Wouldn't it be fine if rail could grab that oil movement now that the pipeline has been blocked? Probably too unstable an issue politically for rail to try. Can't there be 10,000 ton tank trains with operations similar to coal trains? I would think any derailment spill would cause limited damage. Just don't like the idea of the oil going to Asia. We shoot ourselves in the foot so often.
There already some dedicated trains doing that right now.
According to news reports this date the US State Department is witholding the cross-boarder permits for the pipe line.
As well as, the Courts which have also ordered that the pipe line must avoid the route across Nebraska ,and reroute it around the Ogalala Aquifer, Which, apparently was noted is the source of water for some eight states )?)
Sounds as if the whole case is moving into the relm of the Federal Courts for resolution(?)
I think that the portions through Kansas have been completed, and it was finished to the Kansas-Nebraska Border area . It was building East of this area back in July and August, and was moving northward in a rapid manner.
It sounds like the pipeline is dead:
http://redgreenandblue.org/2011/11/10/victory-weve-killed-the-keystone-xl-tar-sands-oil-pipeline/
Here's another report.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/11/11/us-usa-pipeline-idUSTRE7A95E520111111?feedType=RSS&feedName=topNews&rpc=71
From that Reuters article, it looks like the alternate route through Canada will also face environmental opposition. And even if either one was approved today, it would still be several years before the pipeline is completed enough so that the oil can flow through it.
In the meantime, railcars and terminals can be constructed and placed into service in a matter of months, and perhaps some short lengths of pipeline to fill gaps or create routing options, etc. And once that capital has been invested ("sunk costs" or "stranded") into rail-based transport operations, why do that again - but for a pipeline instead - that then has even less of a service life left ?
Rail won't be the cheapest, but it will be the most flexible. Most importantly, it can start much sooner, and the oil price differential is big enough to cover the slightly higher costs. If it were me, I'd take all of that action I could get today and make as much money off that differential by using rail as long as possible, and let the future oil transport take care of itself. As Gen. Patton famously said: "A good plan today is better than a perfect plan tomorrow."
- Paul North.
Nebraska has been in a tizzy for quite some time over this. Basically, we were told that this pipeline would happen and we couldn't stop it. So the people started to make noise and we got attention. We have pipelines over eastern NE, so we aren't anti-pipeline.
But to build it right thru one-of-a kind Sandhills and then over the aquifer, which is another one-of-a-kind over many states, and be reassured that there will be no problems or they will be handled quickly and without problem to either of these sites......
Is this where they insert "trust me"?
We keep hearing that oil by train is too expensive. This is probably true because if there is a pipeline break, they won't do much more than token cleanup. Just ask Louisiana.
She who has no signature! cinscocom-tmw
Much ado about this pipeline, not being allowed across the U.S. I'm hearing lots of talk here about cancelling it and shipping the oil to Prince Rupert and marketing it to China, it would be cheaper to build and Canada would get a better price for the oil, another concept brewing is not to ship any crude oil out of Canada unless it's refined, another good idea.
The U.S. has now opened new exploration leases in the Gulf of Mexico and Alaska.
Mookie - good ones !
tatans [snipped] . . . I'm hearing lots of talk here about cancelling it and shipping the oil to Prince Rupert and marketing it to China, it would be cheaper to build and Canada would get a better price for the oil, . . .
This Keystone XL Pipeline has certainly raised temperatures all over the place.
Today I listened to a guy; called in on Rush's (Limbaugh) Show. he said that he was a trucker, and rancher from Nebraska, he was reciting a laundry list of all things bad about this project. You also have the posts above on this Thread referencing an environmental angle and how the environmentalists are saying they have surely killed this project. I would bet that as much pipe has been laid to its current northern terminus, they will find another use for it(?)
The major issues seem to be the placement of the pipeline route transiting the Sandhill region of Nebraska, and the Ogallala Basin Aquifer.
This link to the Pipeline is a Wikipedia link, admitted not a reputable source, but it seems to have most of the elements to explain the working of this XL Project all FOUR Phases. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keystone_Pipeline
and as the Sandhills Region of Nebraska is part, this link shows a map and history of the Area: http://nematode.unl.edu/halseyNEmap.htm
This link is to a map of the area of the Ogallala Aquifer:
http://www.hpwd.com/the_ogallala.asp
Bear in mind that there are already smaller pipelines that transit an are to the East of the proposed phase of the XL Project. So this whole thing seems to have boiled in to major political football. Read and make your own judgements.
One thing about it. the railroads seem to be in a position to be a winner as they can connect the source with the pipeline terminus to move the product as needed. As they are already doing in the source regions for this petroleum product.
I can understand the concern about danger to the aquifer if oil is spilled in porus ground such as sand. I don’t know if there is any way of protecting against that problem if a pipeline is run through the sand hills. I don’t know if the sand there runs all the way down to the aquifer. But it would seem to be impossible to guarantee that no leaks or spills will ocurr anywhere on a pipline. If the sand hills were the only issue, I would think it prudent to slove the problem by re-routing around the sand hills.
However, when I listen to the advocacy opposing this pipeline, I hear far more objection than just the threat to the aquifer under the sand hills. Here is a quote from the link I posted above celebrating a victory over killing the pipline:
“The president explicitly noted climate change, along the pipeline route, as one of the factors that a new review would need to assess. There is no way, with an honest review, that a pipline that helps speed the tapping of the world’s second-largest pool of carbon can pass environmental muster.”
Therefore, I do not see how moving the oil by train instead of by pipeline will absolve the crime of "tapping the world’s second-largest pool of carbon." I am sure that proposals to move the oil by train will face the same oppostion.
Lotsa acreage in Nebraska - why right over two very important parts of the US?
Mookie Lotsa acreage in Nebraska - why right over two very important parts of the US?
Yes, that is a good question. Why route a pipeline through places where convincing objections will be raised? I would have thought this issue would have been raised before the routing was even committed. Would it have been that hard to go around the sensitive area in a way that the opponents would accept? What do the proponents say when they are challenged about the possibility of the pipeline contaminating the aquifer?
Wouldn't the easiest answer to this be to build a new refinery in Manitoba or North Dakota? Short pipeline; no fuss, no muss. Seems less expensive than piping it to Texas.
Norm
The citizens were reassured that if a spill happened, it would take so long to get to the aquifer that they would get it all cleaned and tidy. (see trust me) Haven't we seen this animal in all different forms beside oil - financial, politics, etc.
I have read that they are talking about a bond in the neighborhood of $500 milion just in case trust me fails. But if something really bad goes wrong, that neighborhood would dissolve right into the lawyers pockets for generations.
And NE isn't the only state in the aquifer. Haven't heard much from Sam's, Norris, or Houston Ed's states. Man on TV just now said that crude oil can't penetrate to the acquifer. If true, then what about all the land above the aquifer and in the sandhills? Is that not just as important?
I am just a lowly voter/resident, but all my warning bells are going off and no one seems to be able to turn them off. A real head scratcher!
So when the oil spills, they claim they can chase it as it sinks and catch up with it before it reaches the aquifer. Yes, I would be skeptical of that. I am not sure how that all shakes out geologically. But sand is like a sieve. I guess the other question is how much oil could the aquifer tolerate, or how far would the damage spread?
In St. Louis Park, MN, we had a creosote plant that intentionally leached creosote into the ground. I don’t recall exactly what the point of that was, but they had a ditch where creosote sunk into the ground for many years. The chickens eventually came home to roost after the plant was closed, and creosote showed up in nearby municipal wells. They closed several wells, and cleaned up the surface of the site. I really don’t know how far that creosote has traveled, but nobody seems to be talking about it anymore. It had to travel downward a long way just to get to the aquifer from which the wells drew.
Norm48327 Wouldn't the easiest answer to this be to build a new refinery in Manitoba or North Dakota? Short pipeline; no fuss, no muss. Seems less expensive than piping it to Texas.
Refineries are ideally located hear the consumers. It's cheaper to transport crude by pipeline or tanker to a central refinery, and then distribute the many different products of the refinery to the surrounding area. The Texas refineries already have the infrastructure and an established distribution system.
Its crazy how some people come out and oppose anything and everything there is. Like a bridge over the St.Croix river by Stillwater, Mn. Stillwater has been trying to replace a 1931 bridge for 25 years.
Modeling the "Fargo Area Rapid Transit" in O scale 3 rail.
[quote user="Mookie"]
"...And NE isn't the only state in the aquifer. Haven't heard much from Sam's, Norris, or Houston Ed's states. Man on TV just now said that crude oil can't penetrate to the acquifer. If true, then what about all the land above the aquifer and in the sandhills? Is that not just as important? .."
[/quote]
To Mookies point.
The part of the keystone XL line that came through this area ( actually, about 8 miles, to the East of my town , on a line that roughly paralleled US Hwy 77, to its West). The main manifestations that warned of it were the massive pile of staged pipe and supplies. The actual construction went relatively quickly from trenching to covering. It was pretty unobtrusive, as highways were not cut, but were hydraulically under tunneled).
The line originates in the Cushing, Okla area. [Considered a "pricing' point for crude oil.] Paul North, IIRC pointed that out on another Thread. I understand that the lines current Terminus is somewhere around the Kansas Nebraska Border area, until its final route is confirmed, It seems to have been somewhat of a media non-issue locally, while in the Topeka area, the envirofolks seemed to make a big deal out of it, while playing to National media attention. Locally, it seemed to attract little comment other than to note it was an event in the local economy. Pipelines seem to be a fact of life as they cris-cross the Midwest in many directions (Nebraska, as well )
Most of the excitement over it seems to be generated in other areas of the Country. As various advocacy groups whip up their base groups to be in whichever side of the issue they want to cause their issues publicity ( either FOR, or Against). I know that is pretty cynical, but these days it seems to be the case/ and motivations are a case of "Follow the Money".
As an aside, Notice more of tanker unit trains, running on BNSF transcon through here. UP is to my West (OKT sub) and infrequently seen, by me). But the quantity of BNSF Tanker Shuttle unit trains seems to be growing. Depending on whether empty or loaded, shuttle train movement (empty 1 unit leading couple of hopper cars, string of tankers, broken by individual hopper cars and a string of tankers and their buffer hopper cars with two units DPU. The uniformity of their consists make them pretty easy to spot.
Boyd Its crazy how some people come out and oppose anything and everything there is. Like a bridge over the St.Croix river by Stillwater, Mn. Stillwater has been trying to replace a 1931 bridge for 25 years.
There is a Story in OTR circles that goes like this by the time the DOT finally gets done doing the Enviromental impact study the Traffic survey and all the othe3r Crap they have to do to Build a New Bridge and such. They need to build a REPLACEMENT for the REPLACEMENT. The old Woodrow Wilson on I-95 around Washington DC case in point needed to be replaced for around 30 Years heck muy Father was screaming about it when HE drove OTR. They finally replaced it. The NEW ONE is already over Capacity and needs to be replaced. i9t is less than 5 years old. Or the Tappen Zee arcoss the Hudson River the George Washington take your Pick all of them need to be Replaced just the Evriomental Impact Surveys will take FOREVER to get done hopefully none of them collaspe before they get beyond that study.
samfp1943 Most of the excitement over it seems to be generated in other areas of the Country. As various advocacy groups whip up their base groups to be in whichever side of the issue they want to cause their issues publicity ( either FOR, or Against). I know that is pretty cynical, but these days it seems to be the case/ and motivations are a case of "Follow the Money".
I agree that the reaction to the pipeline is far greater in the country at large rather than just in the area along the pipeline route. But I do not see that the reaction at large springs up either for or against the pipeline as a case of follow the money. I see the reaction springing up solely against the project, and being a case of follow the green movement. The bone of contention is not oil spills per se, although those are part of the objection, but the overarching issue is opposition to the use of fossil fuels and causing climate change. The current administration, in my own humble opinion, has its boot on the neck of fossil fuel. It is as clear as day. They are not so much worried about spilling oil as they are against using it.
Sam - I am political, but not an extremist. I don't have a problem with pipelines thru eastern Ne and I live pretty close to the eastern border. This could affect the Missouri or possibly where Lincoln gets its well water for drinking.
But I use all the available energy just as everyone else and know we can't ruffle about everything. It is just that in this case I don't see the necessity of the proposed site. It isn't like I think they should route it thru eastern Iowa and stay as far away from NE as possible. We are talking about roughly 150 miles - which I am sure in pipelines is like from the earth to the moon. But I have lived enough years to see what happens in an "accident" and what happens after these "accidents" - and not just in pipeline accidents.
Trains can and probably do carry hazardous waste thru here all the time. I have seen some of the accidents and they were handled by the railroad and other agencies involved in the cleanup in a very timely manner.
I am sure everyone gets the flavor of what I am thinking, so I will stop. But I wish that all the $$$ that the pipeline company is spending on ads that blanket our airwaves would use that $$$$ and move the pipeline that extra few miles. It would be $$$$ well spent.....
Mookie
Here is James Hansen’s (NASA) take on the pipeline project:
http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2011/06/05/236978/james-hansen-keystone-pipeline-tar-sands-climate/
He says we need to phase out coal and leave the tar sands in the ground in order to stabilize climate change.
The original question was whether railroads could handle the job if the pipeline were not built. It might be useful to consider some numbers in this regard.
The pipeline is intended to deliver 700,000 barrels per day (Investor's Business Daily 11/13/2011) to a terminal in the Houston -Port Arthur TX area. Other estimates range from 590,000 to 1.1 million barrels daily, but for this example let's stick to the 700K figure.
Using a typical 30,000 gallon tank car (LD LMT 196,500 lbs, LT WT 66,500 lbs), we can determine how many cars are needed per day. Heavy crude weighs about 7.27 lbs per gallon according to figures I can dig up. Dividing the load limit of the tank car (196500) by the pounds per gallon of crude (7.27) you find that each car can carry 27028 gallons. Multiply the 700,000 barrels daily delivery x 42 gallons per barrel and divide that number by gallons per car (27028) and your result is the number of tank cars per day needed to unload at the terminal: 1087.
Question: How many trainsets are necessary to provide 1087 cars unloading daily at the south end? And of course the same number must be loading at the north end, as well. Of course there are many other questions about routes, traffic capacity, ROW improvements and more. I will be interested in reading your comments, particularly whether this attempt at analysis makes any sense at all and whether it sheds any light on the subject.
Canada's Minister of Natural Resources just got back from China and they seem VERY interested in Canada's oil situation, he said a pipeline to Kitimat, British Columbia is a very viable route. The U.S. wants to wait 18 months to decide if it will go through, Canada wants to start soon and the route to Kitimat could be done in 1 1/2 years or so, As Norm48327 said: wouldn't it be easier to build more refineries in Canada and ship finished products for export? this has been hammered around Canada for a century, but Canadains are still referred to as "hewers of wood and drawers of water" We've tried to change this attitude for years to no avail.
Mookie But I have lived enough years to see what happens in an "accident" and what happens after these "accidents" - and not just in pipeline accidents. Trains can and probably do carry hazardous waste thru here all the time. I have seen some of the accidents and they were handled by the railroad and other agencies involved in the cleanup in a very timely manner.
But I have lived enough years to see what happens in an "accident" and what happens after these "accidents" - and not just in pipeline accidents.
One thing missing from this discussion is a quantitative estimate for a pipeline accident in the proposed route, where the estimate is based on the conditions found on that route. My understanding of pipeline ruptures are usually due to the pipeline being disturbed, which was the case for Laurel, Montana this last July (FWIW, I drove across the Yellowstone river ~100 yards upstream of the pipeline about 6 hours before the spill) and possibly the San Bruno rupture south of San Fran. Other causes include overpressure and internal corrosion. From what's been reported about the proposed route, it appears to be a benign environment for a pipeline. This is not to say that the proposed route is risk free.
As for the carbon impact - with China's interest in sources of oil. the Tar Sands will almost certainly be exploited whether or not the Keystone XL is built.
- Erik
Erik - my point exactly. The area is benign. But are the pipelines?
Mookie,
If I recall correctly, there are several hundred thousand miles of petroleum carrying pipelines in the US and there is maybe one major incident per year? That would imply that the section of the pipeline going through Nebraska would likely operate without incident over the life of the pipeline.
[quote user="tpatrick"]
"...The original question was whether railroads could handle the job if the pipeline were not built. It might be useful to consider some numbers in this regard.
The pipeline is intended to deliver 700,000 barrels per day (Investor's Business Daily 11/13/2011) to a terminal in the Houston -Port Arthur TX area. Other estimates range from 590,000 to 1.1 million barrels daily, but for this example let's stick to the 700K figure..."
"..Question: How many trainsets are necessary to provide 1087 cars unloading daily at the south end? And of course the same number must be loading at the north end, as well. Of course there are many other questions about routes, traffic capacity, ROW improvements and more. I will be interested in reading your comments, particularly whether this attempt at analysis makes any sense at all and whether it sheds any light on the subject..."
This whole issue seem to revolve around available infrastructure
The pipeline in its current incomplete existence is; presently not part of the discussion.
The infrastructure to load 1087 (tpatrick's number of tank cars) is most likely currently only partially available.
The railroad capacity to move those cars into loading facilities, inclusive of track work, manpower, and support; again only partially currently available.
The receiving facitlies, to handle those 1087 cars per day, again hinges on a factor of availability of handling infrastructur.
The key seems to be a series of IFS.
If they are needed. If they can be financed. If can be built, If the railroads are willing to assist in this massive infrastructure component.
How long til available? How fast can the cars be provided? Currently, trainsets now seem to be in the neighborhood of less than 100 tankers each] so figure something on the order of between 10/20 extra train sets per day, give or take. Surely, an achievable number of additional movement in numbers.
The problem seems to become one of logistics, equipment and track infrastructure in the areas of origin and destination, as well as crewing needs and their locations.
Rational time line for implementation of the operational logistics.
To Bucyrus:. I think that we have got a problem of agreement over the whole global warming issue. I am extremely skeptical as to its ramifications and a real existance, and you seem to fall into another whole spectrum of belief about it. So maybe our best course is to agree to disagree(?)
To Mookie: Believe me, I agree with your line of concerns. But I think that as with every major linear construction project. the route becomes, more of an issue of how much each route will cost, til it comes down to the least expensive route with the lower level of problems in getting the easement to build. ( read that as the least populated areas to transit.
In the 1960's I worked for a Civil Engineering Firm in Memphis, we were contracted with the State of Tenn. Or job was to lay out the Interstate Highway System at Memphis, Tn. The given was it was an East/West thru- Routing [Interstate 40], with a By-Pass North and South of the Memphis city area.
The philosophy of the State was Fastest route and cheapest route.. It can be overly simplified by basically connecting the public lands in the area (follow rivers, creeks in flood prone areas, connect the parks and landfills). You get the picture.
The the I40route basically bisected Overton Park in Mid-town Memphis (That was the battle for over 20 years/ reaching a cost over $300 Millions,before the Courts killed it). And the outer peroimeter roads (I-240/and I-55), went from one and two lanes to somewhere around 2-4 lanes, and re-engineered ramps and interchanges as traffic counts soared)
Mookie: The point being the fastest and cheapest route, will wind up being nowhere near that and what you get will wind up looking like a Frankenstein monster. So wishing and hoping for something may not get you what you wanted, but something of a nightmare.
Sam - I think the net result of your hard-earned experience in this case = natural resource (at base value) piped to Pacific...tankered to Asia. We'll be driving vehicles (assembled here by Asian-owned companies) using high-priced, fossil fuel-produced electricity.
I am for using resources wisely in an economic manor.
I'm just really tired of spoiled, elitist, greeny, whiney, ignorant brats who've been conditioned to expect they should be handed a "job" mandated or funded by a grant from an oh-so-benevolent government that should fulfill their every desire, or they'll "destitute" themselves for the cause by sitting-in at a city park, making certain TV is available there for the 3:15PM Packers game on Sunday afternoon).
I'm back to trains, now.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.