Alberta train crash re-ignites debate between pipelines and trains for transporting oil..

When a trainload filled with gas goes up in flames, one can't help but remember the tragedy of Lac-Megantic, Que. The latest derailment occurred this past weekend. This time it happened in the prairies, when a train carrying oil and liquefied petroleum gas went off the rails near Gainford, Alta., and exploded.

This time no one was hurt, but the national fallout echoes that of the Lac-Megantic disaster. We are again left questioning the country's habit of shipping oil across the country on the back of a train.

The Canadian Press reported CN Rail went into crisis mode following the crash, dispatching Chief Operating Officer Jim Vena to handle the situation and quickly issued a public apology.
[ Related: Albertans remain out of homes in wake of CN derailment ]
"They have their COO out there, they've apologized, they're keeping everybody informed — that's all really good stuff," said Vancouver  consultant Michael Davis told the Canadian Press.
"The reason is they're terrified they're going to pop up... above the radar and all of a sudden they're going to start getting all this public pressure on the amount of oil products and petroleum products that are being shipped by rail."
All of this seems to relate back to the summer's devastating train derailment in Lac-Megantic, Que., when a train carrying crude oil exploded and decimated the small town.
That crash launched a debate over the safety of transporting oil by train. That concern has now been compounded by the Alberta crash.
[ More Brew: How Alberta train derailment may hurt government plans ]

The Canadian Railway Association reported that an estimated 140,000 carloads of crude oil will cross Canada over the course of this year. As recently as 2009, that number was 500 carloads - a drastic increase that can't help but flirt with drastic concerns.

CN Rail says 99 per cent of all shipments end without an accident. But that still leaves one per cent that do have an accident, and one per cent of 140,000 carloads of oil is much higher than one per cent of 500 carloads.
Norman Lerach, a columnist for the online Beacon News, argues that those really responsible for the Alberta crash are the opponents to oil pipeline developments such as Keystone XL and the Northern Gateway.
"There is a market for oil and gas and their assorted by products and those products will find their way to market. One way or another," he writes.
However, that assumes that pipeline transportation is infallable, which it is not. A North Dakota farmer discovered a pipeline oil spill the size of seven football fields while out harvesting his wheat earlier this month. Earlier this year, a town in Arkansas was evacuated after some 12,000 barrels of oil and water spilled from a pipeline rupture.
Greenpeace Canada has taken umbrage with the government's current push toward pipelines and has, instead, claimed more rail safety measures are required. Those measures include banning the use of old, outdated tanker cars for oil shipments, give communities for information about what is being shipped through town, and launch a full review on hydrocarbon transportation.
"This is becoming the new normal as we have movements of crude-by-rail skyrocketing at a time when the safety standards have not kept up," said Greenpeace's Keith Stewart.
The number I keep coming back to is the 140,000 carloads of oil transported by train. On the same system that saw only 500 carloads in 2009. That the habit would have exploded to such heights in just four years can't be discounted. Those who oppose pipelines have to realize that this is the alternative. And if Canada is to live with this as an alternative, regulations and safety measures must be addressed.
Like, immediately or sooner