Oil Cans Across the Swinomish Channel Swing Bridge in WA

[MidlandMike]

The Puget Sound also has an oil spill response system:

http://marexps.com/supporting/washington_state_maritime_cooperative

 

[MidlandMike]

Keystone pipeline was predominantly for Canadian tar sands crude, and only had about 1/8th increase in capacity for Bakken crude.  Their revised EIS rerouted around the Ogalalla.  However, there were other new pipelines going to the Gulf or midwest.  There is not enough Bakken going to the west coast for a pipeline, so CBR to the PNW is safe for now.

[Paul_D_North_Jr]

Yard Limit

[snipped - PDN.] . . . The spill response equipment is probably a really good idea. 

We've had that kind of equipment on the Delaware Bay - near the railroad track in Lewes - for about 30 years now:

http://www.dbrcinc.org/Beacon_DBRC_30_years.pdf 

http://www.dbrcinc.org/EquipmentList.html 

See also: http://www.munsonboats.com/oil.php 

- Paul North.

[Yard Limit]

Keystone was supposed to do that, except it would take the oil to the Gulf Coast to be refined.  There are some very good reasons that the pipeline didn't happen including the misuse of imminent domain and the risk of contaminating the Ogalalla aquafir, but it does mean a lot of oil has to go by train.  Not a bad thing for those of us that like to video them!

[MidlandMike]

I was thinking of some of the alternative proposals, like bringing the contenental oil to central ports (like Vancouver, WA & BC) and barging the oil to costal refineries.

[Yard Limit]

Tankers currently bring oil from Alaska to the refineries in Anacortes but the oil that comes by rail is from the Bakken in North Dakota.  One of the reasons that BNSF uses for bringing oil in by train is that Alaska's output is diminishing over time.

The spill response equipment is probably a really good idea.  

[MidlandMike]

The alternative to oil-by-rail transport to the refinery is tanker.  A big tanker spill into the Sound would be a bigger problem to native fishing, than an oil spill on land that might be mitigated before it hits water.  For spills at the bridge, BNSF could put spill response equipment in place there for further protection.

[Yard Limit]

Thank you for the nice comment.  It is a great spot and it was a perfect day.

It will be interesting to see what comes out of the lawsuit.  Both sides have good points.

The track is in good condition with welded rail.  One has to wonder how safe the bridge is being over 60 years old and carrying that kind of weight.  BNSF made an agreement with the tribe regarding train length but just has to inform them of the cargo.  It doesn't seem to give the tribe the right to refuse specific types of cargo.  

[NorthWest]

Ah, one of my favorite locations. Good spot, and nice video.

Norm, it is a bit more complicated than that. This news article sums it up:

http://www.bellinghamherald.com/news/local/article22286625.html

There hasn't been any news about it sense then, but it will be an interesting battle between the Commerce Clause and Native American rights...

[Norm48327]

Wherever oil trains run there's controversy. The railroad passes over a tidal basin at the far  north end of their reservation. No cause for alarm, just NIMBY's at work.

[Yard Limit]

https://youtu.be/U3scj2CAO-4

There's some controversy about BNSF sending oil tank trains through the Swinomish tribal land at the south end of Padilla Bay near Anacortes, WA.  There's an old swing bridge that the trains use to cross the Swinomish Channel.