A major oil-by-rail terminal proposed on the Columbia River in Washington state poses a potential risk of oil spills, train accidents and longer emergency response times due to road traffic, an environmental study has found.
Many of the risks could be decreased with certain mitigation measures, but the study released Tuesday outlined four areas where it said the impacts are significant and cannot be avoided.
The study said that while "the likelihood of occurrence of the potential for oil spills may be low, the consequences of the events could be severe."
[...] The study identified the four risks that could not be avoided as train accidents, the emergency response delays, negative impacts of the project on low-income communities and the possibility that an earthquake would damage the facility's dock and cause an oil spill.
Washington state panel outlines risk of oil-by-rail terminal
(Score: 2, Interesting) by khallow on Saturday November 25 2017, @09:25PM (1 child)
Which, let us note, isn't very much nor does it describe the entire right-of-way. For example, the Dakota Access [wikipedia.org] pipeline has an easement of 50 feet from the pipeline and a construction right-of-way of 150 feet. So twice as much land is set aside as is in the easement.
(Score: 2) by frojack on Saturday November 25 2017, @10:28PM
Now, to be totally fair, your assignment is to figure out the land lost to a railroad right of way.
Most pipelines are buried for most of their route, unless there are permafrost issues. Which leaves all that open-space for wild life.
One of the funniest pictures I saw was of Alaska Senator Ted Stevens (rip) laughing his ass off at a bunch environmentalists (including the US Secretary of the Interior) standing there with their mouths agape as a heard of Caribou migrated under a raises section of the Alaska Pipeline. (Something that every environmentalist on earth insisted would never happen.).
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.