Bucyrus Well, yesterday the project was on hold for a couple years. Has it now been resumed to continue without delay, or is it still on hold for two years even though a committment has been made to bypass the sand hills?
Well, yesterday the project was on hold for a couple years. Has it now been resumed to continue without delay, or is it still on hold for two years even though a committment has been made to bypass the sand hills?
According to the article, it will take 12 to 18 months for the new EIR. Only after that will the State Department make a decision.
"'The process requires a new Environmental Impact Statement for the new proposed route and based on prior projects similar in scope we expect it will take 12 to 18 months to complete,' the official told Reuters. "The U.S. State Department still must give the final approval to the project because it crosses an international border. But the Obama Administration will likely not have to deal with the politically charged issue until after the 2012 election because of the time it takes to study a new route."
"No soup for you!" - Yev Kassem (from Seinfeld)
No problem Sam. I figured you just misunderstood me to be agreeing with the pipeline delay. I did not really make my personal position clear when I posted the reasons I was seeing for the delay.
Bucyrus samfp1943: 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(?) Sam, I think you misunderstand my point. My viewpoint on global warming probably about the same as yours. I certainly did not bring it up as the reason why I oppose the pipeline. I am actually for the pipeline unless there is some obvious geophysical based flaw in the routing of it. I only brought up global warming to clarify what I see as the objection to the pipeline. I see the objection to the pipeline as being one small component of a much larger objection agenda. That is the agenda against the use of fossil fuels. And the reason there is that opposition against the use of fossil fuels is exclusively due to the theory that such use is causing the destruction of the planet through the mechanism of climate change. In that context, you could almost say that in shooting down the pipeline, the pipeline is actually beside the point. The pipeline routing is beside the point. Shipping the oil by rail as a pipeline alternative is beside the point. In the larger perspective, the only thing that will satisfy the opposition is leaving the oil in the ground. And in this country, the opposition is in power. In Canada and China, they are not.
samfp1943: 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 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(?)
In that context, you could almost say that in shooting down the pipeline, the pipeline is actually beside the point. The pipeline routing is beside the point. Shipping the oil by rail as a pipeline alternative is beside the point. In the larger perspective, the only thing that will satisfy the opposition is leaving the oil in the ground. And in this country, the opposition is in power. In Canada and China, they are not.
Sorry for the delay in getting back to you Bucyrus.
Based on the above, I owe you an apology. Apparently, I misjudged your comments. A case of letting my own prejudices overcome reality. It seems we share common ground.
Please, accept my apology!
What I have heard is that the pipeline builder has offered to bypass the sand hills, which will add 40 miles to the route and require an extra pumping station. However, I have heard nothing that indicates that the offer to bypass the sand hills has been accepted, or will be accepted as the final condition of approval. Moreover, I have not heard that the two-year delay has been cancelled as a result of the offer to bypass the sand hills, or that the offer to bypass the sand hills will be accepted after the two-year delay.
And I see no indication of any assurance that the pipeline will ever get built in Nebraska, little chickens notwithstanding.
I'm not even going to bite on the chicken little bit, but our legislature and gov are right now in special session to figure out how to keep it out of both places.
She who has no signature! cinscocom-tmw
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. 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.
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.
To me, the next biggest unknown is the cycle time - how many miles each way at an average speed, plus time to load and unload, plus a little bit of 'padding'. With round-trip cycle times in the 9 to 14 day range, roughly from 9 to 14 trainsets of 1,087 cars each would be needed. At a guess-timated $100,000 per car, that's $108.7 million per trainset, or from $980 million to $1,522 million for cars alone. Figure 6 locomotives per 100 cars for about 2 HP/ ton = 65 for each 1,087 car trainset at $2 million each = $130 million or so for a $108.7 million trainset, or about $1.20 for each $1.00 of car. Again, with 9 to 14 day cycle times, that would be from 65 x 9 = 585 to 65 x 14 = 910 locomotives, for an additional $1,170 million to $1,820 million. Altogether, the rolling stock's capital investment alone could range from $2,150 million to $3,342 million (insert famous Everett Dirksen quote about "A $Billion here") - but still less than half of the pipeline's $7 billion estimated cost. What this really illustrates is the validity of John Kneiling's obsession with over-the-road speed and cycle times; a lot of money could be spent on management and improvements to cut down on the time and hence number of cars required.
If it was me, I'd look at originating and terminaling about 4 trains of about 272 cars each daily, with lots of Distributed Power - 16 locos per train, say a pair every 32 to 35 cars or so, with ECP brakes, 'high-air' lines, etc.
See also Fred Frailey's current blog/ column on all this, and some of the traffic estimates mentioned therein - "The next Powder River Basin", posted 11-11-2011 - at:
http://cs.trains.com/TRCCS/blogs/fred-frailey/archive/2011/11/11/the-next-powder-river-basin.aspx
- Paul North.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/sns-rt-us-transcanada-nebraskatre7ad2c2-20111114,0,5103699.story
"Nebraska and Trans Canada Corp agreed on Monday to find a new route for the stalled Keystone XL pipeline that would steer clear of environmentally sensitive lands in the state." So the pipeline will get built in Nebraska, but avoid the Sandhills and Ogadalla aquifer. Apparently some of the posts on this thread were pure Chicken Little hysteria.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
Obviously - the right people read the Trains Forum. They are moving the pipeline out of the sandhills.
I am pleased.
Now I need to start a campaign to run more trains by my watch site! Especially during the daylight hours!
I saw an item in the paper (LA Times I think) about the USA exporting over 800,000 barrels of refined oil products (Mostly diesel fuel oil) from refineries is Texas. So I bet that if that pipeline ever gets to Houston it will feed the refineries that export oil products. Of course it will depend on where the price is highest.
Jack
I think erikem nicely summed up the main causes of pipeline spills: distinct events such as the Yellowstone River spill (probably caused by a river in high flood stage scouring the river bed deep enough to impact the pipeline); or more dispersed problems like corrosion. In either case, exposure to problems is directly related to length of the pipeline. You would have to justify the extra length of a line against the sensitivity of the area to be avoided. The Sand Hills are such a large area (one-fourth of Neb.) that to be coldly rational, you could not do significant damage to that vast an area, even with a large spill. On a more positive note, oil production and pipelines are a pervasively regulated industry, and pipeline companies have learned to monitor and quickly react to spills, as ignoring clean-up is not a real option.
With regard to tanker trains, the Tar Sands are a different situation than that of the tanker trains presently operating from North Dakota. The Bakken is still considered conventional production, and is profitable enough to sustain rail transport for now. The Tar Sands are much more marginal and would seem to require the economy of a pipeline.
samfp1943 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(?)
Sam,
I think you misunderstand my point. My viewpoint on global warming probably about the same as yours. I certainly did not bring it up as the reason why I oppose the pipeline. I am actually for the pipeline unless there is some obvious geophysical based flaw in the routing of it. I only brought up global warming to clarify what I see as the objection to the pipeline. I see the objection to the pipeline as being one small component of a much larger objection agenda. That is the agenda against the use of fossil fuels. And the reason there is that opposition against the use of fossil fuels is exclusively due to the theory that such use is causing the destruction of the planet through the mechanism of climate change.
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.
[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..."
[/quote]
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 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.
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.
- Erik
Erik - my point exactly. The area is benign. But are the pipelines?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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".
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.
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.
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.
[quote user="Mookie"]
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!
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 )
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.
Modeling the "Fargo Area Rapid Transit" in O scale 3 rail.
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.
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.
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.
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?
Norm
Mookie Lotsa acreage in Nebraska - why right over two very important parts of the US?
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?
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.