I thought it was rail-related, seeing as the oil that would have moved in the pipeline will now most likely go by train.
I had posted this link to the previous thread, an expansion of the Hardisty, AB rail terminal is set to come online soon. I believe this is the first terminal set up to ship 100+ car unit trains of bitumen without diluent.
https://www.spglobal.com/platts/en/market-insights/latest-news/oil/030421-usd-group-nearing-completion-of-hardisty-to-port-arthur-crude-by-rail-network
It also appears that the receiving terminal in Port Arthur, TX is on Kansas City Southern.......
Greetings from Alberta
-an Articulate Malcontent
Well, for me I could absolutely care less about the XL pipeline but it seems to be a very emotional issue with some elsewhere on social media. I think it is great rail is getting the contracts and the business. From a political standpoint for myself I was always luke warm on the issue. Not really for it and not really against it and can't really see wasting any energy making an argument one way or another.
I know I brought this up before and a lot of folks pooh-poohed it. I think it would be cool to use rail to ship desalinated fresh water from the East or Pacific Coast inland to start replentishing empty reservoirs. Pure fantasy I guess and I know it would probably be prohibitively expensive........you never know though. I never thought I would see oil transported again by rail in such quantities.
The plain fact of the matter is the stuff's going to be moved from where it is to where it has to be one way or another, just like any other commodity. That won't change.
Kalmbach has a weird sense of what is rail related and what is not.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
greyhounds " There was a recent thread on the cancelation of the XL pipeline project. It was deleted. OK, Kalmbach owns the website, and they can control what’s on it. But…I think anything involving transportation, especially transportation infrastructure, is railroad related and is a legitimate issue for discussion on this website. The cancelation of the pipeline will affect both the US and Canadian economies. Transportation is a derived demand. i.e., We got it here and you need it there. Limiting economic development will affect transportation demand." I think we had an exceptionally good, railroad related, discussion going on. It got deleted. I disagree with that decision. But I acknowledge their right to make the decision.
The last little brou-ha-ha we had regarding 'Forum censorship' was several years back; and invoved a 'foreign' forum monitor, who was apparently TAD'd from The MR side of the operation? He got some pretty 'strong reactions' on this side of things; I'd bet "Murphy S', and 'Selector' might recall ?
Seems a shame that The Keystone XL fell victim both here, and in Canada and therep;orted loss lof some Jobs/wages/taxes, (?), etc. {mostly Union } got politically, shuffled out lof existance; I believe that number was 'reported' to be in excess of 10/11 K ?
Makes one wonder how many railroad jobs will be found in their place Maybe, the Russians /or possibly, Warren Buffet, will build that railroad bridge across the Bering Straits ; that was reported here a couple of years,ago?
I started the thread and wondered why it suddenly disappeared. In the past you would see a lock symbol on closed threads, but I guess they now just delete it, with no courtesy notice to the poster. I thought it would continue discussion on crude-by-rail, however it seemed to get stuck on pipeline politics, although I didn't think it got out of hand. I don't know if someone flamed in the 3 hours between my last post and the next time I checked and noticed it disappeared.
MidlandMike I started the thread and wondered why it suddenly disappeared. In the past you would see a lock symbol on closed threads, but I guess they now just delete it, with no courtesy notice to the poster. I thought it would continue discussion on crude-by-rail, however it seemed to get stuck on pipeline politics, although I didn't think it got out of hand. I don't know if someone flamed in the 3 hours between my last post and the next time I checked and noticed it disappeared.
Must be, that anything can just be too 'crude' for even adult conversations ?
For what it's worth, Considering this place is not a "no holds barred" community, I believe the forum admins are fairly lenient. Sometimes it seems they pull the cord a bit too soon, but when that happens, it's just time to dust oneself off, and go onto the next topic. It's not like discussion here is going to spawn public policy, so there really is no loss.
Before this thread gets deleted I'd like to say that the forum has been a welcome refuge from that "no holds barred" community. A community that is anything but that, where reasonable discourse and nuance have practically disappeared. Where neighbors are either "for or against", "friend or foe", "support or threat" to one's prejudices.
I really appreciate this neighborhood, my neighbors, and the moderators.
Rick
rixflix aka Captain Video. Blessed be Jean Shepherd and all His works!!! Hooray for 1939, the all time movie year!!! I took that ride on the Reading but my Baby caught the Katy and left me a mule to ride.
There's been an interesting version of this on Quora recently regarding their 'be respectful, be nice' posting policy. Some folks are complaining that they receive discipline or have their posts collapsed for calling out perceived trolls or overt racist/fascist/extremist supporters. The point being that in 'hitting the yellow triangle' to report those posts they just can't keep from responding with some snarky message... which violates BRBN. And that is the difficulty in a community of friends: even when there is strong disagreement, friends remain civil.
Kalmbach has, in their way, tried to make this sort of point (and in some cases, albeit sometimes squirrelly, they have enforced it with moderation and bans). It is up to us to keep disputation civil, and to avoid the "usual sorts" of escalation that follow contentious 'railroad-related' issues that inherently involve politics or social issues.
Can RRs transport Canadian sands oil cheaply enough to remain competative with fracked oil?
ROBIN LUETHE Can RRs transport Canadian sands oil cheaply enough to remain competative with fracked oil?
Plenty of oil trains still running from Alberta and Saskatchewan to various American destinations......
1. Kalmbach runs these forums as a free service. One doesn't even need a subscription to post here.
2. Kalmbach has a clearly stated rule that there will be no political comments on the forum.
3. The XL Pipeline thread had quite a few political comments. Some of you who did not see the political comments maybe didn't read all of the last posts.
4. Kalmbach had every right to delete the thread since quite a few comments had political references.
I know of other forums that have very loose moderation. I'll take and appreciate Kalmbach's moderation any day.
York1 John
I asked my doctor if I gave up delicious food and all alcohol, would I live longer? He said, "No, but it will seem longer."
York11. Kalmbach runs these forums as a free service. One doesn't even need a subscription to post here. 2. Kalmbach has a clearly stated rule that there will be no political comments on the forum. 3. The XL Pipeline thread had quite a few political comments. Some of you who did not see the political comments maybe didn't read all of the last posts. 4. Kalmbach had every right to delete the thread since quite a few comments had political references. I know of other forums that have very loose moderation. I'll take and appreciate Kalmbach's moderation any day.
Kalmbach overlooks the one cardinal rule that applies to railroading.
Every interface railroads have with the general public brings politics into the equation.
BaltACDKalmbach overlooks the one cardinal rule that applies to railroading. Every interface railroads have with the general public brings politics into the equation.
That may be, but the problem is that the comments become personal, and often stray from the original railroad topic to the political side.
York13. The XL Pipeline thread had quite a few political comments. Some of you who did not see the political comments maybe didn't read all of the last posts.
Sounds like I picked a poor day to take off and go to the park. Were any of the "fun" posts targeted at me?
York1 BaltACD Kalmbach overlooks the one cardinal rule that applies to railroading. Every interface railroads have with the general public brings politics into the equation. That may be, but the problem is that the comments become personal, and often stray from the original railroad topic to the political side.
BaltACD Kalmbach overlooks the one cardinal rule that applies to railroading. Every interface railroads have with the general public brings politics into the equation.
Railroads are as much political entites as the Republican, Democrat and Liberterian Parties - they just don't run candidates in their own name during elections.
Convicted One York1 3. The XL Pipeline thread had quite a few political comments. Some of you who did not see the political comments maybe didn't read all of the last posts. Sounds like I picked a poor day to take off and go to the park. Were any of the "fun" posts targeted at me?
York1 3. The XL Pipeline thread had quite a few political comments. Some of you who did not see the political comments maybe didn't read all of the last posts.
I remember telling you our water wasn't for sale. But that wasn't personal, I would have said it to anyone, and it wasn't meant as an insult.
Same for my analysis of a certain pipeline investment as nothing more than a gamble.
I agree about the difficulty of separating railroads and politics in many cases.
Several times in the past when threads were locked, and moderators would comment on the action, they told us that we were perfectly free to start another thread on the same topic, and it would not be locked as long as it followed the forum rules. This point was made several times as a comment on the forum and in PMs to me by moderators.
So based on that policy offered by the moderators, I assume it would be okay to post a new thread on the XL Pipeline as long it does not violate forum rues.
Have fun with your trains
Asside from job creation, what about the cost effectivness of oil by pipe versus oil by rail. Surely this was decided by the hard economic facts and not just ballyhooing.
I didn't see any of the allegedly offending political or personal posts. But over time, there has been an intolerance on here (bias?) against any deviation from an unregulated economic system, as though the latter were some divinely revealed, absolute truth. If moderation were more open, they would also say economics is another strengst verboten topic.
SD70DudeI remember telling you our water wasn't for sale. But that wasn't personal, I would have said it to anyone, and it wasn't meant as an insult.
And I did not take it as an insult, I found it mildly humorous in fact.
The thread seemed pretty tame to me, which surprised me after I left for several hours only to come back and find it had gone MIA. Inspiring me to wonder if the climate had heated up after I departed.
Euclidwhat about the cost effectivness of oil by pipe versus oil by rail.
Crude via pipeline only travels at 8 mph ...extending transit time considerably, and has to be temperature maintained in order to flow.
Convicted OneCrude via pipeline only travels at 8 mph ...extending transit time considerably, and has to be temperature maintained in order to flow.
On the other hand, the pipeline can currently be constructed with very effective nanoinsulation, the pumping power requirements can be quite small (and of course there is no effective 'tare weight' to be carried or empty cars to be returned) and it is relatively easy to 'slug' different (compatible) liquids in a pipeline separated by some pig arrangement. I had thought the relative operating economy of pipeline over rail transport to have been decided in the 19th Century and only more strongly demonstrated since then -- where you have dedicated unidirectional flow at continuous high rate, sufficient to fill capacity at 'best' flow rate, even net of construction cost the pipeline will be superior. If for some reason economical throughput needs to be greater, use multiple lines; I suspect the cost-effective refining capacity is more a critical-path restriction than line throughput. Remember that "8mph" is continuous, whereas... so far... nobody is running monster trains of 8 miles or more of oil cars, separated by draft gear, requiring individual tank connections to charge and discharge.
The other 'ringer' here is that there's likely some diluent used to make the crude in question liquid enough to flow in a cost-effective pipeline structure, and presumably there is some infrastructure to deliver that to the pipeline 'head' and then use it gainfully at the destination refinery. To me it would make little if any sense to 'recycle' the diluent either by pipeline or train.
Euclid Asside from job creation, what about the cost effectivness of oil by pipe versus oil by rail. Surely this was decided by the hard economic facts and not just ballyhooing.
When it comes to hydrocarbon type such as heavy crude. Rail is only competitve when its undiluted. Rail cost increase substanially with diluted (dilbit) heavy crude. Field production also plays a role. High production fields favor pipeline due to cost. The cost to transport crude is currently in the 5 dollar/barrel range. Rail is about double that.
SD60MAC9500 Euclid Asside from job creation, what about the cost effectivness of oil by pipe versus oil by rail? Surely this was decided by the hard economic facts and not just ballyhooing. When it comes to hydrocarbon type such as heavy crude. Rail is only competitve when its undiluted. Rail cost increase substanially with diluted (dilbit) heavy crude. Field production also plays a role. High production fields favor pipeline due to cost. The cost to transport crude is currently in the 5 dollar/barrel range. Rail is about double that.
Euclid Asside from job creation, what about the cost effectivness of oil by pipe versus oil by rail? Surely this was decided by the hard economic facts and not just ballyhooing.
Asside from job creation, what about the cost effectivness of oil by pipe versus oil by rail? Surely this was decided by the hard economic facts and not just ballyhooing.
That is my assumption, that is that shipping by pipe would be the most cost effective. My comment above was in response to this comment:
Posted by vsmith on Monday, June 14, 2021 12:41 PM
Euclid said: Yes, transit speed notwithstanding, I thought it was well established that oil by pipe was more cost effective than oil by rail. If not, why were they building a pipeline instead of instituting oil by rail? It is also widely claimed that oil by pipe is safer than oil by rail in terms of death, injury, property damage, and oil spills.
I assume oil by rail might be more cost effective if there is not sufficient oil shipping needed to justify the cost of building a new pipeline on routes where rail shipping is available as an alternative.
EuclidI assume oil by rail might be more cost effective if there is not sufficient oil shipping needed to justify the cost of building a new pipeline on routes where rail shipping is available as an alternative.
And don't forget that in 20 years when most cars are electric, who will be willing to pay the cost of dismantling a disused pipeline? At least with rail you can use the rail bed one last time as you dismantle it.
Convicted One Euclid I assume oil by rail might be more cost effective if there is not sufficient oil shipping needed to justify the cost of building a new pipeline on routes where rail shipping is available as an alternative. And don't forget that in 20 years when most cars are electric, who will be willing to pay the cost of dismantling a disused pipeline? At least with rail you can use the rail bed one last time as you dismantle it.
Euclid I assume oil by rail might be more cost effective if there is not sufficient oil shipping needed to justify the cost of building a new pipeline on routes where rail shipping is available as an alternative.
I think pipelines are on thin ice as far as public policy goes. For oil by rail, the ice is even thinner. Most people believe that oil by rail is less safe than oil by pipelines. Therefore, one more big oil train disaster could lead to a national ban on oil by rail.
After the bitter lesson of Lac Megantic, the oil by rail industry was facing calls for a safer practice. An ECP brake mandate was prepared, but the industry stopped it by offering to make tank cars more crashworthy, thus solving the safety problem of derailments. But gradually the news leaked out that the stronger tank cars were only stronger at very low speeds such as maybe 10-20 mph. They made no difference at road speeds typical of oil trains.
I expect what will result will be fuel prices rising so high that it self-rations and greatly reduces consumption. Where that leads, I don’t know. Can we be a society that simply does not travel?
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.