Not necessarily. Some of the proposed pipelines are to carry carbon dioxide from ethanol or power plants to "deep underground storage"--mostly in depleted oil wells, where it's used for Enhanced Oil Recovery. Read about what happened when one of these ruptured in Satartia, Mississippi, in HuffPost. The pipeline given a special pass, MVP, goes over very steep karst terrain above streams, and has already racked up hundreds of water violations. Karst is ground like Swiss cheese, full of holes. It also is not needed for domestic use--it's for export, to reduce the gas glut here in Appalachia so the price can go up. And it's a new fossil fuel project, estimated to contribute the equivalent of 26 coal plants' emissions, at a time when we desperately need to AT LAST start phasing out fossil fuels to rescue climate and ecosystems. No, running volatile things by train is not better. Nor is a pipeline better, especially a new one.
Not necessarily. Some of the proposed pipelines are to carry carbon dioxide from ethanol or power plants to "deep underground storage"--mostly in depleted oil wells, where it's used for Enhanced Oil Recovery. Read about what happened when one of these ruptured in Satartia, Mississippi, in HuffPost. The pipeline given a special pass, MVP, goes over very steep karst terrain above streams, and has already racked up hundreds of water violations. Karst is ground like Swiss cheese, full of holes. It also is not needed for domestic use--it's for export, to reduce the gas glut here in Appalachia so the price can go up. And it's a new fossil fuel project, estimated to contribute the equivalent of 26 coal plants' emissions, at a time when we desperately need to AT LAST start phasing out fossil fuels to rescue climate and ecosystems. No, running volatile things by train is not better. Nor is a pipeline better, especially a new one.
Thanks for the information. It is helpful to have all the facts.