Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

Politics
posted by mrpg on Saturday November 25 2017, @12:23PM   Printer-friendly
from the what-could-go-wrong? dept.

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


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday November 25 2017, @04:24PM (4 children)

    by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Saturday November 25 2017, @04:24PM (#601421) Journal

    If you are evaluating an approach, not even an implementation, and you see significant impacts that cannot be avoided, it is time to go back to the drawing board.

    Or accept the significant impacts. Trade offs always exist for nontrivial decisions.

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 25 2017, @08:01PM (3 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 25 2017, @08:01PM (#601479)

    What significant impacts? The oil isn't being drilled for in Washington and it's being moved to the port in order to export. Why on Earth should the people of Washington be stuck with the risk associated with that stuff moving through our state, risking our bodies of water, just so that it can be burned overseas?

    In what universe does that make any sense at all?

    • (Score: 2) by jmorris on Saturday November 25 2017, @08:16PM

      by jmorris (4844) on Saturday November 25 2017, @08:16PM (#601486)

      So what else does Washington State plan to trade the Chinese for their trinkets? You want that iPhone or don't ya?

    • (Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday November 25 2017, @09:41PM (1 child)

      by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Saturday November 25 2017, @09:41PM (#601510) Journal

      Why on Earth should the people of Washington be stuck with the risk associated with that stuff moving through our state, risking our bodies of water, just so that it can be burned overseas?

      Because the transportation infrastructure of Washington state takes a bit off the top as middlemen in this trade.