QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal Originally posted by PNWRMNM Futuremodal One of the most prosperous companies in the U.S. today is Kinder-Morgan, a pipeline company, whose president Richard Kinder would be my choice to lead a rail infrastructure company. And what a choice it would be, The only question is "Can you afford him? Reply Edit Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Monday, March 28, 2005 9:37 PM Miles of natural gas pipelines in USA: Transmission lines: 301,840 miles Distribution: 1,097,980 miles Reply Edit Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Monday, March 28, 2005 8:26 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by PNWRMNM Futuremodal This is not open access. It is a three party private line. Mac As a matter of practicallity, it is akin to open access. The project promoters have agreed to give access to the smaller players in the area. Any small producer who comes into existence in the future will be allowed access to the pipeline to ship their portion. As a rule, most pipelines in the U.S. will allow smaller producers to use their pipelines, and indeed most pipeline companies today are divested of the ownership of natural gas, oil, or gasoline. Pipeline companies in effect are nothing but infrastructure providers, and are very successful doing so. One of the most prosperous companies in the U.S. today is Kinder-Morgan, a pipeline company, whose president Richard Kinder would be my choice to lead a rail infrastructure company. Reply Edit tatans Member sinceMay 2004 4,115 posts Posted by tatans on Monday, March 28, 2005 5:02 PM Good luck on a pipeline that passes through Canada (if it's allowed) we are having problems here with domestic pipelines now on crossing lands on Native reserves, and the government is increasing ancient land grants to thousands of square miles to be under control of reserve leaders and Dept. of Indian Affairs. I guess Canada should be building a pipeline across the U.S. to Mexico, see how far this scheme would get ! ! Also try building a railway across 1800 miles of muskeg, not an easy task, I watched whole sections of railway track used as pilings in muskeg disappear along with a couple of bulldozers, this would be an interesting project indeed. Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Monday, March 28, 2005 1:52 PM UP829 and others hit the nail on the head about petroleum transportation. Pipeline by far is the best means for moving large quantities of both liquid and gaseous products. If we tried to move all of the crude oil in this country by rail you would need a dedicated double track line between the field and the refinery. $$$ Remember that the oil (and gas) fields are spread out over wide areas and rail lines to all of them would be cost prohibitive. More $$$ To haul natural gas by rail you would either need to have high pressure vessels (oxygen bottles) which would be very costly. The other alternative is liquification of natural gas. Much more $$$$ Turning the gas into a liquid gives a huge volume advantage-600 standard cubic feet of natural gas equals one cubic foot of liquified natural gas. The boogie man is that this is done at approximately 260ºF below zero. This takes a large and expensive cryogenic plant then the tank cars must be a large thermos bottle. I think they will cost a little more than a conventional tank car. This is done today in ships that transport natural gas from the middle east to Europe, Japan, or the good old USA. Upon arrival the gas must be regassified to enter the domestic market. More $$$. A rule of thumb is that you need atleast 3 trillion cubic feet of available gas to justify a liquified natural gas setup. And thisa is considering putting it in a ship which has refigeration to keep the gas in the liquid state. How will you do this on the rail? All of the liqified natural gas receiving terminals in the US are removed from major metropolitan areas. With rail lines going through metro areas I can just hear the Washington DC city council screaming about this. A tank car of propane or hydrocloric acid is nothing compared to the LNG tank car blowing up. You might ask: Why worry about the temperature rising? Just keep the cork in the bottle and it will stay as a liquid. The second boogie man comes to town. As the temperature rises to 117ºF below zero you reach the critical temperature of methane. At the critical temperature the gas will turn to a liquid even if you put a millions pounds of pressure on it. It CANNOT be kept as a liquid unless someone rewrites the laws of thermodynamics and physics. At its peak Prudhoe Bay produced in excess of 1 million barrels of crude per day which is 42 million gallons. If we assume that the average oil tank truck holds 21,000 gallons it would take one thousand trucks per day just to haul the oil. Assuming a 5 day round trip to get the oil to Valdez would require 5,000 tank trucks. Add in a few more for repairs and bad weather. Does anyone know the NYSE ticker symbol for the company makes tank trucks? I want to tell my broker to start buying. Dck Watkins Rail fan and professional whose real job is an oil and gas consulting professional engineer. Reply Edit spbed Member sinceDecember 2001 From: Austin TX 4,941 posts Posted by spbed on Monday, March 28, 2005 8:05 AM M'mm lets check with the NY Times or the Washington Post & see if the guys in the RR ivory towers have subscriptions to those publications. Maybe we should conduct a poll as they leave the office to see if they know even how to access those web sites. [:o)][:I] Originally posted by futuremodal Originally posted by csxengineer98 Living nearby to MP 186 of the UPRR Austin TX Sub Reply spbed Member sinceDecember 2001 From: Austin TX 4,941 posts Posted by spbed on Monday, March 28, 2005 8:00 AM Ah the true American cynic. Loved it! Especially Cheney old company HUH? [:p][8D] Originally posted by csxengineer98 [ Living nearby to MP 186 of the UPRR Austin TX Sub Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Monday, March 28, 2005 6:48 AM The History Channel recently had a show about oil. When the pipeline from Texas to the Midwest and Northeast was built during WWII, they tried shipping by rail during constructionn, but solid tank trains couln't come close to what a pipline can carry. Shared access was/is common. Although it takes 10-12 days, when a Shell refinery in Texas puts 10000 gallons of 97 octane unleaded in, they can take 10000 gallons out of the other end the very next day. What they take out may have been put in by a BP refinery. The additive package is added to the generic product at the tank farm to delievery truck terminals. Reply Edit PNWRMNM Member sinceMay 2003 From: US 2,593 posts Posted by PNWRMNM on Monday, March 28, 2005 1:38 AM Futuremodal This is not open access. It is a three party private line. Mac Reply bobwilcox Member sinceDecember 2001 From: Crozet, VA 1,049 posts Posted by bobwilcox on Sunday, March 27, 2005 9:47 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by CANADIANPACIFIC2816 The Alaska Railroad ships thousands of tank car loads of aviation fuel to the Anchorage regional airport every year. I know this because I was there in September of 2003. I wi***o quote slotracer, "Gasoline also ships by pipeline, just too much quantity to move economically and effectively by rail." Well, Slotracer doesn't know what he is talking about! My experience tells me he does know what he is talking about. The move into the airbase is a fairly small move. Pipeline quanities are in the millions of car load equivilants not a thousand or so. Also, this project is talking about natural gas which is currently embargoed from the railroads due to the hazourd. Bob Reply CANADIANPACIFIC2816 Member sinceMarch 2005 From: SIOUX FALLS, SOUTH DAKOTA 2,483 posts Posted by CANADIANPACIFIC2816 on Sunday, March 27, 2005 8:13 PM The Alaska Railroad ships thousands of tank car loads of aviation fuel to the Anchorage regional airport every year. I know this because I was there in September of 2003. I wi***o quote slotracer, "Gasoline also ships by pipeline, just too much quantity to move economically and effectively by rail." Well, Slotracer doesn't know what he is talking about! Reply bobwilcox Member sinceDecember 2001 From: Crozet, VA 1,049 posts Posted by bobwilcox on Sunday, December 19, 2004 6:21 PM If the economics were close rail vs. pipeline you have a problem with the oil people not wanting to risk doing something new. The are use to moving product by water and pipeline not by rail. When we worked with Shell on the first CA TankTrain from Saco to Wilmington, CA this was the big stumbling block that was going to sink the project until the finance guys in London and the Hauge knocked some heads together. Bob Reply csxengineer98 Member sinceOctober 2002 From: US 2,358 posts Posted by csxengineer98 on Sunday, December 19, 2004 3:03 AM QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal QUOTE: Originally posted by csxengineer98 thats an easy one..becouse their will be some killer kickbacks from the oil companys to the legisators.... csx engineer Hmmm, kickbacks eh? Someone should suggest that to these railroad CEO's. Seriously, what is interesting about this Alaskan pipeline deal is the following: 1. The oil/gas companies are cooperating to get this thing through 2. The pipeline right of way will be publicly owned 3. The feds are throwing in some financing and tax incentives to sweeten the deal Sounds like open access to me. Does any of this get accross the the railroad honcho's? Do they even read the news? the railroads dont have that kind of cash like the oil companys have to give kickbacks with... csx engineer "I AM the higher source" Keep the wheels on steel Reply bobwilcox Member sinceDecember 2001 From: Crozet, VA 1,049 posts Posted by bobwilcox on Saturday, December 18, 2004 8:26 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by jeaton Did you forget where the VP (the brain behind the P) came from? Jay He came right from the Union Pacific's Board of Directors. Bob Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Friday, December 17, 2004 8:33 PM Great idea, It just needs some good politics and a lot of money behind it. Open up Alaska and the Canadian Northwest to economic development on a real industrialization program with developed industries, real infastructure, large cities where there was just wilderness, schools, universities, and commerce. This would bring out the blessings of free enterprise to the North. Their economies have long laged behind the lower 48 and the Southern Provences of Canada and have been treated either as colonies for exploitation from the Eastern interests, stepchildren to their respective nations or as a tree hugger paradise for those wishing to create heaven on earth. A railroad is a good first start. I just hope that it has a chance to happen Reply Edit Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Friday, December 17, 2004 6:02 PM A pipeline is the most effective way to move enormous quantities of liquids around. There are very little ways things can go wrong, there's very little downtime, and it can operate continuously every single second of the year. Reply Edit jeaton Member sinceSeptember 2002 From: Rockton, IL 4,821 posts Posted by jeaton on Friday, December 17, 2004 5:38 PM Did you forget where the VP (the brain behind the P) came from? Jay "We have met the enemy and he is us." Pogo Possum "We have met the anemone... and he is Russ." Bucky Katt "Prediction is very difficult, especially if it's about the future." Niels Bohr, Nobel laureate in physics Reply slotracer Member sinceAugust 2003 258 posts Posted by slotracer on Friday, December 17, 2004 5:23 PM It is not economical to move natural gas in thes kinds of quantitiies by rail unless you like to see natural gas costs nearly double. It is probably logitically impossible to move that qauntity by rail. Moving these kinds of quantities by rail is almost like shipping autos from Detroit piece by piece in boxes by Fed Ex. Gasoline also ships by pipeline, just too much quantity to move economically and effectively by rail. Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Friday, December 17, 2004 5:19 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by csxengineer98 thats an easy one..becouse their will be some killer kickbacks from the oil companys to the legisators.... csx engineer Hmmm, kickbacks eh? Someone should suggest that to these railroad CEO's. Seriously, what is interesting about this Alaskan pipeline deal is the following: 1. The oil/gas companies are cooperating to get this thing through 2. The pipeline right of way will be publicly owned 3. The feds are throwing in some financing and tax incentives to sweeten the deal Sounds like open access to me. Does any of this get accross the the railroad honcho's? Do they even read the news? Reply Edit csxengineer98 Member sinceOctober 2002 From: US 2,358 posts Posted by csxengineer98 on Friday, December 17, 2004 12:47 AM thats an easy one..becouse their will be some killer kickbacks from the oil companys to the legisators.... csx engineer "I AM the higher source" Keep the wheels on steel Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Alaskan gas pipeline deal, why not a railroad deal? Posted by Anonymous on Friday, December 17, 2004 12:30 AM "ANCHORAGE, Alaska (AP) - Alaska's three largest North Slope oil producers are proposing to build a pipeline to bring North America's largest natural gas reserves to the lower 48 states. ExxonMobil Corp., ConocoPhillips and BP own Alaska's natural gas." (snip) "The pipeline would extend from the North Slope to Fairbanks, and southeast to Alberta, Canada. From there, it would go to the Chicago area." (snip) " The North Slope producers' proposal contains a provision sought by the state - ownership in the pipeline. BP, ConocoPhillips and ExxonMobil spent $125 million on a joint feasibility study in 2001-2002. It concluded that the economic risks were too great to the companies. The project, however, gained fresh momentum when Congress promised loan guarantees for 80 percent of the pipeline's cost, and gave developers other tax breaks as well as promises of less burdensome permitting requirements. " (Sigh!) Why can't we do the same for the nation's rail transportation needs? Reply Edit Join our Community! Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account. Login » Register » 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 More great sites from Kalmbach Media Terms Of Use | Privacy Policy | Copyright Policy
Originally posted by PNWRMNM Futuremodal One of the most prosperous companies in the U.S. today is Kinder-Morgan, a pipeline company, whose president Richard Kinder would be my choice to lead a rail infrastructure company.
QUOTE: Originally posted by PNWRMNM Futuremodal This is not open access. It is a three party private line. Mac
Originally posted by futuremodal Originally posted by csxengineer98 Living nearby to MP 186 of the UPRR Austin TX Sub Reply spbed Member sinceDecember 2001 From: Austin TX 4,941 posts Posted by spbed on Monday, March 28, 2005 8:00 AM Ah the true American cynic. Loved it! Especially Cheney old company HUH? [:p][8D] Originally posted by csxengineer98 [ Living nearby to MP 186 of the UPRR Austin TX Sub Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Monday, March 28, 2005 6:48 AM The History Channel recently had a show about oil. When the pipeline from Texas to the Midwest and Northeast was built during WWII, they tried shipping by rail during constructionn, but solid tank trains couln't come close to what a pipline can carry. Shared access was/is common. Although it takes 10-12 days, when a Shell refinery in Texas puts 10000 gallons of 97 octane unleaded in, they can take 10000 gallons out of the other end the very next day. What they take out may have been put in by a BP refinery. The additive package is added to the generic product at the tank farm to delievery truck terminals. Reply Edit PNWRMNM Member sinceMay 2003 From: US 2,593 posts Posted by PNWRMNM on Monday, March 28, 2005 1:38 AM Futuremodal This is not open access. It is a three party private line. Mac Reply bobwilcox Member sinceDecember 2001 From: Crozet, VA 1,049 posts Posted by bobwilcox on Sunday, March 27, 2005 9:47 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by CANADIANPACIFIC2816 The Alaska Railroad ships thousands of tank car loads of aviation fuel to the Anchorage regional airport every year. I know this because I was there in September of 2003. I wi***o quote slotracer, "Gasoline also ships by pipeline, just too much quantity to move economically and effectively by rail." Well, Slotracer doesn't know what he is talking about! My experience tells me he does know what he is talking about. The move into the airbase is a fairly small move. Pipeline quanities are in the millions of car load equivilants not a thousand or so. Also, this project is talking about natural gas which is currently embargoed from the railroads due to the hazourd. Bob Reply CANADIANPACIFIC2816 Member sinceMarch 2005 From: SIOUX FALLS, SOUTH DAKOTA 2,483 posts Posted by CANADIANPACIFIC2816 on Sunday, March 27, 2005 8:13 PM The Alaska Railroad ships thousands of tank car loads of aviation fuel to the Anchorage regional airport every year. I know this because I was there in September of 2003. I wi***o quote slotracer, "Gasoline also ships by pipeline, just too much quantity to move economically and effectively by rail." Well, Slotracer doesn't know what he is talking about! Reply bobwilcox Member sinceDecember 2001 From: Crozet, VA 1,049 posts Posted by bobwilcox on Sunday, December 19, 2004 6:21 PM If the economics were close rail vs. pipeline you have a problem with the oil people not wanting to risk doing something new. The are use to moving product by water and pipeline not by rail. When we worked with Shell on the first CA TankTrain from Saco to Wilmington, CA this was the big stumbling block that was going to sink the project until the finance guys in London and the Hauge knocked some heads together. Bob Reply csxengineer98 Member sinceOctober 2002 From: US 2,358 posts Posted by csxengineer98 on Sunday, December 19, 2004 3:03 AM QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal QUOTE: Originally posted by csxengineer98 thats an easy one..becouse their will be some killer kickbacks from the oil companys to the legisators.... csx engineer Hmmm, kickbacks eh? Someone should suggest that to these railroad CEO's. Seriously, what is interesting about this Alaskan pipeline deal is the following: 1. The oil/gas companies are cooperating to get this thing through 2. The pipeline right of way will be publicly owned 3. The feds are throwing in some financing and tax incentives to sweeten the deal Sounds like open access to me. Does any of this get accross the the railroad honcho's? Do they even read the news? the railroads dont have that kind of cash like the oil companys have to give kickbacks with... csx engineer "I AM the higher source" Keep the wheels on steel Reply bobwilcox Member sinceDecember 2001 From: Crozet, VA 1,049 posts Posted by bobwilcox on Saturday, December 18, 2004 8:26 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by jeaton Did you forget where the VP (the brain behind the P) came from? Jay He came right from the Union Pacific's Board of Directors. Bob Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Friday, December 17, 2004 8:33 PM Great idea, It just needs some good politics and a lot of money behind it. Open up Alaska and the Canadian Northwest to economic development on a real industrialization program with developed industries, real infastructure, large cities where there was just wilderness, schools, universities, and commerce. This would bring out the blessings of free enterprise to the North. Their economies have long laged behind the lower 48 and the Southern Provences of Canada and have been treated either as colonies for exploitation from the Eastern interests, stepchildren to their respective nations or as a tree hugger paradise for those wishing to create heaven on earth. A railroad is a good first start. I just hope that it has a chance to happen Reply Edit Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Friday, December 17, 2004 6:02 PM A pipeline is the most effective way to move enormous quantities of liquids around. There are very little ways things can go wrong, there's very little downtime, and it can operate continuously every single second of the year. Reply Edit jeaton Member sinceSeptember 2002 From: Rockton, IL 4,821 posts Posted by jeaton on Friday, December 17, 2004 5:38 PM Did you forget where the VP (the brain behind the P) came from? Jay "We have met the enemy and he is us." Pogo Possum "We have met the anemone... and he is Russ." Bucky Katt "Prediction is very difficult, especially if it's about the future." Niels Bohr, Nobel laureate in physics Reply slotracer Member sinceAugust 2003 258 posts Posted by slotracer on Friday, December 17, 2004 5:23 PM It is not economical to move natural gas in thes kinds of quantitiies by rail unless you like to see natural gas costs nearly double. It is probably logitically impossible to move that qauntity by rail. Moving these kinds of quantities by rail is almost like shipping autos from Detroit piece by piece in boxes by Fed Ex. Gasoline also ships by pipeline, just too much quantity to move economically and effectively by rail. Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Friday, December 17, 2004 5:19 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by csxengineer98 thats an easy one..becouse their will be some killer kickbacks from the oil companys to the legisators.... csx engineer Hmmm, kickbacks eh? Someone should suggest that to these railroad CEO's. Seriously, what is interesting about this Alaskan pipeline deal is the following: 1. The oil/gas companies are cooperating to get this thing through 2. The pipeline right of way will be publicly owned 3. The feds are throwing in some financing and tax incentives to sweeten the deal Sounds like open access to me. Does any of this get accross the the railroad honcho's? Do they even read the news? Reply Edit csxengineer98 Member sinceOctober 2002 From: US 2,358 posts Posted by csxengineer98 on Friday, December 17, 2004 12:47 AM thats an easy one..becouse their will be some killer kickbacks from the oil companys to the legisators.... csx engineer "I AM the higher source" Keep the wheels on steel Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Alaskan gas pipeline deal, why not a railroad deal? Posted by Anonymous on Friday, December 17, 2004 12:30 AM "ANCHORAGE, Alaska (AP) - Alaska's three largest North Slope oil producers are proposing to build a pipeline to bring North America's largest natural gas reserves to the lower 48 states. ExxonMobil Corp., ConocoPhillips and BP own Alaska's natural gas." (snip) "The pipeline would extend from the North Slope to Fairbanks, and southeast to Alberta, Canada. From there, it would go to the Chicago area." (snip) " The North Slope producers' proposal contains a provision sought by the state - ownership in the pipeline. BP, ConocoPhillips and ExxonMobil spent $125 million on a joint feasibility study in 2001-2002. It concluded that the economic risks were too great to the companies. The project, however, gained fresh momentum when Congress promised loan guarantees for 80 percent of the pipeline's cost, and gave developers other tax breaks as well as promises of less burdensome permitting requirements. " (Sigh!) Why can't we do the same for the nation's rail transportation needs? Reply Edit Join our Community! Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account. Login » Register » 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 More great sites from Kalmbach Media Terms Of Use | Privacy Policy | Copyright Policy
Originally posted by csxengineer98 Living nearby to MP 186 of the UPRR Austin TX Sub Reply spbed Member sinceDecember 2001 From: Austin TX 4,941 posts Posted by spbed on Monday, March 28, 2005 8:00 AM Ah the true American cynic. Loved it! Especially Cheney old company HUH? [:p][8D] Originally posted by csxengineer98 [ Living nearby to MP 186 of the UPRR Austin TX Sub Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Monday, March 28, 2005 6:48 AM The History Channel recently had a show about oil. When the pipeline from Texas to the Midwest and Northeast was built during WWII, they tried shipping by rail during constructionn, but solid tank trains couln't come close to what a pipline can carry. Shared access was/is common. Although it takes 10-12 days, when a Shell refinery in Texas puts 10000 gallons of 97 octane unleaded in, they can take 10000 gallons out of the other end the very next day. What they take out may have been put in by a BP refinery. The additive package is added to the generic product at the tank farm to delievery truck terminals. Reply Edit PNWRMNM Member sinceMay 2003 From: US 2,593 posts Posted by PNWRMNM on Monday, March 28, 2005 1:38 AM Futuremodal This is not open access. It is a three party private line. Mac Reply bobwilcox Member sinceDecember 2001 From: Crozet, VA 1,049 posts Posted by bobwilcox on Sunday, March 27, 2005 9:47 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by CANADIANPACIFIC2816 The Alaska Railroad ships thousands of tank car loads of aviation fuel to the Anchorage regional airport every year. I know this because I was there in September of 2003. I wi***o quote slotracer, "Gasoline also ships by pipeline, just too much quantity to move economically and effectively by rail." Well, Slotracer doesn't know what he is talking about! My experience tells me he does know what he is talking about. The move into the airbase is a fairly small move. Pipeline quanities are in the millions of car load equivilants not a thousand or so. Also, this project is talking about natural gas which is currently embargoed from the railroads due to the hazourd. Bob Reply CANADIANPACIFIC2816 Member sinceMarch 2005 From: SIOUX FALLS, SOUTH DAKOTA 2,483 posts Posted by CANADIANPACIFIC2816 on Sunday, March 27, 2005 8:13 PM The Alaska Railroad ships thousands of tank car loads of aviation fuel to the Anchorage regional airport every year. I know this because I was there in September of 2003. I wi***o quote slotracer, "Gasoline also ships by pipeline, just too much quantity to move economically and effectively by rail." Well, Slotracer doesn't know what he is talking about! Reply bobwilcox Member sinceDecember 2001 From: Crozet, VA 1,049 posts Posted by bobwilcox on Sunday, December 19, 2004 6:21 PM If the economics were close rail vs. pipeline you have a problem with the oil people not wanting to risk doing something new. The are use to moving product by water and pipeline not by rail. When we worked with Shell on the first CA TankTrain from Saco to Wilmington, CA this was the big stumbling block that was going to sink the project until the finance guys in London and the Hauge knocked some heads together. Bob Reply csxengineer98 Member sinceOctober 2002 From: US 2,358 posts Posted by csxengineer98 on Sunday, December 19, 2004 3:03 AM QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal QUOTE: Originally posted by csxengineer98 thats an easy one..becouse their will be some killer kickbacks from the oil companys to the legisators.... csx engineer Hmmm, kickbacks eh? Someone should suggest that to these railroad CEO's. Seriously, what is interesting about this Alaskan pipeline deal is the following: 1. The oil/gas companies are cooperating to get this thing through 2. The pipeline right of way will be publicly owned 3. The feds are throwing in some financing and tax incentives to sweeten the deal Sounds like open access to me. Does any of this get accross the the railroad honcho's? Do they even read the news? the railroads dont have that kind of cash like the oil companys have to give kickbacks with... csx engineer "I AM the higher source" Keep the wheels on steel Reply bobwilcox Member sinceDecember 2001 From: Crozet, VA 1,049 posts Posted by bobwilcox on Saturday, December 18, 2004 8:26 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by jeaton Did you forget where the VP (the brain behind the P) came from? Jay He came right from the Union Pacific's Board of Directors. Bob Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Friday, December 17, 2004 8:33 PM Great idea, It just needs some good politics and a lot of money behind it. Open up Alaska and the Canadian Northwest to economic development on a real industrialization program with developed industries, real infastructure, large cities where there was just wilderness, schools, universities, and commerce. This would bring out the blessings of free enterprise to the North. Their economies have long laged behind the lower 48 and the Southern Provences of Canada and have been treated either as colonies for exploitation from the Eastern interests, stepchildren to their respective nations or as a tree hugger paradise for those wishing to create heaven on earth. A railroad is a good first start. I just hope that it has a chance to happen Reply Edit Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Friday, December 17, 2004 6:02 PM A pipeline is the most effective way to move enormous quantities of liquids around. There are very little ways things can go wrong, there's very little downtime, and it can operate continuously every single second of the year. Reply Edit jeaton Member sinceSeptember 2002 From: Rockton, IL 4,821 posts Posted by jeaton on Friday, December 17, 2004 5:38 PM Did you forget where the VP (the brain behind the P) came from? Jay "We have met the enemy and he is us." Pogo Possum "We have met the anemone... and he is Russ." Bucky Katt "Prediction is very difficult, especially if it's about the future." Niels Bohr, Nobel laureate in physics Reply slotracer Member sinceAugust 2003 258 posts Posted by slotracer on Friday, December 17, 2004 5:23 PM It is not economical to move natural gas in thes kinds of quantitiies by rail unless you like to see natural gas costs nearly double. It is probably logitically impossible to move that qauntity by rail. Moving these kinds of quantities by rail is almost like shipping autos from Detroit piece by piece in boxes by Fed Ex. Gasoline also ships by pipeline, just too much quantity to move economically and effectively by rail. Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Friday, December 17, 2004 5:19 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by csxengineer98 thats an easy one..becouse their will be some killer kickbacks from the oil companys to the legisators.... csx engineer Hmmm, kickbacks eh? Someone should suggest that to these railroad CEO's. Seriously, what is interesting about this Alaskan pipeline deal is the following: 1. The oil/gas companies are cooperating to get this thing through 2. The pipeline right of way will be publicly owned 3. The feds are throwing in some financing and tax incentives to sweeten the deal Sounds like open access to me. Does any of this get accross the the railroad honcho's? Do they even read the news? Reply Edit csxengineer98 Member sinceOctober 2002 From: US 2,358 posts Posted by csxengineer98 on Friday, December 17, 2004 12:47 AM thats an easy one..becouse their will be some killer kickbacks from the oil companys to the legisators.... csx engineer "I AM the higher source" Keep the wheels on steel Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Alaskan gas pipeline deal, why not a railroad deal? Posted by Anonymous on Friday, December 17, 2004 12:30 AM "ANCHORAGE, Alaska (AP) - Alaska's three largest North Slope oil producers are proposing to build a pipeline to bring North America's largest natural gas reserves to the lower 48 states. ExxonMobil Corp., ConocoPhillips and BP own Alaska's natural gas." (snip) "The pipeline would extend from the North Slope to Fairbanks, and southeast to Alberta, Canada. From there, it would go to the Chicago area." (snip) " The North Slope producers' proposal contains a provision sought by the state - ownership in the pipeline. BP, ConocoPhillips and ExxonMobil spent $125 million on a joint feasibility study in 2001-2002. It concluded that the economic risks were too great to the companies. The project, however, gained fresh momentum when Congress promised loan guarantees for 80 percent of the pipeline's cost, and gave developers other tax breaks as well as promises of less burdensome permitting requirements. " (Sigh!) Why can't we do the same for the nation's rail transportation needs? Reply Edit Join our Community! Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account. Login » Register » 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 More great sites from Kalmbach Media Terms Of Use | Privacy Policy | Copyright Policy
Living nearby to MP 186 of the UPRR Austin TX Sub
Originally posted by csxengineer98 [ Living nearby to MP 186 of the UPRR Austin TX Sub Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Monday, March 28, 2005 6:48 AM The History Channel recently had a show about oil. When the pipeline from Texas to the Midwest and Northeast was built during WWII, they tried shipping by rail during constructionn, but solid tank trains couln't come close to what a pipline can carry. Shared access was/is common. Although it takes 10-12 days, when a Shell refinery in Texas puts 10000 gallons of 97 octane unleaded in, they can take 10000 gallons out of the other end the very next day. What they take out may have been put in by a BP refinery. The additive package is added to the generic product at the tank farm to delievery truck terminals. Reply Edit PNWRMNM Member sinceMay 2003 From: US 2,593 posts Posted by PNWRMNM on Monday, March 28, 2005 1:38 AM Futuremodal This is not open access. It is a three party private line. Mac Reply bobwilcox Member sinceDecember 2001 From: Crozet, VA 1,049 posts Posted by bobwilcox on Sunday, March 27, 2005 9:47 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by CANADIANPACIFIC2816 The Alaska Railroad ships thousands of tank car loads of aviation fuel to the Anchorage regional airport every year. I know this because I was there in September of 2003. I wi***o quote slotracer, "Gasoline also ships by pipeline, just too much quantity to move economically and effectively by rail." Well, Slotracer doesn't know what he is talking about! My experience tells me he does know what he is talking about. The move into the airbase is a fairly small move. Pipeline quanities are in the millions of car load equivilants not a thousand or so. Also, this project is talking about natural gas which is currently embargoed from the railroads due to the hazourd. Bob Reply CANADIANPACIFIC2816 Member sinceMarch 2005 From: SIOUX FALLS, SOUTH DAKOTA 2,483 posts Posted by CANADIANPACIFIC2816 on Sunday, March 27, 2005 8:13 PM The Alaska Railroad ships thousands of tank car loads of aviation fuel to the Anchorage regional airport every year. I know this because I was there in September of 2003. I wi***o quote slotracer, "Gasoline also ships by pipeline, just too much quantity to move economically and effectively by rail." Well, Slotracer doesn't know what he is talking about! Reply bobwilcox Member sinceDecember 2001 From: Crozet, VA 1,049 posts Posted by bobwilcox on Sunday, December 19, 2004 6:21 PM If the economics were close rail vs. pipeline you have a problem with the oil people not wanting to risk doing something new. The are use to moving product by water and pipeline not by rail. When we worked with Shell on the first CA TankTrain from Saco to Wilmington, CA this was the big stumbling block that was going to sink the project until the finance guys in London and the Hauge knocked some heads together. Bob Reply csxengineer98 Member sinceOctober 2002 From: US 2,358 posts Posted by csxengineer98 on Sunday, December 19, 2004 3:03 AM QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal QUOTE: Originally posted by csxengineer98 thats an easy one..becouse their will be some killer kickbacks from the oil companys to the legisators.... csx engineer Hmmm, kickbacks eh? Someone should suggest that to these railroad CEO's. Seriously, what is interesting about this Alaskan pipeline deal is the following: 1. The oil/gas companies are cooperating to get this thing through 2. The pipeline right of way will be publicly owned 3. The feds are throwing in some financing and tax incentives to sweeten the deal Sounds like open access to me. Does any of this get accross the the railroad honcho's? Do they even read the news? the railroads dont have that kind of cash like the oil companys have to give kickbacks with... csx engineer "I AM the higher source" Keep the wheels on steel Reply bobwilcox Member sinceDecember 2001 From: Crozet, VA 1,049 posts Posted by bobwilcox on Saturday, December 18, 2004 8:26 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by jeaton Did you forget where the VP (the brain behind the P) came from? Jay He came right from the Union Pacific's Board of Directors. Bob Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Friday, December 17, 2004 8:33 PM Great idea, It just needs some good politics and a lot of money behind it. Open up Alaska and the Canadian Northwest to economic development on a real industrialization program with developed industries, real infastructure, large cities where there was just wilderness, schools, universities, and commerce. This would bring out the blessings of free enterprise to the North. Their economies have long laged behind the lower 48 and the Southern Provences of Canada and have been treated either as colonies for exploitation from the Eastern interests, stepchildren to their respective nations or as a tree hugger paradise for those wishing to create heaven on earth. A railroad is a good first start. I just hope that it has a chance to happen Reply Edit Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Friday, December 17, 2004 6:02 PM A pipeline is the most effective way to move enormous quantities of liquids around. There are very little ways things can go wrong, there's very little downtime, and it can operate continuously every single second of the year. Reply Edit jeaton Member sinceSeptember 2002 From: Rockton, IL 4,821 posts Posted by jeaton on Friday, December 17, 2004 5:38 PM Did you forget where the VP (the brain behind the P) came from? Jay "We have met the enemy and he is us." Pogo Possum "We have met the anemone... and he is Russ." Bucky Katt "Prediction is very difficult, especially if it's about the future." Niels Bohr, Nobel laureate in physics Reply slotracer Member sinceAugust 2003 258 posts Posted by slotracer on Friday, December 17, 2004 5:23 PM It is not economical to move natural gas in thes kinds of quantitiies by rail unless you like to see natural gas costs nearly double. It is probably logitically impossible to move that qauntity by rail. Moving these kinds of quantities by rail is almost like shipping autos from Detroit piece by piece in boxes by Fed Ex. Gasoline also ships by pipeline, just too much quantity to move economically and effectively by rail. Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Friday, December 17, 2004 5:19 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by csxengineer98 thats an easy one..becouse their will be some killer kickbacks from the oil companys to the legisators.... csx engineer Hmmm, kickbacks eh? Someone should suggest that to these railroad CEO's. Seriously, what is interesting about this Alaskan pipeline deal is the following: 1. The oil/gas companies are cooperating to get this thing through 2. The pipeline right of way will be publicly owned 3. The feds are throwing in some financing and tax incentives to sweeten the deal Sounds like open access to me. Does any of this get accross the the railroad honcho's? Do they even read the news? Reply Edit csxengineer98 Member sinceOctober 2002 From: US 2,358 posts Posted by csxengineer98 on Friday, December 17, 2004 12:47 AM thats an easy one..becouse their will be some killer kickbacks from the oil companys to the legisators.... csx engineer "I AM the higher source" Keep the wheels on steel Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Alaskan gas pipeline deal, why not a railroad deal? Posted by Anonymous on Friday, December 17, 2004 12:30 AM "ANCHORAGE, Alaska (AP) - Alaska's three largest North Slope oil producers are proposing to build a pipeline to bring North America's largest natural gas reserves to the lower 48 states. ExxonMobil Corp., ConocoPhillips and BP own Alaska's natural gas." (snip) "The pipeline would extend from the North Slope to Fairbanks, and southeast to Alberta, Canada. From there, it would go to the Chicago area." (snip) " The North Slope producers' proposal contains a provision sought by the state - ownership in the pipeline. BP, ConocoPhillips and ExxonMobil spent $125 million on a joint feasibility study in 2001-2002. It concluded that the economic risks were too great to the companies. The project, however, gained fresh momentum when Congress promised loan guarantees for 80 percent of the pipeline's cost, and gave developers other tax breaks as well as promises of less burdensome permitting requirements. " (Sigh!) Why can't we do the same for the nation's rail transportation needs? Reply Edit Join our Community! Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account. Login » Register » 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 More great sites from Kalmbach Media Terms Of Use | Privacy Policy | Copyright Policy
QUOTE: Originally posted by CANADIANPACIFIC2816 The Alaska Railroad ships thousands of tank car loads of aviation fuel to the Anchorage regional airport every year. I know this because I was there in September of 2003. I wi***o quote slotracer, "Gasoline also ships by pipeline, just too much quantity to move economically and effectively by rail." Well, Slotracer doesn't know what he is talking about!
QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal QUOTE: Originally posted by csxengineer98 thats an easy one..becouse their will be some killer kickbacks from the oil companys to the legisators.... csx engineer Hmmm, kickbacks eh? Someone should suggest that to these railroad CEO's. Seriously, what is interesting about this Alaskan pipeline deal is the following: 1. The oil/gas companies are cooperating to get this thing through 2. The pipeline right of way will be publicly owned 3. The feds are throwing in some financing and tax incentives to sweeten the deal Sounds like open access to me. Does any of this get accross the the railroad honcho's? Do they even read the news?
QUOTE: Originally posted by csxengineer98 thats an easy one..becouse their will be some killer kickbacks from the oil companys to the legisators.... csx engineer
QUOTE: Originally posted by jeaton Did you forget where the VP (the brain behind the P) came from? Jay
"We have met the enemy and he is us." Pogo Possum "We have met the anemone... and he is Russ." Bucky Katt "Prediction is very difficult, especially if it's about the future." Niels Bohr, Nobel laureate in physics
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.