TMC is an independent, primarily volunteer organization that relies on ad revenue to cover its operating costs. Please consider whitelisting TMC on your ad blocker or making a Paypal contribution here: paypal.me/SupportTMC

Dangers of flammable oil

Discussion in 'Energy, Environment, and Policy' started by Cestevenson, Oct 13, 2014.

  1. Cestevenson

    Cestevenson Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2013
    Messages:
    41
    Location:
    Dallas, tx
  2. ggr

    ggr Roadster R80 537, SigS P85 29

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2011
    Messages:
    2,475
  3. tga

    tga Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2014
    Messages:
    2,201
    Location:
    New Hampshire
    #3 tga, Oct 13, 2014
    Last edited: Oct 13, 2014
    "Dayton has joined activists in asking North Dakota to force oil companies to 'stabilize' the oil — to make it less explosive by separating out the flammable liquids."

    What, exactly, are you supposed to do with those nasty "flammable liquids" after separation and transporting away the "stabilized" oil?

    I wonder if there's a better way to transport crude... Hmmm... Here's a crazy idea (hey I'm just thinking out of the box here) - what if we put together a series of pipes? Like a line of pipes? We could call it a "pipeline".

    Edit: Before anyone gets their knickers in a knot - :wink:
     
  4. adiggs

    adiggs Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2012
    Messages:
    1,349
    Location:
    Portland, OR
    I have a small investment in a company that builds those pipelines. Following them has taught me that building them is slow, and the rate of expansion in the Bakken Shale is so high, the pipeline builders just can't build fast enough. There are billions being poured into pipelines and processing plants (nat gas side, but the principle is the same) and they're still playing catch up. Many years of it.

    So yeah - pipelines are a good idea and they are a much better way to transport the stuff. They take time to build though.
     

Share This Page