eitther way oil companies make armagedon a reality

Pipelines leak, often in remote areas so its less well known.

I hate the idea of 5 dollar a gallon gas

KEN LIEBERMAN consumers leak a boat load (literally) every year of petrol. If the companies were smart they would blame us like global warming

@@treebeard7140 Unless its the boat that goes with your rubber ducky that's b.s. Maybe a few drops on every fillup, but its pretty minor (an regulated to keep it that way). The pipeline was proposed when the U.S. was the world's largest importer, and Canada was are largest supplier. Just a few years later the U.S. became more or less self sufficient, so we don't need the oil. Canada could build there own refineries but they don't want the pollution. Instead they want to pollute the U.S.. The oil refined in the U.S. will sent to Europe etc. Now, the demand for oil decline, not in years but decades, and the ppeline, if built will go bankrupt, possibly in as little as a decade. Who do you think is going to have to pay billions of dollars to dismantle the pipeline and the toxic sludge that always builds up in it(and even more so with tar oil)? The American tax payer. A few people will get rich, and the rest of us will get stuck with a huge bill. This may have made sense 15 yrs ago, but definately not today.

electricity

Until one goes off grid and learns to be self sustainable, they will never know how hard or how easy it can be. My time off grid was fun and easy cuz I have gathered much knowledge on how to do some cool experimental ideas how to live off grid.

Maybe those against the lines should have their gas shut off and gasoline withheld.

TAR oil is the worst possible extraction method. It uses a lot of energy, destroyes huge plots of land and pollutes huge amounts of water (we are talking about basically the same land occupied by northen italy being rendered an industrial wasteland). Its also located deep into the wildness and it costs energy to get everything in the sites. Its almost dying out by itself as a result of costs of production versus selling prices. Energy production and crude production can be and are being achieved in other ways

Destroying the planet to own the libs. Hyuck-hyuck-hyuck. Cry us a river, tarboi.

Most Canadian Leaders has no imagination. We are exporting Alberta Crude to the south at a discount of more than 10 dollars. If we refine it ourselves and export finished products will fetch more than raw crude prices. Canada is like a third world country like Nigeria.

Its not just US intervention, innovation in the O&G industry (especially in Alberta) have has a huge effect on jobs in the industry. Tons of people are yearning for 2005, but even if you somehow force the economy to comply, those jobs are never coming back. The days of being paid 100K a year to run a truck from point A to point B are over.

I've worked in the industry for sometime and people in the industry like consistency. Know the job is temporary as many of others do, thing is for me is when projects are announced and it keeps getting delayed constantly then I find its when people start blaming the government

the "victory" is for planet earth, as the production of dirty oil from sand is less profitable and therefore might decline. Making it more expensive to transport the oil will mean that alternatives will be found. Problem solved, market style.

​@@BernhardWelzel Crude Transport Taxes will achieve a much more desirable result allowing governments to redirect money toward alternatives. Consider this: Heavy crude is already the most expensive crude - and the fact there is a demand for it doesn't reduce the economics of producing it. All it did was incentivise Alberta to build their own refinery - which they are. And guess what? no taxes on transport! What a shame. This "Win" for environmentalists is the equivalent of a double face palm.

@@kingscroach that’s what no one is hearing or understanding. It is just a way to get oil from Canada to the ships to send to Asia. They should build their own pipeline over the Rockies and to the Pacific Ocean and we don’t have to deal with the possible pollution. That’s why Canada doesn’t want the pipeline in Canada.

@@chuckstockford2338 wrong it was to supply heavy crude to the refineries in Texas that were designed for heavy crude, the US exports a lot of domestic oil to other countries because it's light sweet crude and as such isn't the ideal feed stock for them, as it is the us was just importing heavy crude from elsewhere.

Precisely. Oil and gas subsidies aren't fair. If fossil fuels were fairly priced green energy would prevail naturally and with ease

Count the number of rail accidents it's insane

Why wouldn't we use the pipeline to transport it?

That is ok. I expect demand to fall faster than pipelines go off line.

its just broll...

There are very few pipelines above ground in Alberta... that is possibly why 😂🤣😂🤣

@Patrick Baptist and CO2 coming up the atmosphere causing climate change is better. At least nuclear waste can be contained.

Seems like everyone is forgetting or not seeing this fact. Instead of using some of the safest, standardized oil, we use Saudi oil... Known to be worse in terms environmental damage, potential for large oil spills and poor human rights and work conditions.

@@DomGaccioli who is "we". As for America and Europe, their use of Saudi oil has fallen to its lowest in the last two years . Going forward it is not only Saudi oil but oil demand in general is going to go down as EV market share grows. Before you say EVs are less than 2 percent of auto market. I will tell you you are wrong. Those are the figures from two years ago. The latest fogure is in Europe the percentage of plug in cars was 16% in quarter 1 this year that was a 63% growth from last year. Source for Ev sales : insideevs and EVsalesblogspot.

@@najibyarzerachic “we” as in America/Canada. I’m not against EV’s or sustainable energy in general. All I’m saying is that before we start penalizing “local” producers, maybe we should reduce imports of oil which is worse for the environment as opposed to the more responsibly produced North American Oil. Oil is getting phased out but while we still use it, maybe we should be looking at the lesser of two evils.

Would be true if they didn’t leak all the time.

Except for the fact that Oil only has 100 years of supplies left, so even if the Demand goes up the Supply will ultimate go to zero making it a dead industry. There's only a finite amount of Oil because there was only a finite amount of ancient organisms.

@@KRYMauL Projecting 100 years of oil reserves suggests we already know how much can be extracted, which is untrue. We have many estimates, from 40 more years to well over 100. Estimates constantly change as technology does. But you're right that the oil is finite, so we will be forced to stop using oil no matter what.

@@Jake-rs9nq The Reserve amount is not the problem now. All technology has shown as the oil gets more difficult to extract. It becomes more Costly & Destructive to reach that oil. It's pointless if the Reserve still exist but it cost a fortune to extract it plus is very harmful process. It's sad we even have to make this choice.

@@truck6280 It’s diminishing returns after a certain point ie the demand for oil will be so much more the supply because the cost per gallon extracted will go up. Basically there’s a point within the next 100 years were oil is suicide to invest in.

@@truck6280 Sure... but not fossil fuel crude. 😌

It's coming in either way. I don't trust trains...

I don't trust tankers

Haha, thought the exact same thing! Too many people who aren’t engineerings, making engineering decisions

At first I laughed when I read this...until I realized how accurate it was

Johnny Ballenger USA finally builds infrastructure "shut it down"

That sounds clever, but is that the measure of something’s worth? How long it takes to shut it down?

Nunya Bidness the materials used in construction probably had environmental impact so if you just scrap it idk man

@@treebeard7140 The correct answer is no, obviously. People can die in an instant.

Crude oil train burnt down most of a town in Quebec killing allot of people. But they don't care about that.

The reason they want the pipeline is to cheaply transport it to the Gulf for export. The pipeline will not decrease the price of gas in the US. To decrease the price of gas in the US, it would make more sense to build a refinery in North Dakota.

Train is for coal delivery

@@lelacshop1635 Trains have tanker cars for oil.

And your point? Thanks for the information

Of course you would forget all the tribes fighting for our drinking water.

DaPinkBublé that's great and all but the oil is just gonna get there by a different and more risky transport.

THIS is the main reason. this project is a power fight not environmental nor other categories "fight"

Freddy Flores $$$$$$$

​@@treebeard7140 Oil is also more expensive to transport like that. So people will be more willing to find alternatives. In the meantime we'll pay a few extra cents more for oil products. I think that's a small price to pay for a push towards a greener future. This project is a relic of the early 2000's. I think the biggest failure we can have in the fight against climate change is failing to think big enough. We have the capacity to do great things if we just choose to do them. The single biggest thing we can do for green energy is start working on grid level power storage. That will lower the cost and carbon emissions of power by a lot.

or dont ship oil at all?

@@jonathanodude6660 Yes we shouldn’t ship oil we should get it locally.

Why the f, are we bringing oil, from one oil rich region to another oil rich region?

Then the whole country will end up like Texas winter storm

Smiles in BYD

@@JTytshorts Nope. Smiles in BNSF.

@@CEROtian9279 smiles in all green energy

Buffet has plenty of stock in Phillips 66 and Northern Natural gas. Both are pipeline companies.

Berkshire Hathaway Energy

Under rated comment lol

As a truck driver this is exactly what I was thinking too 😂😂

Well, those truck drivers get to keep their jobs.

@@akillj autonomous trucks will eliminate your job by the end of the decade lol, and they will be electric so no loss there😂

@key peele No, we just don't build new pipelines and instead invest in becoming a global leader in green energy production.

They've been saying that for decades. I do agree, green energy is the future, but larger investments and research is needed, we cannot just toss oil to the side. We will still be transporting all that oil that would be moved through the pipeline through rail systems, so creating the pipeline would have been more efficient, and created less pollution. Trains use energy as well.

@@thisguy2114 No doubt creating the pipeline would have been more efficient. Also, it will make oil cheaper in the long run, but that is precisely the reason why they don't want to do it. Lowering the cost of transporting oil would incentivize the extraction of more dirty oil not less. Any measure you take that lowers the cost of oil will mean we depend longer on this dirty energy. So, while moving it by train creates more pollution, in the end, it might mean less pollution because of the oil that you avoid extracting from the ground as the point when this is no longer economically viable to do is reached sooner.

@key peele Or use what we have. Makes sense. 🙄

@@thisguy2114 Could stop politicians from giving our taxes to subsidize oil *before* we even pump it into our vehicles. Somehow that never bothers conservatives wanting to conserve money much. 🤔

And will trains run on wind ?

The only thing it's going to do is raise gas prices causing more struggles for low income families.

The rail line that now and will in the haul most of the oil, Burlington Northern is owned by Warren Buffett a very big donor to the Democrats. That’s just a coincidence I am sure! 🥺

But it's orders of magnitude less oil than would go through the pipeline, doesn't require destroying thousands of miles of land to build a pipe, maintains jobs for those truck and train drivers and the jobs of people who support them (restaurants on the highway, etc.), and those trains and trucks will convert to electric over the next decade or two, if they haven't already, because it's more cost effective. Additionally, preventing the pipeline prevents the enormous glut of Canadian oil coming into the US, which would have depressed energy prices harming US energy companies.

@@rubidot pipelines aren't that destructive, once they are below ground you barely notice them

@@victoriap1561 except in case they leak of course

I don’t think this is true. Buffet or rather BRK lent 10B to Occidental in 2020 at an 8% preferred. Oxy is an oil field in Texas Permian basin.

@@davidanalyst671 Cost of fuel is not the total cost. The purchase of oil as a commodity was for a long time cheaper because of negative externalities that consumers don't directly pay for. You don't pay a tax for healthcare costs due to pollution, environmental damages from oil leaks/spills and reduced fishing due to ocean acidification from absorbing CO2 for decades. If you price these in, clean energy always has been better and now for several years clean energy has been cheaper than fossil fuels without adding those costs back in.

The coming online of shale oil makes long transport of crude obsolete.

@Neil Peters Yes. The way electric R&D is exploding the pipeline may be over capability so be obsolete before it's life expectancy due date or the breakeven point. It looks that it is heading that direction with easier obtained shale oil coming on-line. Natural gas and shale be the bridge fuel for 10-15 years.That might not be enough time.

Irrelevant. That's like saying your socks have a hole in them so best to not replace your shirt which also has a hole in it. Clueless!!

The EU people need energy. However, most the nuclear plants in the EU are aging and are all closing in less than 20y. This means, the EU needs to find other means to maintain the industry/electricity demand for it citizens. Pipelines are needed for that demand (it also avoid having thousands of trucks on the road transporting this gas/oil)

EU Has much less Oil Liquid pipelines. Mostly just low density gas. Oil pipelines simply carry a much more complicated and destructive thick liquid. It's simply a case of different material being piped.

@@davidanalyst671 LOL Ironic. US can not afford to hurt demand for fossil fuels because it's already wasted too much resources. They fought TRILLION DOLLAR wars just protect oil interests. Ironically not to directly consume them selves but to control the markets. That is a different level of corruption when the amount of people killed is too many to accurately measure. EU is kind of not relevant, Pipelines are in North America.

In Europe the nations and the consumers have nothing against the GAS pipelines (for the most part). Those come from Russia to transport gas (from conventional fields, not fracking) to central Europe). And the U.S. and the NATO hawks are fiercly opposed to Germany, France, Austria, Switzerland getting their gas from Russia. Even Merkel the spineless oppotunist does not want to bow to U.S. interests in this area. It forces the Europeans to consider Russian interests no matter the sanction circus, and the U.S. frackers want to sell their (more expensive) gas in Europe. There are some oil pipelines as well, but the Europeans get a lot of oil via tankers from the Middle East (the oil that the U.S. controls with the bloated military and the occasional war). the U.S. does not need the oil of the ME (not anymoere) - but they want to control it anyway in order to have leverage over the other nations (incl. the "allies" / vasalls like Europe, or Japan). Like they try to control Venezuela. Which in turn get closer to Russia and China, so in terms of foreign policy that is the most idiotic strategy that the U.S. could take. It shows that U.S. foreign policy serves the interests of oligarchs - while Russian and China have geostrategic goals. you may disagree with them, but at least they have a strategy and one that is fairly consistent.

The Pipelines in the EU existed from "soviet" times and that is an irony: "Cold War" and other stuff, but for oil there is no borders. And another thing, actually Russia buying gasoline in EU, that are developed from Russian oil. ( It's a long and dirty story.) Wayout from fossil fuel? Nuclear energy, hydro energy, wind... Hydrogen? You need electricity first. EV's ? You need to produce and then recycle over 3.5 billion batteries. It's not possible. But hey, it possible to consume less. For example, night light on the streets of the cities. All the lamps is working and consume electricity for 3 - 5 humans and, maybe 2 - 3 cars for one night. It's a huge amount of energy, megawatts of energy.

We already have the battery energy density to support long range EVs, and supercharging will make up the distance if required. Nuclear is too expensive, it is already outpriced by wind and solar.

Obtaining all the lithum that is required for EV would be an ecological catastrophe too. It's very complicated.

@@victoriap1561 Well as the price rises less desirable sources of lithium will become economically feasible, such as those in seawater.

the amount to just fill the pipe far exceeds the consumption of fuel to transport it.

Zero when using renewables (not for transporting oil, mind you).

@@AndreasDelleske False. You are skipping the process of building. The only form of energy that has the lowest carbon footprint is nuclear.

That's the idea, make it more expensive, so people use less of it.

@@blastermanr6359 Are you saying that nuclear is more expensive?

Truth right there. While there is this heavy oil from the north, we have the best light, sweet crude from the gulf. On top of that, these oil sand in Alberta have fossils in them. They should shut this garbage down and turn it into a huge excavation area but, you know, oil $$$. SMDH

Except that fracking and the pipeline both contribute to supply. If supply can meet demand through other means, then importing oil from another country is not needed. The side benefit is less pollution.

@@Obscurai I think that the crude oild complements the qualities they extract with fracking. For the same reason they want to regime change Venezuela. There is no pipeline so the Koch Brothers refineries in TX have to import the VZ oil. It is harder to process and "dirtier" (Saudi oil is better quality overal and cheaper to extract and process for isntance), but it is a sort of oil they need to add to the mix.

​@@xyzsame4081 Yes, as a commodity, oil demand has both a quality and regional supply component to its distribution and consumption. However, overall fracking has contributed significantly to the domestic supply, enough to elevate the US to being a net exporter of oil. This means that current US oil demand can be met without a pipeline. And as you noted some sweet crude oil is easier to refine, and since oil sands crude are lower quality there is even less desire to import it given that there is currently a worldwide production overcapacity. This overcapacity will worsen as the transition to renewables increases. In short, there are multiple reasons why financially the pipeline would not make sense. In less than a decade, the pipeline could be a stranded infrastructure asset that cannot pay for itself.

Then consider the fact that American hedge fund managers are actually betting against California not having enough water

Funny thing is some places that lack clean water have plenty of water. Example India has some of the highest rainfall totals in the world, they have more than enough water. But most of it gets contaminated, by all sort of pollutants, and human behavior.

jefflewis4 the government refuses to invest in infrastructure im assuming. Similar to ours in a way

@@treebeard7140 The government does invest in the infrastructure, but the investment required is massive. If they tried to bring their infrastructure up to western standards it probably would put the country in overwhelming debt, and destroy the economy. Only 20% of homes in India have piped in water. 1/3th of the population practices open bathing and defecation, which leads to the contamination of over 75% of India's ground water. Toilets are seen by many in rural areas as unclean and associated with the lowest castes. Investment in infrastructure is half the battle in India, the other half is changing mindsets.

fossil fuel literally keeps our civilization going. If you take fossil fuel away, civilization would collapse within a week. So your cancer comparison is quite silly.

What did Subhas Chandra Bose think of Mahatma Gandhi? There's always two sides. As for the pipeline, a better way is to raise carbon taxes rather than shut down one pipeline, when transporting oil without the pipeline will introduce more carbon into the atmosphere.

@@raylopez99 A better way might be, refine the oil in Montana thereby crossing less state lines and providing more *permanent* jobs than it would in Texas and work to use hybrid diesel electric semis to transport... creating more jobs perhaps. 🤔

"Earth provides enough to satisfy every man's needs, ...... ", Nope it doesn't, Gandhi doesn't make much sense in his writings, he is probably overhyped by British people to feel less guilt for own colonial policies. Be sovereign in thought process first to provoke thought with ideas!!

If you take away access to this type of energy from America - people will starve.

@@noe616 Oil won't be removed from America like cutting out a cancer. It will gradually be used less and less. 😌 You can turn off the alarms now. 😅

Environmentalists are the sames that are against GMO and nuclear power but super into solar and wind even though making the infrastructure necessary for these type of resources is really dirty ( it just happens somewhere else)

@@victoriap1561 lol I agree with you. They try to make the preception but it doesn't work in reality

People think oil will just disappear if they resist it.

@@DS-me7kk No, they think if it's even less cost effective than the alternatives(clean energy) then energy companies will be forced to spend their capital on alternative sources of energy.

or rail. And towns like the ones in Quebec in Saskatchewan will be burned down because of it.

All of that efficiency gained by pipes will go directly to lower oil costs and so higher oil consumption.

@@jholotanbest2688 I just said we needed import curbs on oil so price goes up. Just the handling, shipping and processing gets cheaper. The expanded profits can then be used to curb the emissions by the industry itself installing environmentally protective but costlier equipments and processes.

we do.......it's called nuclear power. but people oppose that as well for some reason.

@@DoctorHouse999 I agree...and without very significant improvements in energy storage technology AND with the ramp down of all other non-renewable energy sources I would love to know where all the baseload power is going to come from in the next 10-20+ years. "Given the nature of demand, an electricity grid cannot function without substantial baseload power on the system. Most power demand requires baseload power supplies, and a certain minimum energy must be maintained on every electrical grid to ensure against blackouts or system failures."

Gentlemen farmers? Also they possibly did not get much money from the right-of-way.

Presumably ranchers didn't want to take the risk of a catastrophic spill in their communitues

@@fdm2155 What's the risk of that? Less than 1%, you'll get compensation, and crops will grow again on the contaminated soil after a few years. Contaminated groundwater? Doubtful, and crops will grow with contaminated groundwater; the contaminant selenium is common in CA farming and life goes on. As a farmer myself, I don't see any real farmers objecting to a pipeline across their land, unless they can't cross it easily with their tractor.

@@raylopez99 in the us, getting Permission to build pipelines rodes infrastructure is a big part of building, like the video explained

But don't big farmers have huge number of cattle which contribute to global warming by way of methane gas?

well actually until we get more nuclear online.

It takes vast amounts of energy and resources to build windmills and solar cells. Then more effort to try to store the energy to use when it's needed. Then, remember none of these new sources are bio degradable. There are grave yards of windmills already, haven't seen the solar panel graveyards yet, but they are coming.

@@waynedavis936 Windmill graveyards? Alumnium is one of the most recycled material there is... copper is in high demand as well.

I was wondering why they didn't just build a second pipeline next to the original.

Exactly

@@nicewknd tesla is going to drop all year long. They need blowout earnings eachq

That seems to be the consensus in the comments. We're in for some rough times but will come out on the other side better.

Check out John Bolenbaugh on leakages, they can go on for years. And Keystone XL is additional capacity so that has nothing to do with stopping anything "overnight", first step: do NOT EXPAND capacities. They do not update railway infrastructure (which CAN be used for other transports, so that would be an investment into the future, whereas pipelines are useless if oil consumption goes down).

If safety cannot be guaranteed with railway (due to underfunding). What makes you think the pipelines will be monitored ?? They WILL leak, that is sure. A train spill cannot be covered up - but a pipeline spill will be.

@@xyzsame4081 Currently, I don’t think they will and that’s my issue with oil and gas finding the most affordable option. If were looking at the best means for transporting oil long distances, in my opinion pipelines are the best option.

Very ignorant comment, there is no tar in the oil extracted from cleaning up nature’s mess in Northern Alberta, and no tar in dilbit travelling down pipelines. California’s oil industry is far dirtier than Canada’s but the hippies are fine with that while typing on computers, riding bikes and wearing jackets full of petrochemical products.

it does not matter if there is a (lot) of tar in the thick oil, and whether or not California oil if even worse. At least in CA they keep the oil in one place. And the hippies are not happy with it, it is the neoliberal Democrats that allow fracking in California.

No mention of that here which is bullshyte

The Megantic incident involved a lightweight volition crude as I recall. Had it been loaded with heavy crude or bitumen, the results would have been far less tragic. Either way, the rail company immediately declared bankruptcy and I doubt the railways have improved their operations since then.

Volitile crude.

Haha America is never going to fix it's transport systems then!

_GAS_ pipelines - and not for fracked gas ! It is gas won in the conventional way from russian gas fields.

Vary True but Europe is also different where some countries don’t have the natural resources of fossil fuels like the U.S. has underground but the demand is still there.

@@harveysanchez6993 and you cant go from fossil fuels to renewable in an instant and natural gas is way more environmentaly friendly than any other fossil fuel.

@@collan580 oh yes I agree with you I’m just saying that many European countries don’t have natural resources like coal, natural gas, or oil and rely on other countries to supply them such as Russia.

Hate to break the news to you but pipelines are already the safest and most economical way of transporting most liquids.

Pipelines are by far the safest way to transport petroleum, the issue is that we are still transporting oil in large enough quantities for a pipeline to be economically viable.

No it wouldn't because all of that benefit for the environment gained in more efficient transport would be lost in increased use of oil because the transportation is cheaper.

China did effectively that to move water from southern china near taiwan to the northern capital

You would need to cross multiple mountain ranges something that although possible is difficult and expensive to do..

@@flennboyd6413 desalination plants aren't a cost effective way to provide water for forrests and agriculture, california has draughts not a lack of access to drinking water, the problem is more about climate than management. Suggesting desalination is like asking why they don't buy bottled water and pour it on the forrest fires, they may be able to do it for one or two fires but it isn't a feasible long term solution.

@@flennboyd6413 it probably wouldn't, but it probably would only be slightly more expensive than desalination.

Rather than trying to get more water into California, how about we reduce California's population to one that its existing water supply can actually support?