Re: oil train update

Posted by rview_ on March 08, 2015 at 10:01:53 from (199.47.65.60):

In Reply to: oil train update posted by John in La on March 08, 2015 at 08:55:01:

Quoting Removed, click Modern View to seeYes I know where you are and the whole situation. Pipeline is safer, pretty obvious, if oil is transported, it needs built, no argument there. Not once have I said otherwise, other than to say it's not the magic thing that will create magical long lasting jobs any different than other construction projects and lower prices noticeably like some people seem to think. Oil is being moved, it simply needs built, that's all. I know this area, I know the people here, and I know the ground. To me, build it, but go around sensitive areas as best as possible. They already did with the last line, why not this one? There may be minimal risk, but as I say, the tiniest fraction of a risk at some random point in the future, when permanent severe damage can easily happen, seems a bit much to ask for everyone to just basically tell us to "deal with it and quit whining" and throw in some random put down/name calling as there often is.

I don't get the arguments from people that aren't even directly affected by this. "Well, the farmers are damaging it anyway by using it too much". No argument there, I shudder every time it's dry and my neighbor turns his pivot on and my water holes dry up, but rain and less use can help fix, well lessen that. Water rights and restrictions take a small step in the right direction, very small. What I don't get is comparing that to permanent chemical damage, how is it similar? We use too much oil too, could compare water use to that. What farmer with any crop doesn't run his water as much as he can and needs to? But "I" can't control any aspect of that. Also, the argument that there are already pipelines. Well, there are, but none over much of the area, and none here. I don't know, I guess looking at the reality of what goes on here, I don't care much about the politics of it, seems to be just arguing and getting nothing done. I just know what can and will happen here, and putting it somewhere that doesn't have a shallow water source seems more logical to me, and the end result would still be the same with minimal impact on anyone that isn't already impacted. Going back to that city reservoir analogy I used. If a city had a choice of putting the line within 20 feet, or 200 feet, which would be safer? Plus doomsday scenario is likely not to happen, there may never be a sizable leak at all. But, I see no way to pipe/truck in water if something does happen, at least for the rural folk. To me, if I could help someone out by having something go through that wouldn't affect me much, I would have no issue. But, someone else asking to put in something that could damage the life and livelihood of most people I know, THAT I have a problem with.

Replies:

Add a Reply Name: E-Mail: Subject: Comments: Optional Link URL: Link Title: Optional Image URL: Optional Video Title: Optional Video URL: Email Notification: If you check this box, email will be sent to you whenever someone replies to this message. Your email address must be entered above to receive notification. This notification will be cancelled automatically after 2 weeks.   Advanced Posting Tools   Upload Photo  Select Gallery Photo  Attach Serial # List  Return to Post

TRACTOR PARTS	TRACTOR MANUALS

We sell tractor parts!  We have the parts you need to repair your tractor - the right parts. Our low prices and years of research make us your best choice when you need parts. Shop Online Today. [ About Us ]