Trains.com

Crude by Rail Decline Cancels Project

1861 views
10 replies
1 rating 2 rating 3 rating 4 rating 5 rating
  • Member since
    December 2001
  • 1,486 posts
Posted by Victrola1 on Tuesday, February 23, 2016 9:51 AM

TrinityRail cancels long-delayed Sioux City project; state tax credits pulled

http://siouxcityjournal.com/news/trinityrail-cancels-long-delayed-sioux-city-project-state-tax-credits/article_7b66011e-5eae-5522-a180-dab1409262a9.html

The Sioux City Journal report gives more details. 

  • Member since
    August 2006
  • From: South Dakota
  • 1,592 posts
Posted by Dakguy201 on Tuesday, February 23, 2016 5:49 AM

I would not be surprised if local civic leaders are just as happy having this project postponed -- at least privately.  The Sioux City area has several large industrial construction projects being built at the same time and the results have been a shortage of workers, housing and those kinds of problems.  The land for this project is in a greenfield industrial park rail served by the UP, and I'm not clear if it is being retained by Trinity or not. 

  • Member since
    March 2013
  • 711 posts
Posted by SD70M-2Dude on Tuesday, February 23, 2016 1:13 AM

Jack R.

I actually know that, but thank you for your information. Yes, crude oil is safer versus Chlorine or other more lethal liquids. I was speaking to a larger point. The average person has no clue about tank cars, oil transportation and the dangers it imposes when things go very wrong.

Then you are far smarter than most people out there and have hit a big nail right on the head.

Jack R.

Of course, as a conductor, you see things very differently versus someone who, has a crude oil train going by their home within mere yards. Personally, that would not bother me the slightest bit because I know something about trains, tanker cars and the safety factors built in to them.

Glad you recognize that, just look at Lac-Megantic for what happens when those safety factors are ignored.  Also imagine how much worse it could have been if there were ammonia or propane tanks involved.  Having said that I would not choose to live next to a railroad, even if all the safeguards are followed an unforseen track defect can still cause a major disaster.

Jack R.

In the big picture, crude oil must be transported somehow. So, rail is the logical method. I like rail transport of oil versus one long pipe line. The oil industris survival is dependent on rail.

I am sure we can agree on that.

Absolutely.  At least until the day we all drive Teslas and have cheap solar panels on every rooftop.  In the meantime all our energy has to come from somewhere, and fossil fuels are the main source.  And even if crude-oil-by-rail peters out and falls by the wayside as new pipelines are built, the railroads will still have a substantial business transporting refined products.

Also may I be the first to welcome you back to the light side, positive discussions like this are welcomed with open arms.

Greetings from Alberta

-an Articulate Malcontent

  • Member since
    February 2016
  • 101 posts
Posted by Jack R. on Tuesday, February 23, 2016 12:41 AM

SD70M-2Dude

Speaking in my capacity as a Conductor, oil-by-rail does not scare me nearly as much as chlorine, anhydrous ammonia, non-odourized propane or many of the other nasty chemicals we ship.  These are far more dangerous than oil, and while not shipped in unit train volumes they are still very common in mixed freights.

If you want to find out what's inside those tank cars, just google the 4-digit UN Number on the diamond-shaped placard.  If there is no placard then the contents aren't hazardous (corn syrup or vegetable oil for example).

For example googling "un 1075" will quickly identify it as Liquified Petroleum Gas.

 

I actually know that, but thank you for your information. Yes, crude oil is safer versus Chlorine or other more lethal liquids. I was speaking to a larger point. The average person has no clue about tank cars, oil transportation and the dangers it imposes when things go very wrong.

Of course, as a conductor, you see things very differently versus someone who, has a crude oil train going by their home within mere yards. Personally, that would not bother me the slightest bit because I know something about trains, tanker cars and the safety factors built in to them.

In the big picture, crude oil must be transported somehow. So, rail is the logical method. I like rail transport of oil versus one long pipe line. The oil industris survival is dependent on rail.

I am sure we can agree on that.

  • Member since
    March 2013
  • 711 posts
Posted by SD70M-2Dude on Monday, February 22, 2016 11:48 PM

Speaking in my capacity as a Conductor, oil-by-rail does not scare me nearly as much as chlorine, anhydrous ammonia, non-odourized propane or many of the other nasty chemicals we ship.  These are far more dangerous than oil, and while not shipped in unit train volumes they are still very common in mixed freights.

If you want to find out what's inside those tank cars, just google the 4-digit UN Number on the diamond-shaped placard.  If there is no placard then the contents aren't hazardous (corn syrup or vegetable oil for example).

For example googling "un 1075" will quickly identify it as Liquified Petroleum Gas.

Greetings from Alberta

-an Articulate Malcontent

  • Member since
    February 2016
  • 101 posts
Posted by Jack R. on Monday, February 22, 2016 11:25 PM

In either case, shipping oil is very controversial. Whether by pipe or by train. 

Tanker cars are my favorite rail cars. There is such a mystery to them when I see them go by me while rail fanning. At night, the darkness just adds to that cloud of mystery. What are they carrying? Where are they going? 

Accidents, when they occur, are almost always deadly and environmental impacts long and painful. Tanker car design has come a long way and modern tankers, like those manufactured by Union Tank Car Company, are very safe to transport crude oil or other oil related products. However, a tanker car is only capable of sustaining so much damage before it spills it's load. I believe that this fact impacts such decisions regarding the transportation of oil across our country or from Canada to the United States. 

Pipe lines are just as questionable if not more. The risk are so great. Major movements of oil across many miles is just plain risky. The lowering of oil prices obviously has affected much, but there are other factors involved.

  • Member since
    March 2013
  • 711 posts
Posted by SD70M-2Dude on Monday, February 22, 2016 11:05 PM

Guess you're right Bruce, I'm must be so used to hearing about bad news attributed to the low oil prices my mind must have made the jump.  A few guys I know have been talking about the same thing so that probably didn't help either.  Hopefully this expansion survives the review and gets built, more work for railroaders sounds pretty good. 

Another bit of news, good this time is that Imperial Oil has been talking about building a diluent stripper at their Edmonton refinery, so they can ship unit trains of pure bitumen from the adjacent Kinder-Morgan Rail Terminal.  This would be a big boon for oil trains, as I believe it is cheaper to ship unit trains of 100% bitumen than it is to ship bitumen by pipeline, where it must be heavily diluted to flow.

http://edmontonjournal.com/business/energy/imperial-oil-planning-diluent-recovery-unit-for-strathcona-refinery

http://www.oilweek.com/index.php/743-imperial-files-proposal-for-diluent-recovery-unit-with-alberta-environment

Greetings from Alberta

-an Articulate Malcontent

  • Member since
    February 2008
  • 602 posts
Posted by Bruce Kelly on Monday, February 22, 2016 8:24 PM

From what I read in that Globe & Mail story, Hardisty's expansion is being delayed by a heightened level of environmental oversight only. I saw no mention of anything related to "the downturn in oil prices." Another unit train of Hardisty-loaded Canadian crude rolled southward behind my house here in Post Falls, ID, less than two hours ago, on UP's former Spokane International main.

  • Member since
    March 2013
  • 711 posts
Posted by SD70M-2Dude on Monday, February 22, 2016 3:15 PM

An expansion of the oil-loading terminal in Hardisty, AB has also been but on hold, presumably due to the downturn in oil prices as well as greater environmental scrutiny.  Of note, Hardisty will be the beginning of the Keystone XL pipeline if it ever gets built.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/alberta/plan-to-expand-hardisty-oil-by-rail-terminal-overhauled/article28469873/

Greetings from Alberta

-an Articulate Malcontent

  • Member since
    December 2001
  • 3,139 posts
Posted by chutton01 on Monday, February 22, 2016 1:30 PM

Nothing to add on Trinity Rails decision (except it seems obvious with tank cars going into storage), but they could have at least used that European tank car image which I've seen before used to illustrate on-line CBR articles, instead of a string of coil cars...

  • Member since
    December 2001
  • 1,486 posts
Crude by Rail Decline Cancels Project
Posted by Victrola1 on Monday, February 22, 2016 9:22 AM

Texas company pulls out of plans for rail car facility in Sioux City

Padmore says company officials flew up to Sioux City and met with city officials and told them the changing environment in the oil industry and the shipping of crude from the Bakken fields no longer made it viable to continue with the project.

Trinity Rail announced the Sioux City expansion in October 2014, but construction never really got underway as demand for tankers soon dropped sharply as global prices for crude oil collapsed.

http://www.radioiowa.com/2016/02/22/texas-company-pulls-out-of-plans-for-rail-car-facility-in-sioux-city/

Join our Community!

Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.

Search the Community

Newsletter Sign-Up

By signing up you may also receive occasional reader surveys and special offers from Trains magazine.Please view our privacy policy