Pipeline instead of trains

Well, with the recent train derailment outside of Galena, Illinois, once again the question is raised about the necessity of the Keystone XL pipeline. Crude oil transported by train has the direct possibility of leaking or causing problems, as it has in Illinois. The question remains whether this risk and hazard is greater than that of a pipeline.

Yes, pipes fail and leakage occurs, but the effect of a train hazard is a larger problem to those who live in more-populated areas along the tracks. Right now, whether the XL pipeline is approved or not, the environmental impact will remain the same.

Therefore, why not allow a pipeline that is safer than trains traveling through populated areas, and which would lessen our dependency on foreign oil and bring in more revenue to be put to alternative forms of energy? As far as the environmental impact goes, the greatest carbon footprint is left by oil transportation overseas, which would be decreased with the existence of this pipeline as we could rely on self-dependency for oil more than we have been.

Jonathan Morris

Spokane