- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: China Joe Bans Transporting Natural Gas By Rail
Posted on 9/5/23 at 4:44 pm to DingLeeBerry
Posted on 9/5/23 at 4:44 pm to DingLeeBerry
had this kept going, they would of kept derailing trains with these chemicals, and unleashing death and sickness on americans, then claim to protect them by stopping it. everyone cheers!
frick biden
frick biden
0
Posted on 9/5/23 at 4:48 pm to DingLeeBerry
If they cared about climate change they would allow transport by train. Much cleaner than transport by truck.
Posted on 9/5/23 at 5:11 pm to DingLeeBerry
I don’t think anyone wants an lng bomb rolling through their town. I can’t imagine this is even an efficient/ feasible way to move Nat gas.
Posted on 9/5/23 at 5:55 pm to Homesick Tiger
quote:
So how do they propose to transport it over land?
By mules.
Posted on 9/5/23 at 6:42 pm to DingLeeBerry
quote:
They have stated LNG is highly flammable
Posted on 9/5/23 at 7:14 pm to Captain Crackysack
Do we really have someone posting in this thread that believes lng is not flammable?
Posted on 9/5/23 at 7:42 pm to AggieHank86
quote:It is. But Leftists understand leverage and play the long game. They can ban it now and the usual "modeatees" will say "no big deal, only a small percentage is transported by rail". and everyone goes on with their day. Classic incrementalism.
What percent is transported by rail?
I've always assumed that the vast, vast majority is moved by pipeline.
Then they ban pipelines (as they're been trying for years). And guess what... the most logical alternative is already banned. If you tried to ban rail transport after the pipeline shortages... people would fight it.
But republican "moderates" are way too stupid to see the trap that's been laid. Just like they were for the Leftist take over of education, federal law enforcement, and everything else the Left controls. It was all obvious, except for the "this isn't a big deal" crowd.
Posted on 9/5/23 at 7:48 pm to cwill
quote:
Do we really have someone posting in this thread that believes lng is not flammable?
LNG is not flammable. In a gaseous state, natural gas is flammable. In a liquid state, it is not flammable.
Posted on 9/5/23 at 7:48 pm to Taxing Authority
quote:
except for the "this isn't a big deal" crowd.
I might introduce you to suburban women, and the Texas Legislature. "It can't hurt."
Posted on 9/5/23 at 7:52 pm to DingLeeBerry
Given that open Border, I can't disagree with this. They can bring in RPGs by the truckload.
Posted on 9/5/23 at 8:04 pm to RCDfan1950
quote:Seemingly closing the border is more important than banning rail traffic for Americans. But we aren't trying to ruin America, so... maybe we just don't get it.
Given that open Border, I can't disagree with this. They can bring in RPGs by the truckload.
Posted on 9/5/23 at 8:19 pm to Taxing Authority
quote:
will say "no big deal, only a small percentage is transported by rail".
Is any Nat gas currently transported by rail?
Posted on 9/5/23 at 8:22 pm to Captain Crackysack
quote:
LNG is not flammable. In a gaseous state, natural gas is flammable. In a liquid state, it is not flammable.
What happens when it escapes containment? C’mon dude.
Posted on 9/5/23 at 8:31 pm to cwill
quote:Does it matter? If it's so small, why the move to ban it?
Is any Nat gas currently transported by rail?
Thanks for proving my point about enabling, tho. Very effective.
Posted on 9/5/23 at 8:38 pm to Bwmdx
New 48” pipeline supposedly coming from around Katy through setx towards Louisiana starting pretty quick
Posted on 9/5/23 at 8:41 pm to Taxing Authority
quote:
Does it matter? If it's so small, why the move to ban it?
It’s not.
quote:
Thanks for proving my point about enabling, tho. Very effective.
A bad idea isn’t good bc the other side points out that it’s bad. Aside from the danger it’s just inefficient.
Posted on 9/5/23 at 8:59 pm to KAGTASTIC
quote:
I wonder how Warren Buffett benefits still in some way from this.
He sold some of his railroads for a pipeline company.
That is how he profited off the Keystone Pipeline cancellation since he had some rail lines that would benefit by expanded rail for oil cargo from the oil sands of Canada.
Posted on 9/5/23 at 9:05 pm to cwill
You mean when it boils off and turns back into a gas? Then it becomes flammable, obviously. The article said LNG is flammable, which is a false statement
Posted on 9/5/23 at 9:28 pm to cwill
LNG tankcar
Posted on 9/5/23 at 9:30 pm to Tarps99
quote:
I wonder how Warren Buffett benefits still in some way from this.
He sold some of his railroads for a pipeline company.
That is how he profited off the Keystone Pipeline cancellation since he had some rail lines that would benefit by expanded rail for oil cargo from the oil sands of Canada.
Buffett, actually Berkshire Hathaway, owns one railroad and has only owned one railroad.
BNSF
Still owns it.
Page 3 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News