Since we've gone completely political here,I'm going to lock this one up...
Darren (BLHS & CRRM Lifetime Member)
Delaware and Hudson Virtual Museum (DHVM), Railroad Adventures (RRAdventures)
My Blog
tdmidget You can't have it both ways Henry. On the one hand you claim that the "itenerant" workers send their paychecks 1000 miles away and on the other you have them paying inflated rent locally. Which is it?
You can't have it both ways Henry. On the one hand you claim that the "itenerant" workers send their paychecks 1000 miles away and on the other you have them paying inflated rent locally. Which is it?
They are paying rent and buying food. They are not buying houses, furniture, automobiles, or other discretionary items. They work up 12 to18 hour days, 7 days a week for up to 3 weeks, then go home wherever that is, taking what's left of their paychecks or what they didn't mail home or have directly deposited at home. There are no new retail shopping centers nor theaters or other entertainment venues. Bars are just busier and louder and more likely to be under the watchful eye of local constablulary. No new manufacturing facilities and no gold pavement on the streets as is being promised by politicians and promoters. It ain't like no gold or oil rush of the romantic old west of a hundered or more years ago. Local colleges and business schools were enticed into offering classes aimed at the gas drilling business with the idea the local enomomy would benefit with locals being hired by the gas and drilling companies; instead, those who do make it through the course are offered jobs in the mid and far west and in Canada instead of in the backyard as promised. Some, like me, are against fracking and drilling as much because we have been lied to or otherwise decieved as anyother reason knowing that what we are being told is not the truth. If they were upfront above board in the first place, maybe I'd feel different. But the weren't and I don't.
RIDEWITHMEHENRY is the name for our almost monthly day of riding trains and transit in either the NYCity or Philadelphia areas including all commuter lines, Amtrak, subways, light rail and trolleys, bus and ferries when warranted. No fees, just let us know you want to join the ride and pay your fares. Ask to be on our email list or find us on FB as RIDEWITHMEHENRY (all caps) to get descriptions of each outing.
I'd argue the bigger issues is the Earthquakes being felt now that are at least suspected to be caused by Fraking.
I don't doubt that the ground water in Pennsylvania is contaminated. It has been mixing with oil for thousands of years with no help. That is why Edwin Drake drilled at Titusville in 1859. Every creek in the area had at least a sheen of oil upon it and that is why he struck a pay at 691/2 feet. 50 years ago when I was in school I heard about areas there where the ground had enough dissolved gas to make a flame. So don't blame fracking. By the way the first well stimulation (fancy name for fracking) was near the Drake well in 1865. There is no way that there is any communication between a shale a mile or more down and ground water a few hundred feet down with today's well construction. There are multiple cement seals between the two and steel casing all the way.
The problem here is people who are totally ignorant of their own area's history and of modern well construction. They want to be a victim, after all that's our national pastime. AND they see deep pockets
Is there any Canadian tar sands oil being shipped in railroad tank cars at this time? I am referring to the type of product that the pipeline would have shipped to Texas.
Since we've gone completely political here, Who cares? Who cares if we eliminate all Petroleum? It's just a resource to be used or not used, not something magical.
Also, I don't believe you could find any coherent reading of the administration's energy policy that suggests they want to get rid of Petroleum.
And even if there were, who cares, he was backed into a corner by congress. Why should he play their game? Especially when plenty of the actual people affected by this pipeline and petroleum products in general are saying not just no, but hell no? Don't they have a right to their land and a say in the workings of their state?
diningcar No one here has the credentials to convincingly answer these questions: Does this Administration wish to eliminenate the use of petroleum and will seek any means to do it? Does the petroleum industry currently have the the means to provide safe and cost effective products? Is the public ready to vote with their pocketbook for continued use of petroleum products?
No one here has the credentials to convincingly answer these questions:
Does this Administration wish to eliminenate the use of petroleum and will seek any means to do it?
Does the petroleum industry currently have the the means to provide safe and cost effective products?
Is the public ready to vote with their pocketbook for continued use of petroleum products?
Regarding your first question:
Everything this Administration says indicates they want to eliminate the use of petroleum. It is a universal belief of their base, and they say so. What more proof do you need?
Your second question seems to be premised on the assumption that it has not yet been determined whether or not the petroleum industry is currently providing safe and cost effective products.
Your third question is similar to your second question in that it seems to imply that the continued use of petroleum is going to cost the public more, and they might not want to pay the added cost.
Haven't we worn this subject out?
We have seen statements made without any substantiation, opinions without significant (or any) expertise and political preferences occasionally coming into play. No one here has the credentials to convincingly answer these questions:
I know, these questions may elicit more unknowlegable responses. Can we instead just go on to something we may have some expertise about?
It is a different kind of fracking....horizontal for a mile or more after almost two miles verticle; special formulat fluids pumped down but not all return; siesmic vibrations not felt before (earthquakes); road kill now means the roads are smashed to smitherines with heavy equipment moves, new water stolen from the aqua firma resource coming in to mix with with the cocktail, dirty and hazerdous water trucked out to wherever; Marcellus shale ain't like other shale they've me, nor are the city slickers who moved to the country to get away from it all; increased crimes from rape, assult, brawls, robbery, vehicle accidents other than fracking vehicles; fracking vehicle accidents and tipovers; onsite accidents causing bad injuries and death; cost of living goes up as housing is rented to itenerant workers at hightly inflated rates forcing locals to move out; no money being spent locally as all workers are itinerant and take the pay checks a 1000 miles to home; locals not hired even after local educational institutions are led into offering the classes to learn as grads are offered jobs thousands of miles away instead. Those are just some of the negative problems being faced but not successfully addressed. On the plus side, local railroads are making money brining in supplies that aren't otherwise trucked.
I have seen some of the horror stories in the news regarding some of the Pennsylvania fracking episodes. Usually the spills were shown to come from improper waste pit disposal rather than from the actual underground fracking process. Pa. has had something of a learning curve. This has not been the experience in Michigan where fracking has gone on for years at incrementally increasingly larger scale. Michigan has much better access to deep underground injection wells to take care of the spent frac fluid. (Although the local environmental groups will always point to Pa. as the coming Apocalypse.)
He was avoiding the Keystone controversy and giving gas a broad smile for some of their programs they have in the wind. However, the further we move along this fracking of Marcellus Shale, the shadier the deal becomes, the more expensive it becomes, the less safe it becomes, the less attractive it becomes. If the gas companies had been square and honest upfront, they'd be further into their program than they are. Obama has nothing to do with it, nor will any other state or national leader as hometowns are getting together and doing the Repulican thing: local people determine their own fates instead of governments jamming it down their throats. Of course this does not sit will with the elephants, having their own political mantra turned against them...stay tuned, there is more to blow up than just the wells!
henry6 As for fracking, the way it has been presented and practiced in PA and elswhere in the east, it should be stopped or never started until many, many, many aspects of the process, of environment concerns, of the ethical and legal practices of the companies, of the real impact on the economy and tax situations, of the real social impact it all will have. There has been a lot of cheating, lying, ignoring, and underhanded play by the gas and drilling companies and by the politicians.
As for fracking, the way it has been presented and practiced in PA and elswhere in the east, it should be stopped or never started until many, many, many aspects of the process, of environment concerns, of the ethical and legal practices of the companies, of the real impact on the economy and tax situations, of the real social impact it all will have. There has been a lot of cheating, lying, ignoring, and underhanded play by the gas and drilling companies and by the politicians.
In the State of the Union speech, Obama sounded bullish on the potential of new natural gas to meet our energy needs. He did not say anything about needing time to review the environmental or ethical concerns.
This whole thing has become a political circus rife with lies and other deceptions and misunderstandings. The project is several years in the forming; Congress forced Obama to make a quick dicision by packing legislation with a directive rather than drawing things out a little;, the Repulican Governor of Nebraska asked that President Obama hold it up while a certain environmental safety issue be looked at more closely, which he did. The opposition is lying that Obama nixed the whole deal when in fact it is not over at all, just suspended.
As for fracking, the way it has been presented and practiced in PA and elswhere in the east, it should be stopped or never started until many, many, many aspects of the process, of environment concerns, of the ethical and legal practices of the companies, of the real impact on the economy and tax situations, of the real social impact it all will have. There has been a lot of cheating, lying, ignoring, and underhanded play by the gas and drilling companies and by the politicians. It has been pushed so far so fast that no one really knew what was happening. Even the companies anxious to get into it have found that drilling into the ground for gas often finds they have actually taken a giant step into a dung heap up to their ears much to their surprise and regret. It just don't glitter for real, not as sparkling as the rhetoric.
An odd, related, tidbit in out local news: A lawmaker in the S.D. legislature is introducing a bill that bascially says "Hey everybody- fracking is certainly NO PROBLEM in S.D. . Come on down! Bring your oil rigs and your development money.". Realistically, the northwest corner of S.D. touches the corner of N.D. and Montana where some of the oil is being drilled. It's also very sparsely poulated and dry as all get out. The BNSF (former Milwaukee Road transcon) also runs right along the border.
Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.
tdmidget http://www.alliedenergycorp.com/transmix-processing.php Nothing at all to indicate that this is a problem. It is standard equipment at every pipeline terminal. This is like saying that the hose on a gas pump is a "problem".
http://www.alliedenergycorp.com/transmix-processing.php
Nothing at all to indicate that this is a problem. It is standard equipment at every pipeline terminal. This is like saying that the hose on a gas pump is a "problem".
The link that the other poster provided shows a facility with a petroleum heating vessel, a fractionation tower, storage tanks (another page within the link shows 50,000+ barrels capacity) and all the piping and controls necessary to run it. This is all overhead costs caused by pipeline product intermixing. To any oil company people I know, this is a problem. To trivialize these costs as like a "hose on a gas pump" is dismissive.
My original post was in answer to someone who suggested locating the refinery in the oil sands area to save the cost of transporting the crude. I think in subsequent posts, most people have grasped the idea that its cheaper to transport the crude in bulk, than all of the multiple and diverse products of the refinery. If you are still having a problem with this, than please supply us with your own links to show us otherwise.
tdmidget MidlandMike: tdmidget: Contamination is not a problem with pipelines. Products are separated by a pig or slug of water.... Cross-contamination of different products thru a pipeline is an added cost problem. It either produces a transmix which results in reprocessing or at least a downgraded product, or in the case of a water spacer, a slug of water to treat and dispose of properly. Citation Please. And a credible one. Or put a cork in it.
MidlandMike: tdmidget: Contamination is not a problem with pipelines. Products are separated by a pig or slug of water.... Cross-contamination of different products thru a pipeline is an added cost problem. It either produces a transmix which results in reprocessing or at least a downgraded product, or in the case of a water spacer, a slug of water to treat and dispose of properly.
tdmidget: Contamination is not a problem with pipelines. Products are separated by a pig or slug of water....
Contamination is not a problem with pipelines. Products are separated by a pig or slug of water....
Cross-contamination of different products thru a pipeline is an added cost problem. It either produces a transmix which results in reprocessing or at least a downgraded product, or in the case of a water spacer, a slug of water to treat and dispose of properly.
Citation Please. And a credible one. Or put a cork in it.
"No soup for you!" - Yev Kassem (from Seinfeld)
MidlandMike tdmidget: Contamination is not a problem with pipelines. Products are separated by a pig or slug of water.... Cross-contamination of different products thru a pipeline is an added cost problem. It either produces a transmix which results in reprocessing or at least a downgraded product, or in the case of a water spacer, a slug of water to treat and dispose of properly.
Citation, please and a very credible one/.
Bucyrus,
While it is true that as a consequence of the upgrading process that the oil is made flowable, the main thing the process does is "dress-up" the goo so that it can be processed in a refinery like normal oil. You might notice that the process in the diagram uses hydrogen to lighten the oil rather than using lite oils to thin it. But let's say that we take the heavy oil as is, after oil/sand seperation, and send it by rail car to a US refinery. Since the upgrading process is normally an in-field process, and the bitumen isn't actually oil, the refinery may need additional permits for operations outside the normal scope of a refinery. Since the new process involves things like removing sulfur and other obnoxious products, public opinion would be against it. Since refineries often already have problems maintaining air quality, its hard to believe they would want to take on the added headaches, when presently it is already done in the Canadian wilds. My observation (after observing oil companies for 30+ years) is that they like to solve problems, not to look for them. But there are also some of them that go against the grain, so I'll never say never.
Bucyrus Here is a link on tar sand crude issues that mentions the thinning compound, and says it contains large amounts of benzene. Generally, from what I have found on the web, there is considerable environmental objection to the use of this thinning compound because it is more toxic than the crude, and in the case of a spill, it sinks deeply into the ground along with the crude oil. Also, the thinning compound alone is shipped to the tar sands origin by rail, and because of its ability to quickly percolate into the ground a long distance, there is worry about derailments spilling the thinning compound. http://www.onearth.org/article/tar-sands-oil-plagues-a-michigan-community
http://www.onearth.org/article/tar-sands-oil-plagues-a-michigan-community
The crude from the tar sands is also diluted with NGLs (LPG and natural gasoline), which is unlikely to have much benzene. Since this is just another form of hydrocarbons, it is probably stays with the tar sands crude until it is refined and treated like any other intermediate or product.
http://www.keyera.com/GasPlants/ADT
Mike,
That is an interesting and informative process diagram. I am not sure what is driving the logistics of the process, but it sounds like a portion of the refining or processing is done at the mine and then the product is shipped to the refinery to undergo the rest of the refining and processing. At least part of the reason for the mine processing is to make the product flowable for movement through the pipeline.
So I have these questions:
1) If a new rail handling option were developed that did not require the product to be flowable, would it reduce the overall cost of the processing/refining process that is conducted both at the mine and at the refinery?
2) If it would reduce the cost, would it be enough to tip the transport cost advantage from pipeline to rail?
I don’t have the answers, but I speculate that the answer to item #1 is yes. If so, part of the answer to item #2 would depend on how much investment would be required to develop the new rail handling option.
But, in any case, I would guess that a considerable investment would be required to upgrade just the traditional rail tank car transport in order to be able to handle the new tar sands traffic if it ships by rail.
Bucyrus You may be right, but I am not convinced that the thinning at the source is necessary to separate the sand. Nor am I convinced that the receiving refineries require a thinned product, or could not be easly modified to handle product that is not thinned. The only clear references to thinning that I have seen say that the need for thinning is to make the oil flowable for pushing it through a pipeline. So I am speculating that a whole different handling concept might be developed for rail that would eliminate the need to thin the oil for shipping.
You may be right, but I am not convinced that the thinning at the source is necessary to separate the sand. Nor am I convinced that the receiving refineries require a thinned product, or could not be easly modified to handle product that is not thinned.
The only clear references to thinning that I have seen say that the need for thinning is to make the oil flowable for pushing it through a pipeline.
So I am speculating that a whole different handling concept might be developed for rail that would eliminate the need to thin the oil for shipping.
Upon further reading I find some separating processes use thinning and some don't. However, all the bitumin then goes to an "upgrading" process which converts it into syncrude. This process converts it into something resembling crude oil that refineries can use. It also removes some of the nasty stuff like sulpher and metals. Even companies like Shell who have both tar sand projects and far away refineries do it this way. I would imagine that Canada provides the incentives for this extra processing to make this non-conventional oil attractive. Here is a link that shows an example of the upgrading process: http://www.bechtel.com/assets/files/PDF/DetailDesign.pdf
Bucyrus I believe it would be possible to haul the oil by rail without thinning, as would be required with a pipeline. The elimination of the need for thinning might make the rail option cheaper than the pipeline option.
I believe it would be possible to haul the oil by rail without thinning, as would be required with a pipeline. The elimination of the need for thinning might make the rail option cheaper than the pipeline option.
Much of the shallow oil sands are surface mined, and are thinned as part of the sand/oil separation process. However, other oil is produced as liquid thru underground steam injection. While it may be possible to ship this in tank cars un-thinned, the refineries are really geared up for the syncrude that has been thinned. It's part of what makes this goo salable.
Murphy Siding PNWRMNM: ................ If it is a benzene mixture, the proponents would likely apply for, and receive an "exemption" from DOT and CTC for waiver from the 263,000# maximum gross rule for hazardous material now included in the Hazardous Material Regulations of the DOT to allow the use of 286,000 gross tank cars to transport the returned solvent. Mac Why would exemptions be granted for benzene?
PNWRMNM: ................ If it is a benzene mixture, the proponents would likely apply for, and receive an "exemption" from DOT and CTC for waiver from the 263,000# maximum gross rule for hazardous material now included in the Hazardous Material Regulations of the DOT to allow the use of 286,000 gross tank cars to transport the returned solvent. Mac
................ If it is a benzene mixture, the proponents would likely apply for, and receive an "exemption" from DOT and CTC for waiver from the 263,000# maximum gross rule for hazardous material now included in the Hazardous Material Regulations of the DOT to allow the use of 286,000 gross tank cars to transport the returned solvent.
Mac
Murphy,
The 263,000 pound limit for tank cars transporting hazmat was put into the rules in the early to mid 1960's as a result of the "chain reaction" type accidents with 112/114 tank cars transporting Liquefied Petroleum Gas. At the time no one really knew why these results were occurring, and someone wrote this rule to look like they were doing something. The practical effect was to prohibit 6 and 8 axle tank cars of about 60,000 gallon capacity in hazardous material service. It had no effect on four axle cars, which at the time had a maximum gross weight of 263,000 pounds.
Today typical four axle cars gross 286,000 pounds, and carry 110 net tons. Given the history, I think a shipper applying for an exemption to bring back solvent in the context of unit trains of tar sands would very likely be granted the exemption. No exemption would be needed for the head haul as crude is either non regulated, or combustible, depending on the flash point.
dakotafred Re. the (earlier) discussion here on land grants and the extent to which the rails have repaid earlier favors: In 1946, the House Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce found: "It is possible that the railroads have contributed over $900 million (in free and half-cost services to the government) in (repayment) of the lands ... This is double the amount received for the lands sold by the railroads plus the estimated value of such lands still under railroad ownership. (It is) estimated that the total value of the lands at the time they were granted ... was not more than $126 million." Source: The Story of American Railroads, by Stewart H. Holbrook, pg. 162. To this payback it is traditional to add the enhanced value to lands retained by the federal government, which now had access to transportation. In any case, Washington decided it had been sufficiently reimbursed in 1946, henceforth paying the rails full price for transportation of passengers, mail, materiel and what have you, like any other customer.
Re. the (earlier) discussion here on land grants and the extent to which the rails have repaid earlier favors:
In 1946, the House Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce found: "It is possible that the railroads have contributed over $900 million (in free and half-cost services to the government) in (repayment) of the lands ... This is double the amount received for the lands sold by the railroads plus the estimated value of such lands still under railroad ownership. (It is) estimated that the total value of the lands at the time they were granted ... was not more than $126 million."
Source: The Story of American Railroads, by Stewart H. Holbrook, pg. 162.
To this payback it is traditional to add the enhanced value to lands retained by the federal government, which now had access to transportation.
In any case, Washington decided it had been sufficiently reimbursed in 1946, henceforth paying the rails full price for transportation of passengers, mail, materiel and what have you, like any other customer.
Holbrook was a pen for hire and articulated what the railroads wanted you to know. That being said, it is probably a fairly accurate statement. However, different political opinions will come in and knitpick the whole thing to pieces. Since America judges success in dollars and cents rather than broad accomplishments and results beyond the bank account, the accuracy of Holbrook and the truth of what the land grants, charters, loans, grants, and privilidges is always an arguement rather than a sure statement.. Railroads replaced canals and were replace by the highway system as we know it. For the most part, railroads were the only ventures of transportation led by private capital and enterprise (yes, there were a few canals and fewer roads built by private enterprise, but nothing on the scale of railroads). How quickly would the mid and far west have been settled and developed if it weren't for the railroads? Would hve happend, yes, but much more slowly...so what's the price on speed here? It is history, the past; it did the job it did and can't be undone for any amout of money. So let's move on to the present and apply what has been done and learned so that we can build tomorrow. Splitting political hairs over the past gains nothing but wasted time in the present to deal with the future.
PNWRMNM ................ If it is a benzene mixture, the proponents would likely apply for, and receive an "exemption" from DOT and CTC for waiver from the 263,000# maximum gross rule for hazardous material now included in the Hazardous Material Regulations of the DOT to allow the use of 286,000 gross tank cars to transport the returned solvent. Mac
PNWRMNM Midland, There would be no "shrinkage" of lighter crude during transport. Tank cars are designed to keep the product in the tank under normal ambient conditions. Bucyrus, Assuming the solvent is all or part benzene, it could be returned in tank cars. Benzene and benzene mixtures have been shipped in tank cars for decades. If it is a benzene mixture, the proponents would likely apply for, and receive an "exemption" from DOT and CTC for waiver from the 263,000# maximum gross rule for hazardous material now included in the Hazardous Material Regulations of the DOT to allow the use of 286,000 gross tank cars to transport the returned solvent. Mac
Midland,
There would be no "shrinkage" of lighter crude during transport. Tank cars are designed to keep the product in the tank under normal ambient conditions.
Assuming the solvent is all or part benzene, it could be returned in tank cars. Benzene and benzene mixtures have been shipped in tank cars for decades. If it is a benzene mixture, the proponents would likely apply for, and receive an "exemption" from DOT and CTC for waiver from the 263,000# maximum gross rule for hazardous material now included in the Hazardous Material Regulations of the DOT to allow the use of 286,000 gross tank cars to transport the returned solvent.
My presumption is that crude tank cars have a pressure relief valve that would let some vapor blow-off if the car set out in the hot sun for a long time.
The use of the word solvent is misleading. The heavy oil is thinned with condensate (a real light crude, sometimes called natural gasoline, that old oilfield workers said they used in their cars during WWII rationing days) if its available, or refined products like naptha. While there is certainly benzine and lots of other aromatics in these lighter oils, the article in the environmental group's newsletter emphasizes the worst component out of proportion. My guess is that all of the oil mix would be utilized as refinery feedstock.
I am not saying that transporting the oil, or the thinner, or a mixture of the two is something cannot be done in conjunction with rail. I only mention the objections that are seen from the environmentalist perspective. That cannot be dismissed because it was environmentalists that were able to kill the pipeline.
And if you Google around, you can find that environmentalists are not amused by the idea of Canadian oil making an end run around the pipeline option by resorting to rail. They see spill hazards in any mode of transport. Their point has always been the oil, not the pipeline. And they note that rail transport uses more energy and causes more global warming than pipeline transport. So the opposition that killed the pipeline thinks the pipeline was the greener, more preferable option compared to rail.
The one advantage I see for rail is the fact that it already exists, and its ability to ramp up gradually, so it attracts less attention than an all-or-nothing new pipeline starting from scratch.
So, transporting crude oil has risk! Is that news? Supertankers sink, pipelines rupture, trains derail. Pick your poison.
Life is an industrial society is full of risk, but we generally will take the risk to get the rewards. The trick is minimizing the risk. Where, and to a lesser degree, how to run a pipeline is a completely different question than "if". I think I prefer a train or pipeline to move Canadian oil to a oiler crossing the Gulf and up the Delaware River.
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
So where does "safe, clean energy" enter our lives?
Here is a link on tar sand crude issues that mentions the thinning compound, and says it contains large amounts of benzene. Generally, from what I have found on the web, there is considerable environmental objection to the use of this thinning compound because it is more toxic than the crude, and in the case of a spill, it sinks deeply into the ground along with the crude oil. Also, the thinning compound alone is shipped to the tar sands origin by rail, and because of its ability to quickly percolate into the ground a long distance, there is worry about derailments spilling the thinning compound.
Bucyrus PNWRMNM: One thing I can not quite figure out is if, as some here claim, this material would have to be heated to unload from tank cars, how can it be pumped 1660 miles through an in ground pipeline? That is something I have been wondering about, but there seems to be no clear answer on the Internet. Apparently, the tar sands crude can be moved through a pipeline, but must either be heated to thin it, or be thinned at the source by blending it with a solvent. My understanding is that the method for pipeline transport is thinning with a solvent. I speculate that the solvent is recovered at the destination and reused at the source of the crude. I further speculate that the solvent thinning would used in the rail transport option. The solvent is shipped to the tar sands source by rail. Some have mentioned using steam coils in the tank cars, which has been typical for some products that do not flow adequately in cold weather. In conjunction with this heating at the destination, the product could be heated at the source and shipped in insulated tank cars. However, I find it difficult to imagine the use of the steam coil option in high-production unit trains of crude. Both the pipeline and rail option require the use of energy to move the product. The energy needed to heat the product for unloading (or maintaining the temperature during transit) would add a considerable cost.
PNWRMNM: One thing I can not quite figure out is if, as some here claim, this material would have to be heated to unload from tank cars, how can it be pumped 1660 miles through an in ground pipeline?
One thing I can not quite figure out is if, as some here claim, this material would have to be heated to unload from tank cars, how can it be pumped 1660 miles through an in ground pipeline?
Both the pipeline and rail option require the use of energy to move the product. The energy needed to heat the product for unloading (or maintaining the temperature during transit) would add a considerable cost.
The tar sand oil, as I recall, is thinned with a lighter grade crude to make it mobile. I can't recall whether it is done as part of the production process or transportation process. Since lighter crude is more volatile, it may be more susceptible to shrinkage during rail transport, than during closed pipeline transport.
I concur that steaming cars would be slow and expensive. If solvent were used it could be returned reverse route to origin and reused. That may be an advantage to rail.
PNWRMNM One thing I can not quite figure out is if, as some here claim, this material would have to be heated to unload from tank cars, how can it be pumped 1660 miles through an in ground pipeline?
That is something I have been wondering about, but there seems to be no clear answer on the Internet. Apparently, the tar sands crude can be moved through a pipeline, but must either be heated to thin it, or be thinned at the source by blending it with a solvent. My understanding is that the method for pipeline transport is thinning with a solvent. I speculate that the solvent is recovered at the destination and reused at the source of the crude.
I further speculate that the solvent thinning would used in the rail transport option. The solvent is shipped to the tar sands source by rail.
Some have mentioned using steam coils in the tank cars, which has been typical for some products that do not flow adequately in cold weather. In conjunction with this heating at the destination, the product could be heated at the source and shipped in insulated tank cars. However, I find it difficult to imagine the use of the steam coil option in high-production unit trains of crude.
Paul,
I think my rail rates and rail costs are ballpark correct. It is possible that carriers would demand some up front cash for capacity improvements. The cash could be repaid as a reduction in the rate over some period of time.
The cost of the rail project would include capital and operating cost of loading and unloading facilities. Tank car unit costs would be maybe 30% higher than covered hopper cars on a per car basis. My default technology would be tank trains to minimize loading time and costs.
Another thing no one else has talked about is relative exposure to inflation. Rail is certainly more exposed than pipeline, which is virtually a fixed cost operation measured over time. To insulate myself from this as much as possible if I were the selling oil company, I would purchase the tank cars. I would pay for them over 15 years but have an asset with a physical life of 50 years, so the last 35 years are free from a cash flow perspective. Controlling the tank car fleet is a big piece of how J. D. Rockerfeller made his first billion dollars, back when a million was real money.
tdmidget Contamination is not a problem with pipelines. Products are separated by a pig or slug of water....
More aptly - What if the swimming pool was on the other side of your neighbor's house, so your alternatives are either to get his/ her permission to dig up and bury the hose in your neighbor's lawn and around his/ her house, or carry the buckets ? And it's a hot summer there in Arizona, and you'd really like to use the pool by the end of the week ?
Also, consider this: Q: If pipelines are so great - why are there tanker ships ? A: Because distance, geography, volume, capacity, and cost all matter.
- Paul North.
tdmidget Think this thing through. Would it be practical for you to receive your residential water supply by truck or rail? Yet the quantities are magnitudes smaller. Obviously the pipeline is more efficient. If you still don't believe me then I suggest that you try to fill two swimming pools. One by your garden hose. The other from an identical faucet, the same distance away, but you must carry the water in a bucket. Somewhere in there i suspect you will have an epiphany.
Think this thing through. Would it be practical for you to receive your residential water supply by truck or rail? Yet the quantities are magnitudes smaller. Obviously the pipeline is more efficient. If you still don't believe me then I suggest that you try to fill two swimming pools. One by your garden hose. The other from an identical faucet, the same distance away, but you must carry the water in a bucket. Somewhere in there i suspect you will have an epiphany.
But what if you had to apply for a permit to use the garden hose, and it could take years of review for approval, and there was no guarantee that any permit would be granted?
Contamination is not a problem with pipelines. Products are separated by a pig or slug of water. i live in Tucson AZ. Every drop of gasoline, diesel, aviation fuel, and any other bulk product of sufficient volume arrive here via 1 pipeline, that of Kinder Morgan which runs from El Paso to Los Angeles. Everything for Tucson and Phoenix arrives through an 8 inch pipeline. It can travel in either direction if needed. Refined products such as these can move very efficiently through a pipe of this size. The only thing that arrives by rail or truck is ethanol which is about 5% of the total.
PNWRMNM [snipped] Last I knew BNSF is getting about $2500 per car for export grain in unit trains from MN, IA, NE to PNW, a distance less than 2000 miles. If we assume 1600 miles average, that is $1.56 per loaded car mile, with empty return. [snipped]
But Fred Frailey is rebutting me in the comments to his blog post "The next Powder River Basin" of 11-11-2011 (at: http://cs.trains.com/TRCCS/blogs/fred-frailey/archive/2011/11/11/the-next-powder-river-basin.aspx#comments ) that his rail sources are telling him that just the differential between rail and pipeline is $7 to $10 per barrel - not the $3 difference cited by Don Oltmann a few posts above. Although, personally I can see that being the case, with the $7 to $10 being the total cost of the rail move for the 1,600 mile range, but maybe just the differential for CN's much longer 2,500 mile move.
It's all potentially quite confusing, but at least the railroads are not out of the ballpark on price, and likely ready to go in the time frame when needed !
LNER4472 But the Association of American Railroads has, in the past alleged that the "payback" to the Federal government for the benefits of land grants, etc. by means of a century of mail discounts, military movements, etc. amounted to anywhere between two and five times the value of the land grant benefits doled out. The argument started as soon as the policy was announced in the 1860s, and in a sense continues here today.
But the Association of American Railroads has, in the past alleged that the "payback" to the Federal government for the benefits of land grants, etc. by means of a century of mail discounts, military movements, etc. amounted to anywhere between two and five times the value of the land grant benefits doled out. The argument started as soon as the policy was announced in the 1860s, and in a sense continues here today.
The American Association of Railroads is hardly an objective, disinterested source. Whilst in college I took several transportation economics courses. Whether the railroads covered the benefits received from the federal, state, and local governments is difficult to determine. In fact, as I remember it, several of my professors claimed, rightly so I believe, that it would be impossible for a variety of reasons that would take more than a couple of textbooks and seminars to cover. Unlike the American Association of Railroads, they did not have a dog in the hunt. In any case, at the end of the day, it is probably a fair statement that the government got back most of its direct subsidies to the railroads, although whether they got back all the value granted is problematic.
My point is that the railroads have received government support from the get go, and they continue to receive it. The NS received government support to daylight or expand a number of its tunnels so that it can expedite double stack trains from Norfolk to the mid-west. And the BNSF is getting $10 million from the federal government, as well as $22.4 million from state and local authorities, to rebuild 20 miles of flood prone rails near Church Ferry, N.D.
Highways, airways, waterways, ports, etc in the U.S. have been funded by the federal, state, and local governments. As I have pointed out in a number of in-depth arguments, the users have paid for them, either directly or indirectly. To be sure there has been some cross subsidizing of motorists, i.e. upper income motorists tend to subsidize lower income motorists, but at the end of the day the users pay for the highways, airways, waterways, ports, etc. This is true for the freight railroads as well, albeit, not passenger operations.
If it is technically and economically feasible, I would love to see the railroads haul the crude from Canada to Texas or wherever it needs to go.
Good and valid point, but there's a "Which comes first - the chicken or the egg?"-type probem here. No refinery is going to be modified - as they are periodically - to work with a different feedstock until the cracking technology is proven and economic, the crude oil is able to flow in sufficient volume and at a low enough price, a deal to do that is reached, and the cycle has run and its due for its next overhaul. Conversely, the crude oil isn't going to move until there's a refinery that can accept it in some volume, and process it profitably. Who makes the first move ?
What's unique about this opportunity is that for the first time in rail history, the railroads are organized and efficient enough to be a credible competitor for the traffic (setting aside the World War II diversion of oil from ship to rail because of the German submarine threat to coastal tanker ships). In one of John Kneiling's late 1960's articles in Trains, he laid out the history of the early oil producers in Pennsylvania attempting to move the crude by rail - the railroads said buckets and barrels would be fine ! There's even an early tank car on display in Titusville or Oil City, PA - it looks like 2 large wooden wash tubs on a flat car. Faced with that lack of cooperation and primitive technology of the day, the oil barons of the day built there own pipeline from northern Pennsylvania to the New York City area to avoid dealing with the railroads at all.
Today, however, the tank car technology is fully developed and mature, and the railroads know how to schedule, run, and market unit trains of tank cars - the ethanol traffic demanded and developed those skills over the past decade or so. So now the railroads are in a much better position in many different ways to analyze the traffic, make decisions, and implement them accordingly.
tdmidget It is amazing how your zeal to put this on rails blinds you. Try to catch up Paul. Refineries are specific to their feedstocks. The only refinery of any size East of the Rocky mountains capable of processing this goo is Valero in the Houston area. There will be NO changing of destination be cause no one else can handle it. The railroads are already unhappy with low rates of coal . Why would they want to take on another low rated commodity with an environmental hazard risk? This stuff will take forever to unload as it will have to be heated just to get it to flow. That means even more trains and trainsets. The question everyone is overlooking is why not refine it right there? Then the refined products could largely be shipped at much less cost by a much smaller pipeline. The Canadian government would crerat a lot of jobs that would pay better than the London Ontario Cat plant they are sniveling about. What's the politics of that?
It is amazing how your zeal to put this on rails blinds you. Try to catch up Paul. Refineries are specific to their feedstocks. The only refinery of any size East of the Rocky mountains capable of processing this goo is Valero in the Houston area. There will be NO changing of destination be cause no one else can handle it. The railroads are already unhappy with low rates of coal . Why would they want to take on another low rated commodity with an environmental hazard risk? This stuff will take forever to unload as it will have to be heated just to get it to flow. That means even more trains and trainsets.
The question everyone is overlooking is why not refine it right there? Then the refined products could largely be shipped at much less cost by a much smaller pipeline. The Canadian government would crerat a lot of jobs that would pay better than the London Ontario Cat plant they are sniveling about. What's the politics of that?
Refineries are updated as necessary. Refineries in Chicago, Detroit, St. Louis and others have been modified and are taking some of the heaver crude.
I am scratching my head as to how you think that shipping the many individual products that will be created at a refinery will be cheaper to ship than just shipping crude. Multiple products will go by pipeline, but will create cross contamination of the product that adds to costs. Some products will go by tanker car, some as hazardous with all those extra headaches. Some will go as drums, and still others may go out in quart containers.
There is a reason why refineries are built near distribution areas.
I think the "refine right there" question has been effectively answered in that a reifinery can outlast a source so it is cheaper ot use what is rather than build new and smaller. In effect, Tdmidget, you do answer your own question.
Since this whole deal has been in the works for so long I am surprised that the Nebraska environmental concern comes into play now. Since there is a Republican Governor and Democratic President on the same page here, it does not smack of political games. Perhaps it is a pause jointly programmed to give US railroads a chance to reexamine the situation and maybe make a play of their own. I seriously believe CP had no interest in the project because of their inability to reach Houston. And CN, while being able to use IC to reach into the south, knows their line is so much longer than the pipeline that they didn't even think of touching it. Of course neither of them would consider carting tthe traffic so few miles letting BNSF and/or UP take the bulk of the milage; no pay off for the Canadian roads, at leat not enough to go after. Me thinks there is more to be rolled out over the next 12 months.
PNWRMNM YoHo1975: Ignoring the higher cost, why wouldn't CN in particular bid on this? They have rails all the way to the Gulf. So the notion that only a small portion of the route would be on home rails need not be true. Only the movement from the Ex-IC to Texas would be. CP has a less compelling amount of track, but it's still more than just their Canadian trackage. Of course, this would require moving the oil quite a bit further east than one might desire and that would increase costs, but the notion that they wouldn't make an offer due to lack of home rails to run it on is wrong. Yoho, You can not ignore higher cost.
YoHo1975: Ignoring the higher cost, why wouldn't CN in particular bid on this? They have rails all the way to the Gulf. So the notion that only a small portion of the route would be on home rails need not be true. Only the movement from the Ex-IC to Texas would be. CP has a less compelling amount of track, but it's still more than just their Canadian trackage. Of course, this would require moving the oil quite a bit further east than one might desire and that would increase costs, but the notion that they wouldn't make an offer due to lack of home rails to run it on is wrong.
Ignoring the higher cost, why wouldn't CN in particular bid on this? They have rails all the way to the Gulf. So the notion that only a small portion of the route would be on home rails need not be true. Only the movement from the Ex-IC to Texas would be. CP has a less compelling amount of track, but it's still more than just their Canadian trackage. Of course, this would require moving the oil quite a bit further east than one might desire and that would increase costs, but the notion that they wouldn't make an offer due to lack of home rails to run it on is wrong.
Yoho,
You can not ignore higher cost.
I understand this.
I interpreted the post I was responding to to imply that CN and CP could only run the traffic on their mileage in Canada. This is factually inaccurate. CN in particular could route this traffic almost exclusively on home rails. That is why I was ignoring costs, in order to point out what I saw as a factual inaccuracy.
Given your back of the envelope calculation, it sounds like even CN's longer routing wouldn't have been a deal breaker. I'm not sure what the capacity constraints would be on the IC/WC connection though I know their is talk of abandoning the old Casey Jones section of the original main that was being operated by a short line. A small section to be sure, but could something like this revive it for overhead traffic?
diningcar Somehow I cannot visualize a barrel of crude being put into a railroad tank car arriving at a refinery in the same elapsed time as a similar barrel being put in a pipeline. What am I missing ??
Somehow I cannot visualize a barrel of crude being put into a railroad tank car arriving at a refinery in the same elapsed time as a similar barrel being put in a pipeline.
What am I missing ??
The time it takes for a barrel of crude dumped into a pipe to be pushed to the end point....rail is probably about 25mph. so pipeline is probably about the same, maybe slower....I mean while there are no jet trains yet, neither is there a jet pipeline.
As for why CN didn't go after it is probably because either this was started before CN purchased IC or that the CN route via IC is longer than using UP or BNSF, or that marketing thinking is parochial enough no one at CN marketing could get their mind around it. As I said earlier, both CN and CP would be the originating carrier and their share would be a couple hundred miles at most before handing the trains over to UP or BNSF for the long haul and the money, so why worry about it. And because the orignation is in Canada, neither BNSF nor UP could start the talking. Of course, there are so many details and much information we don't know.
YoHo1975 Ignoring the higher cost, why wouldn't CN in particular bid on this? They have rails all the way to the Gulf. So the notion that only a small portion of the route would be on home rails need not be true. Only the movement from the Ex-IC to Texas would be. CP has a less compelling amount of track, but it's still more than just their Canadian trackage. Of course, this would require moving the oil quite a bit further east than one might desire and that would increase costs, but the notion that they wouldn't make an offer due to lack of home rails to run it on is wrong.
You can not ignore higher cost. If the oil companies are to seriously consider rail, and their ingrained reflex is not to, you can bet they will be looking for the lowest cost alternative.
I can see three reasonable rail routes assuming both CN and CP have access at origin. Pipeline terminals are to be Hardisty AB and Houston TX. Pipleline mileage per media is 1661.
The short mileage route appears to me to be CP Couts BNSF. I would route BNSF via Thermopolis and Casper WY to keep out of PRB and coal congestion. This is said, or course without detailed knowledge of the physical condition of this line and how much investment it may require. The weakness of this route is redundant elevation as it crosses Front Range drainages from at least Cheyenne WY to Trinidad CO. BNSF no longer makes its mileage tarrif available to the public but I suspect this route to be about 1700 miles.
Another possible route is CP to Winnipeg then BNSF through Souix? City, Omaha etc. This is a bit more round about but favors CP with longest haul. This is probably 2000 miles or so.
CN can offer single line service, almost, via Baton Rouge then UP. This route is considerably longer than either of the others. Lets say 2500 miles.
If any of these routes are seriously considered it will come down to the capital and operating costs of each AND how low each player is willing to go in terms of operating profit. CN is rightly praised for an operating ratio in the low 60s.
Last I knew BNSF is getting about $2500 per car for export grain in unit trains from MN, IA, NE to PNW, a distance less than 2000 miles. If we assume 1600 miles average, that is $1.56 per loaded car mile, with empty return. At 75% OR, long run variable cost (LRVC) is $1.17 per loaded car mile. Assuming my 1700 mile estimate is close, that implies a rate of $2650 per car in unit trains via CP-Couts-BNSF.
The first question is whether CP and BNSF want to take an increase to the OR so CP can get the long haul. BNSF clearly does not. In fact they would be wise to offer CP a better division of the revenue than a strictly mileage prorate. Odds are CP would be rational and accept that offer.
Now the question is CN's position. $2650 per car on 2500 miles is $1.06 per loaded car mile, which is less than BNSF's LRVC. We know CN's variable costs are lower than BNSF's because of CN's lower operating ratio. On a 1700 mile move and a $2650 rate our best guess on CN's cost is its OR, say 65% or $1.01 per mile. CN however has not 1700 miles, but 2500 miles. At $1.01 and 2500 miles CN's LRVC is $2525 per car.
Is CN likely to undercut BNSF's $2650 per car rate to get the business? I do not believe that is likely.
Obviously this is all back of the envelope calculation but it illustrates the outlines of the ball park and the logic each rail carrier is likely to apply.
Mac McCulloch
From the ever-reliable Wikipedia petroleum piplines "usually flows at speed of about 1 to 6 metres per second (3.3 to 20 ft/s)."
For a train, figure 15-20 mph avg between the terminals a day to unload and day to load. For a 1000 mile trip, the time from when loading starts to when it ends would be 98-115 hrs. For the pipeline, 74-444 hours, so the RR is toward the speedy end of the pipeline range.
The extra cost isn't from inventory carrying cost. Its got to be equipment. That tank car is a pipeline on wheels, and the wheels cost money (and wear out) and the pumping stations are replaced by locomotives, which are more numerous, have more moving parts and work in a worse environment.
Bucyrus diningcar, I assume that the extra cost is for the time. Time is money. But I am only going by what Don Oltmannd posted on page 3 of this thread as follows: A quote from a Jan 23rd Bloomberg article: "Shipping oil using tank cars on rail costs about $3 more a barrel than pipeline transport, using prices in North Dakota, a differential unlikely to slow the development of oil sands crude if no pipeline is build, the State Department said. The gap is shrinking as larger storage terminals are built, the agency said." That's 3% at $100/bbl. Not a lot, but not nothin' either....
"Shipping oil using tank cars on rail costs about $3 more a barrel than pipeline transport, using prices in North Dakota, a differential unlikely to slow the development of oil sands crude if no pipeline is build, the State Department said. The gap is shrinking as larger storage terminals are built, the agency said."
That's 3% at $100/bbl. Not a lot, but not nothin' either....
2. Rail is likely faster anyway. Average train speed varies from 20 to 26 MPH depending on the railroad, but pipeline velocities are usually in the 4 to 10 MPH range (6 to 15 ft. per sec.) - no idea of what is proposed for this one, though.
3. Might be a 3 to 5 year wait 'til that 1st barrel of oil comes out of the pipeline anyway . . .
diningcar,
I assume that the extra cost is for the time. Time is money. But I am only going by what Don Oltmannd posted on page 3 of this thread as follows:
A quote from a Jan 23rd Bloomberg article:
[quote user="Bucyrus"]
diningcar: Somehow I cannot visualize a barrel of crude being put into a railroad tank car arriving at a refinery in the same elapsed time as a similar barrel being put in a pipeline. What am I missing ??
$3 per barrel higher cost for rail compared to pipeline.
You are missing my point. TIME
In the pipeline there is a continuous flow that can be relied upon at the refinery. No down time at the refinery unless planned!!
To confirm the validity of the premise of Mr. Kiesel's Original Post, see Fred Frailey's recent (01-25-2012) blog post here - "For North Dakota's railroads, the bonanza grows and grows" - and the comments on it, at:
http://cs.trains.com/TRCCS/blogs/fred-frailey/archive/2012/01/25/for-north-dakota-s-railroads-the-bonanza-grows-and-grows.aspx
To confirm the validity of the premise of Mr. Kiesel's Original Post, see Fred Frailey's recent (01-25-2012) blog post here - "For North Dakota's railroads, the bonanza grows and grows" - at:
WilliamKiesel [snipped] Finally, the additional transport capacity created across the international boundary between Canada and USA brings the pipeline under the Executive's review as the President is responsible for international affairs.
I envision a scene or cartoon in which those guys must be standing there frustrated as they're stuck in the mud (figuratively) and watch the trains roar by next to them ! So I wonder if one of the major oil exploration companies (e.g., Exxon Mobil) or refining companies (Valero) or an affiliate of same would buy a significant though minority stake in one of those railroads just to be able to 'motivate' enough cooperation from that railroad to assure and reserve at least 1 feasible means of getting that oil to a market or their refinery ?
Just don't buy and merge with another railroad, as CN did with the EJ&E. Perhaps that's a triumph of "form over substance", but that's where our society is right now.
Sam1Most of the major transport infrastructure in the United States got initial funding from a government entity. The railroads were no exception. From the get go they got support from local and state governments. The B&O for example was funded in part by bonds issued by Baltimore. What became the Pennsylvania Railroad received funds from the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. The federal government was a major player in funding the transcons, which included most of the western railroads. The builders of the Central Pacific and Union Pacific received the equivalent of billions of dollars in today's money to construct their railroads, and in the process spawned one of the worst financial crises in U.S. history. The BNSF and UP are still reaping benefits from the land and mineral rights that they received as part of the suport proffered by the U.S. Government.
The federal government was a major player in funding the transcons, which included most of the western railroads. The builders of the Central Pacific and Union Pacific received the equivalent of billions of dollars in today's money to construct their railroads, and in the process spawned one of the worst financial crises in U.S. history. The BNSF and UP are still reaping benefits from the land and mineral rights that they received as part of the suport proffered by the U.S. Government.
The Federal government and its citizens (and future citizens) was similarly a major beneficiary from this arrangement by mandating, for nearly a century or more after the initial outlay or other considerations for the railroads, below-market rates for many government traffic types handled by railroads, including the handling of the U.S. mail, some passenger traffic, and wartime traffic needs for the military such as troop trains.
A proper accounting job of the "give and take" between government investment in railroad infrastructure versus government beneficiaries from discounted traffic would take perhaps several books or seminars' worth of accounting, macroeconomic, and microeconomic analysis. But the Association of American Railroads has, in the past alleged that the "payback" to the Federal government for the benefits of land grants, etc. by means of a century of mail discounts, military movements, etc. amounted to anywhere between two and five times the value of the land grant benefits doled out. The argument started as soon as the policy was announced in the 1860s, and in a sense continues here today.
The only sure thing one can say with regards to the overall situation is that 1) we do not, in the United States and Canada, have a nationalized railroad infrastructure and network in the same way that we have a nationally-built/maintained highway, airport, and maritime infrastructure; and 2) a direct comparison between the nationally-built Interstate highway system, the government construction of air traffic control/airports/etc., the federal maintenance of waterways, etc. and the land-grant process towards the formative railroad industry is at best not an even comparison at all and is at worst totally inapt and non-analogous.
Bucyrus My understanding is that the product is exceptionally viscous and dense. Can it be flowed in and out of tank cars through the relatively small inlet and outlet ports? Or would it need to be shipped in open-topped cars similar to the way coal is handled? What happens when tar sands crude in a tank car freezes, expands, and solidifies? What does it do to the tank car, and how do you unload the chilled and nearly solid product from the tank car?
What happens when tar sands crude in a tank car freezes, expands, and solidifies? What does it do to the tank car, and how do you unload the chilled and nearly solid product from the tank car?
While lacking any specific knowledge of the specific oil product in question, I can say that the tank-car handling of exceptionally dense and viscous liquids has been addressed for decades. It's "old hat," as the saying goes. In the case of tar, asphalt, and creosote products, the tank cars are typically designed with steam heating elements that are hooked up at the destination.
Paul_D_North_Jr Consider this: Only the railroads and the pipelines have to acquire their own rights-of-way, and then build and maintain their physical networks. All other modes - trucks, water, and air - have public ROWs, and most of their infrastructure initially financed by a governmental entity of some kind. So although the railroads and pipelines seem to be 'brothers' and similarly disadvantaged or situated in this regard, the important part instead is that the pipelines don't have a huge built-in cost and financing advantage - thus the pipelines are more vulnerable to rail competition than the usual truck competition. And as noted before, the railroad has far more flexibility and can be quicker in changing route and destination choices to take advantage of changing markets and prices than a fixed-in-place pipeline. - Paul North.
Consider this: Only the railroads and the pipelines have to acquire their own rights-of-way, and then build and maintain their physical networks. All other modes - trucks, water, and air - have public ROWs, and most of their infrastructure initially financed by a governmental entity of some kind.
So although the railroads and pipelines seem to be 'brothers' and similarly disadvantaged or situated in this regard, the important part instead is that the pipelines don't have a huge built-in cost and financing advantage - thus the pipelines are more vulnerable to rail competition than the usual truck competition. And as noted before, the railroad has far more flexibility and can be quicker in changing route and destination choices to take advantage of changing markets and prices than a fixed-in-place pipeline. - Paul North.
Most of the major transport infrastructure in the United States got initial funding from a government entity. The railroads were no exception. From the get go they got support from local and state governments. The B&O for example was funded in part by bonds issued by Baltimore. What became the Pennsylvania Railroad received funds from the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.
Well let me ask this:
As has been mentioned, this tar sands crude is different composition than the more conventional crude. Regarding the rail transport option, is it a foregone conclusion that this tar sand crude can be loaded and unloaded from typical tank cars?
My understanding is that the product is exceptionally viscous and dense. Can it be flowed in and out of tank cars through the relatively small inlet and outlet ports? Or would it need to be shipped in open-topped cars similar to the way coal is handled?
I'd like to throw another wrinkle into the wrangle. The crude is a Canadian product. So they propose a pipeline.. The railroads stayed out of it because as a Canadian product it was incumbant on the originating railroads to make an offer. But since there would only be a few hundred "home" miles in the deal and over a thousand miles in "foreign" territory (i.e., the U.S.) neither CN nor CP saw fit to go after the contract. Now that it has become a U.S. "problem" BNSF and UP can both step up to the plate seperately or in conjunction with each other, to make an assessment and proposal. Up to now, it has always been in CP or CN hands but since they aren't addressing it...as far as we know....finally the BNSF and UP marketing teams can approach and address where they couldn't before. Just a thought.
dcaddock I have been following this thread with great interest, but wonder why no one has thought of this idea. Why transport the crude anywhere? Have the XL pipeline end about 10 miles east of Williston ND or some such town on the BNSF, and build a refinery THERE! You could also then transport the Bracken oil there as well.
I have been following this thread with great interest, but wonder why no one has thought of this idea. Why transport the crude anywhere? Have the XL pipeline end about 10 miles east of Williston ND or some such town on the BNSF, and build a refinery THERE! You could also then transport the Bracken oil there as well.
Refineries are designed and engineered considering the properties of the crude oil serving as the feedstock. Several refineries in Washington were designed and built with Alaskan crude in mind. I'm not sure if a refinery in Williston tailored to Alberta tar sand crude would be as efficient with Bracken crude.
henry6 Murphy Siding: The oil market is a world market. I thas been for a long, long time. Borders make no difference. USA, Canada, Iran, China, whatever, the oil is going to go to the party willing to pay the most. You're right...and we all know it. But since this is true the oil companies, free market entrapeneurs, big business, and others, therefore, should stop lying to us, stop playing the "woe is us" domestic card and say: "we're drilling this oil so that we can sell it to China; the only domestic advantage to this is that we pocket the money intead of it helping our country's economy. Gottcha again, you fool hardy "Mericans!" Every time they so much as look at the ground they say Americans will benefit from domestic oil and gas drilling as a ruse to get the ignorant to go along with their games.
Murphy Siding: The oil market is a world market. I thas been for a long, long time. Borders make no difference. USA, Canada, Iran, China, whatever, the oil is going to go to the party willing to pay the most.
You're right...and we all know it. But since this is true the oil companies, free market entrapeneurs, big business, and others, therefore, should stop lying to us, stop playing the "woe is us" domestic card and say: "we're drilling this oil so that we can sell it to China; the only domestic advantage to this is that we pocket the money intead of it helping our country's economy. Gottcha again, you fool hardy "Mericans!" Every time they so much as look at the ground they say Americans will benefit from domestic oil and gas drilling as a ruse to get the ignorant to go along with their games.
Bucyrus That is nonsense. They wanted to sell it to us, but the president killed the idea because he is ideologically opposed to fossil fuels. It's not complicated.
That is nonsense. They wanted to sell it to us, but the president killed the idea because he is ideologically opposed to fossil fuels. It's not complicated.
Actually, the Republicans killed it by attaching a requirement that the decision be made in 60 days to the bill extending the payroll tax cut. That was not enough time to do the environmental and engineering studies.
Since this is going to be a political debate, I am leaving this thread.
Dave
Lackawanna Route of the Phoebe Snow
henry6 You're right...and we all know it. But since this is true the oil companies, free market entrapeneurs, big business, and others, therefore, should stop lying to us, stop playing the "woe is us" domestic card and say: "we're drilling this oil so that we can sell it to China; the only domestic advantage to this is that we pocket the money intead of it helping our country's economy. Gottcha again, you fool hardy "Mericans!" Every time they so much as look at the ground they say Americans will benefit from domestic oil and gas drilling as a ruse to get the ignorant to go along with their games.
Murphy Siding The oil market is a world market. I thas been for a long, long time. Borders make no difference. USA, Canada, Iran, China, whatever, the oil is going to go to the party willing to pay the most.
henry6 4) This whole world oil situtation is upside down. This stuff is actually to be refined or otherwise prepared to got to China and not the US market. Our investors make more money on mid eastern imported crude in their business set up. Iranian oil which might be pulled from the world (US) market and go to China instead is a double whammy in that American investors will not make money on the oil not imported from Iran nor on the sale of oil to China since China will be buying Iranian oil. Can the investors actually afford to sell North American oil to Canada and the US and still make money?
4) This whole world oil situtation is upside down. This stuff is actually to be refined or otherwise prepared to got to China and not the US market. Our investors make more money on mid eastern imported crude in their business set up. Iranian oil which might be pulled from the world (US) market and go to China instead is a double whammy in that American investors will not make money on the oil not imported from Iran nor on the sale of oil to China since China will be buying Iranian oil. Can the investors actually afford to sell North American oil to Canada and the US and still make money?
So although the railroads and pipelines seem to be 'brothers' and similarly disadvantaged or situated in this regard, the important part instead is that the pipelines don't have a huge built-in cost and financing advantage - thus the pipelines are more vulnerable to rail competition than the usual truck competition. And as noted before, the railroad has far more flexibility and can be quicker in changing route and destination choices to take advantage of changing markets and prices than a fixed-in-place pipeline.
You of all people are asking that? Politicians, highway lobby, oil lobby, investors.
Henry,
I am still connecting the dots in your analysis, but in the meantime, regarding your item #5, could you please tell me who it is that is playing the American public?
The basic issue for tar sands crude is that it is more corrosive than normal crude petroleum. Transporting it via pipeline requires higher temperatures and pressures in comparison to regular crude petroleum. The tar sand bitumen product has mixed with it "wet" gasses (ethane, butane etc.). These wet gasses under pressure remain as a liquid. Pipeline pressure variations cab set the stage for the "wet" gas to change from liquid to gas in the product column being pumped. This can cause pipeline operating decisions that can contribute to pipeline failure. As bitumen sinks rather than floats, when there is a pipeline failure the resulting clean up is much, much more problematic. Canadian experience with the corrosion problem has demonstrated a pipeline failure experience significantly worse than regular crude oil pipelines.
The "tank-train" would be significantly less dangerous should a spill occur.
The nature of the tar sand crude product requires unique refinery capacity. Apparently that uniqueness is possessed by the Valero refinery on the Gulf coast.
Finally, the additional transport capacity created across the international boundary between Canada and USA brings the pipeline under the Executive's review as the President is responsible for international affairs.
1) We are dealing with investors here. They are not looking to build piplines, move crude, or refine oil. They are looking to make money. So this is the plan that has been given to them which shows them how much money...not about piplines being built and people being employed, not about amounts of crude, not about refining anything, just how much money they will make. Sold all American!
2) The PR people are touting jobs building the pipeline, Quick, build the pipeline and back in the unemployment line jobs. Shoring up a rail line or two, building some new connections, and running trains for years will produce long term jobs and in turn, economic growth.
3) The politics at work are to make Obama and his party look bad no matter what happens. This is a term of damned if he did, damned if he don't, damned if he so much as says or thinks. The thinking is that anything they can do that will contribute to making him look bad, the better off they are.
5) The American public is being played. Again.
I have.
Have we considered the current (apparent ) strategy of this administration is to create obstacles for any use of oil???
dcaddock I have been following this thread with great interest, but wonder why no one has thought of this idea. Why transport the crude anywhere? Have the XL pipeline end about 10 miles east of Williston ND or some such town on the BNSF, and build a refinery THERE! You could also then transport the Bracken oil there as well. Then just transport the finished products where ever they are needed. . . . [snipped] . . . So why build a refinery in North Dakota? Fewer NIMBYS. Lots of open range. Build it downwind of any town or city and give any pollution a chance to disburse before it bothers anybody. There is not much east of Williston until you get to Minot ND. Many refineries that have closed were because of local opposition as one writer pointed out are sitting idle, so build one where the oil is and there are few people to bother.
The supposed problem with building the refinery near the oil field - according to others on this thread and other similar ones in the past - is that the refinery's economic life is usually 40 to 50 years, and maybe longer (some are now approaching 100 years). As such, the refinery will likely outlive the productive life of the oil field - at the end of which the refinery would be economically and literally 'stranded' without either a nearby source of crude oil, or a built and sufficiently cheap (i.e., already paid-for) in-use inbound crude oil transportation system (such as from rail, barges, or tankers, etc.). I use the qualifier "supposed" because the refinery owners likely depreciate, "write-off", and recover their investment to build it over its first 10 to 20 years or so anyway - the remaining 20 to 30 years of service life is just icing on the cake, so to speak - but that's how the thinking and analysis seems to go.
However, I do wonder about the other aspect of this comment - instead of all the tankcars coming back empty for the same distance, if some of them couldn't be used to haul a refined product that wouldn't be contaminated or adulterated too much by any crude oil residue still left in the cars. Say, something like No. 6 residual oil, tar, creosote, bitumen or asphalt for roofing shingles and to pave roads with, waterproofing uses, etc. It might cause some 'loose-car' railroading, and some triangle-shaped routes (crude from ND to refinery, product from refinery to user, then empty from user back to ND, etc.), but it might be worth something to get rid of some of those many empty miles that would otherwise be incurred for both loaded moves.
Finally, I thought there was a proposal to use some closed military bases as sites for new refineries ? In any event, there are some 'mothballed' ones available - both Sunoco refineries in the Philadelphia area were closed down in the last several months and are for sale, as is another one (Conoco or Chevron, can't remember which). I know that cost economics and the locations of the consuming markets are huge factors and not always favorably situated or aligned - but still, I'd think it would be cheaper to send the domestic crude to Philly to be refined than to import oil from the MIddle East.
Bucyrus WilliamKiesel: Had the TransCanada Company in its promotion of the Keystone XL pipeline been more adept, the construction of a new pipeline across an international border with the USA would never have become the issue that it has become. How so? What should have TransCanada done that they did not do?
WilliamKiesel: Had the TransCanada Company in its promotion of the Keystone XL pipeline been more adept, the construction of a new pipeline across an international border with the USA would never have become the issue that it has become.
Had the TransCanada Company in its promotion of the Keystone XL pipeline been more adept, the construction of a new pipeline across an international border with the USA would never have become the issue that it has become.
How so? What should have TransCanada done that they did not do?
Bucyrus dcaddock: I have been following this thread with great interest, but wonder why no one has thought of this idea. Why transport the crude anywhere? Have the XL pipeline end about 10 miles east of Williston ND or some such town on the BNSF, and build a refinery THERE! I would speculate that the main impediment would be the risk of investing in the start of a greatly prolonged permitting and approval process of unpredictable duration, with no certainty that the project would be approved in the end. It would be similar to the experience of the XL pipeline project. Capitalists cannot afford to risk the cost of pressing a project that the regulators are fundamentally opposed to on an ideological basis.
dcaddock: I have been following this thread with great interest, but wonder why no one has thought of this idea. Why transport the crude anywhere? Have the XL pipeline end about 10 miles east of Williston ND or some such town on the BNSF, and build a refinery THERE!
I have been following this thread with great interest, but wonder why no one has thought of this idea. Why transport the crude anywhere? Have the XL pipeline end about 10 miles east of Williston ND or some such town on the BNSF, and build a refinery THERE!
I would speculate that the main impediment would be the risk of investing in the start of a greatly prolonged permitting and approval process of unpredictable duration, with no certainty that the project would be approved in the end. It would be similar to the experience of the XL pipeline project. Capitalists cannot afford to risk the cost of pressing a project that the regulators are fundamentally opposed to on an ideological basis.
dcaddock I have been following this thread with great interest, but wonder why no one has thought of this idea. Why transport the crude anywhere? Have the XL pipeline end about 10 miles east of Williston ND or some such town on the BNSF, and build a refinery THERE!
dcaddock - Welcome to Trains.com!
I'm trying to avoid political frays on Trains.com, but now it's become inevitable:
Bloomberg.com ran a news story yeaterday stating, in effect, that the biggest beneficiary of the Keystone XL delay/nix/disapproval/whatever stands to be BNSF--now owned by Berkshire Hathaway, which for all practical purposes is controlled and partially owned by Warren Buffett--a known Obama supporter.
When the story got picked up and trumpeted by many right-wing-leaning blogs and "news aggregator" sites such as Andrew Breitbart's Big Government, TeaParty.org, Instapundit.com, and others......
....... Bloomberg killed the story.
The original story link, which now (as of this typing) 404's: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-01-23/buffett-s-burlington-northern-among-winners-in-obama-rejection-of-pipeline.html
To see it elsewhere, do an Internet search, or look at:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/g/a/2012/01/23/bloomberg_articlesLY20WE6K50Z001-LY9YF.DTL
http://biggovernment.com/publius/2012/01/24/report-obama-supporter-buffett-to-profit-from-rejection-of-keystone-xl-pipeline/
Why did Bloomberg yank the story? Apply your preferred "conspiracy theory" or "journalism bias" ideas as you see fit.
oltmannd A quote from a Jan 23rd Bloomberg article: "Shipping oil using tank cars on rail costs about $3 more a barrel than pipeline transport, using prices in North Dakota, a differential unlikely to slow the development of oil sands crude if no pipeline is build, the State Department said. The gap is shrinking as larger storage terminals are built, the agency said." That's 3% at $100/bbl. Not a lot, but not nothin' either....
AS an interesting aside to this piece that Don (oltmand) mentions. Drudge Report has a line posed on its headline area about this, but the intimation is referencing the Politics of the XL Pipeline (denial of permit)
From Drudge Report (01/24/2012b):
"Buffett's Railroad WINNER From Obama's Keystone Pipeline
Denial..."
Unfortunately the link (To Bloomberg article) shows as a bad link, right now.
Found a similar link that makes the same 'insinuation':
http://billingsgazette.com/news/state-and-regional/montana/more-north-dakota-oil-will-travel-by-rail-with-no/article_f8f6b4f1-2715-5d66-a192-f2f2ae2923ee.html
"More North Dakota oil will travel by rail with no Keystone XL pipeline"
By Staff at Billings (Mt.) Gazette [Briefly from the article]
FTA:"..."If the (Keystone XL) is blocked or delayed, we still have to meet our transportation needs," Kringstad said. "It's pretty simple."
BNSF Railway Co. hauls about 75 percent of the oil that now leaves North Dakota by train, Kringstad said..."
With politics being on the spear point of many public and private discussions, the inuendo of some kind of collusion seems to be the point of this conversation. (Or who is pandering to whom)
and Warreen Buffet has this current YouTube video out with his Ukulele solo in celebration of the Chinese New Year " I've Been Workin' on the Railroad"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QBKwTSBBn7U
I have been following this thread with great interest, but wonder why no one has thought of this idea. Why transport the crude anywhere? Have the XL pipeline end about 10 miles east of Williston ND or some such town on the BNSF, and build a refinery THERE! You could also then transport the Bracken oil there as well. Then just transport the finished products where ever they are needed. It doesn't have to go to Texas. Terminals could be built or already exist in Minneapolis/St Paul, LaCross WI, Savanna Il, and the Chicago area to receive and distribute the finished product. Portions of the train could be handed off in LaCross to the CP, or Minneapolis to the UP to feed the Milwaukee area as well. The extra trains would incentivise BNSF to double track the single portions of its northern mainline and this could be done while the refinery was being built. I suspect the building and operating of the refinery would create about the same amout of jobs as building a pipeline. You would create even more jobs building the tank cars and extra engines needed as well as for crews to operate them. So why build a refinery in North Dakota? Fewer NIMBYS. Lots of open range. Build it downwind of any town or city and give any pollution a chance to disburse before it bothers anybody. There is not much east of Williston until you get to Minot ND. Many refineries that have closed were because of local opposition as one writer pointed out are sitting idle, so build one where the oil is and there are few people to bother.
In the 1970's the PRB was a new novelty of unit train railroading, now it is a triple track powerhouse (Orin Sub, joint line). I can see a new railroad (BNSF or CN/CP) corridor empire rise anew. BNSF conqured Abo Canyon again and their transcon is nearly complete. So to could be double and triple track CTC on 140 lb rail, strong ties, and high ballast.
I have to agree here that a rail routing via CP and CN to the gulf is more feasible than another pipeline. With eyes to the North Slope of AK, their production is dropping steadily over time and articles have been written about what to do to keep it going (the drilling issues ulp there). An railroad up there over the permafrost would have been a maintenace headache (i.e. the Ogden cutoff sinking sub), but here we have a pipeline proposal that would run over temperate ground, where railroads are the king of long distance bulk commodity transport. We have to consider the footprint of the pipeline and what we will do with it once it's useful life is over (way more to do than just a torch). the pipeline will create ~20k jobs to build, but only 75 to 100 to maintain and operate. Early estimate place fewer construction number with a railroute but over double the long term jobs. Railcars, locomotives, and track are more easily reclaimed, and we would onlt have to abandon a scant number of miles of track since most of the route is on existing ROW serving other needs for the host railroad.
Sam, thanks for noting and linking to beaulieu's post and thread on NS' new train symbol "64D" - and to him for providing it there, too !
Don, thanks for that snippet from Bloomberg about the rail vs. pipeline $3/ bbl. cost differential !
See, it can be done ! And I'll wager that $3/ bbl. differential can be reduced some more as more experience is gained, better/ faster loading and unloading terminals are built and placed into operation, and train schedules are 'fine-tuned' to get more 'turns' per year and hence use less cars and locos, etc.
WilliamKiesel Had the TransCanada Company in its promotion of the Keystone XL pipeline been more adept, the construction of a new pipeline across an international border with the USA would never have become the issue that it has become.
Thanks for the link.
Very useful photographs.
There are different kinds of crude oil. Could what you are referring to is that once crude oil has been refined into various products, one companies diesel fuel is the same as the next. It is the refined product that is the market.
The tar sand crude apparently has been identified by Valero Refining as a good crude to refine into diesel fuel with a competitive advantage in the European market.
Pipeline construction is something to behold. Around 2004 I deliberately took a rural road south of the Pennsylvania Turnpike west of Bedford on a trip to Pittsburgh. I was startled to see the existing 24 inch gas pipeline that crosses Pennsylvania having new 36 inch capacity installed, A 50 year old right of way had to be returned to its scalped condition when originally built. The earth was dug and scarred from Allegheny Mountain ridge to the next. Periodic storage depots and equipment depots lined the pipeline right of way observed from the secondary road. Within two years, 2006, the sight was thriving grass. Brush has begun to return. Pennsylvania geography is often amazingly resilient.
Arguably, some of the proposed route over the plains is not nearly as resilient. The concerns for unique aquifers appear to have some merit.
So, if confronted with impediments, why not use a via alaternative - the "tank train."
The President's authority in the pipeline dispute comes the Constitution. He has exclusive authority in international affairs.
Recently in an interview, Governor Brian Schweitzer explained that Montana has approved the pipeline design. Schweitzer explained that but for the international border crossing, the pipeline would have proceeded state by state.
Given the capability of a GATX "tank train," there is no need for the brouhaha that has developed.
Some of the persons who have posted have made plausible arguments for operation "tank trains" the whole way to the Gulf. It is conceivable that a combination of "tank trains" and pipelines move the tar sand oil.
Thanks
You must have meant mining tar sands as opposed to drilling for oil.
It is my understanding that the Valero refining enterprise on the Gulf Coast will export their refined product. This has the advantage of the product sold will have a positive impact upon the country's negative balance of trade account.
Thanks. Good info.
Many thanks for the info.
Many thanks. I checked it out.
Many thanks for your perspective. It has been useful
I certainly hope that BNSF, CP and CN are sharpening their pencils.
"...Lest we think that it can't be done by rail, from another forum (Yahoo NS Altoona - Johnstown - see: http://finance.groups.yahoo.com/group/nsaltoonajohnstown/ ), one of the members there - Josh Hollands - photographed NS train symbol "64D" (Baaken Shale crude oil, to ???, apparently the very first one of that symbol to traverse the NS PIttsburgh Line) at Newport, PA on Friday, Jan. 20, 2012, including this brand-new tank car DBUX 303010 placarded "1267' for crude oil (not my photo).."
PAUL:
link to the following mentioned post:ref: "New Destination for Bakken Crude"
http://cs.trains.com/TRCCS/forums/t/201890.aspx
A post today By Beaulieu indicates the that there is a new destination in New Jersey for Bakken Crude:
Lest we think that it can't be done by rail, from another forum (Yahoo NS Altoona - Johnstown - see: http://finance.groups.yahoo.com/group/nsaltoonajohnstown/ ), one of the members there - Josh Hollands - photographed NS train symbol "64D" (Baaken Shale crude oil, to ???, apparently the very first one of that symbol to traverse the NS PIttsburgh Line) at Newport, PA on Friday, Jan. 20, 2012, including this brand-new tank car DBUX 303010 placarded "1267' for crude oil (not my photo):
http://www.flickr.com/photos/51780943@N07/6737446777/sizes/o/in/set-72157628970015505/
or http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7141/6737446777_d4e6a7f454_o.jpg
http://www.flickr.com/photos/51780943@N07/6737446777/in/set-72157628970015505
Andrew Falconer North America would be better off if that Oil Company refined all the crude oil to petroleum products at a New Refinery built near where they are drilling for oil. The refined petroleum products would then be sold and transported by rail and truck to customers in Canada and the USA, instead of being exported. I guess they do not want long term jobs in Canada and the USA. Andrew Falconer
North America would be better off if that Oil Company refined all the crude oil to petroleum products at a New Refinery built near where they are drilling for oil. The refined petroleum products would then be sold and transported by rail and truck to customers in Canada and the USA, instead of being exported. I guess they do not want long term jobs in Canada and the USA.
Andrew Falconer
Most Canadians have been for years harping to build refineries and not ship ANY crude oil, but only refined products, but to no avail, the Hosers running this country can't figure that out, - - - about the above statement " instead of being exported " Any oil leaving Canada to the U.S. is export
The XL pipeline is a long way from a closed deal, the new application will go on for a long time yet, if the line does not go through, the U.S. portion can still be used to transport crude to Texas from the massive discovery of oil in North Dakota (Baaken Shale) I believe.
Sorry gang, I'm way off topic. back to oil trains.
Bucyrus Andrew Falconer: I guess they do not want long term jobs in Canada and the USA. Andrew Falconer “However many jobs might be generated by a Keystone pipeline,” he [Obama] said, “they’re going to be a lot fewer than the jobs created by extending the payroll tax cut and extending unemployment insurance.”
Andrew Falconer: I guess they do not want long term jobs in Canada and the USA. Andrew Falconer
“However many jobs might be generated by a Keystone pipeline,” he [Obama] said, “they’re going to be a lot fewer than the jobs created by extending the payroll tax cut and extending unemployment insurance.”
One difference is that the Keystone jobs will be paid for by customers buying a product as opposed to being paid for by taxpayers. The pipeline would also be paying local taxes.
I ran across Dibrill du Val's article in the May 1973 Trains on how diesel fuel is produced, he specifically mentioned the tar sands as a likely source of petroleum, though producing oil from the sands was not cost effective at that time. Remember this article was written several months before the 1973 war and subsequent oil price hikes.
- Erik
PNWRMNM Why congress ever gave the president the power to stop this pipeline is beyond me, but they had to have done it somehow. Mac McCulloch
Why congress ever gave the president the power to stop this pipeline is beyond me, but they had to have done it somehow.
Actually, Congress didn't give him that authority. They took away his ability to approve it by forcing the 60 day deadline to make a decision. That was insufficient time to complete the engineering and environmental reviews, thus no approval. It was just political grandstanding before the upcoming election.
Once the pipeline designers jump through all the appropriate hoops I have no doubt it will be reconsidered.
A pipeline can move more product faster than rail provided there is a market for enough product to justify the expense of building the pipeline.
Incidentally, there is no foreign vs domestic difference in oil. All crude, foreign and domestic, is sold on the same international market. American produced oil does not necessarily remain in the US.
Andrew FalconerI guess they do not want long term jobs in Canada and the USA. Andrew Falconer
That's a pretty niave` statement, Andrew....China's demand for oil and gas will drive the prices up and our investor capitalists will go where the money is. Neither US nor Canada will outbid China. That crude being discussed here is already sold to China with no regard to either domestic market. American investors are in business to make money not sell crude nor be concerned where they get the money.
Watch my videos on-line at https://www.youtube.com/user/AndrewNeilFalconer
I understand that the pipeline has been in the planning stage and jumping through regulatory hurdles for the last three years. And I also understand that the project has been fully approved and ready to start construction. How did it get this far without any problems with the Sand Hills?
I suppose it is accurate to say that the U.S. did not nix the pipeline because they are offering the builder the opportunity to reapply for it. From Canada’s reaction to these developments, it does not sound like they are likely to do that.
MidlandMike The US didn't "nix" the deal, as they are still waiting on the revised application, since the company said they would reroute around the Sand Hills. They would need to submit revised surveys, EIS, engineering studies, etc. All previous legs of the pipeline have been approved, so an outright denial would be unprecedented.
The US didn't "nix" the deal, as they are still waiting on the revised application, since the company said they would reroute around the Sand Hills. They would need to submit revised surveys, EIS, engineering studies, etc. All previous legs of the pipeline have been approved, so an outright denial would be unprecedented.
It would seem the Keystone p/l discussion may be for naught, as the U.S. nixed the deal, but Canada is gathering lots of encouragement from their citizens to ship oil to Asia through a pipeline to Kitimat B.C., this has been on their minds for a few years and the U.S. gov't. denying the plan may push the internal Canadian route to the west coast even further.
WilliamKiesel I am aware that a "tank train" of interconnected tank cars has been used in revenue service. I do not recall where, how, why or when. Does anyone have answers? Examples. Regarding the "tank train" design, what kind of control is there for the interconnection? What kind of spill control valves? might there be in the "tank train" design?
I am aware that a "tank train" of interconnected tank cars has been used in revenue service. I do not recall where, how, why or when. Does anyone have answers? Examples.
Regarding the "tank train" design, what kind of control is there for the interconnection? What kind of spill control valves? might there be in the "tank train" design?
WilliamKiesel asked?: About the "GATX Tank Trans"
The following link is a reference to the operations of the GATX "Tank Train" concept for hauling crude, and may be of interest on this Thread, as well.
http://cs.trains.com/TRCCS/forums/p/67350/2105546.aspx#2105546
It contains a number of photos of the interconnections between tank cars, and Paul D.North added a number of links of interest as well.
Mudchicken: "...The railroads would be better off trying to force Colorado Springs and El Paso County to live up to the agreements they made in the mid 1970's and welched-on over the old Santa Fe line Crews to Palmer Lake."
Was the agreement that they could reopen the old Santa Fe line if need be? Have they considered double tracking the existing line between those two points? It would seem a less disruptive alternative (ie., all the rail traffic concentrated to one line thru Colorado Springs.)
MidlandMike Murphy Siding: MidlandMike: BNSF has a route that crosses the Alberta border at Sweetgrass, MT, then heads for the Billings area, where it has a couple of choices of routes to Texas. True, but aren't those choice routes clogged with coal trains heading to Texas from the Pwder River Basin? The choke point is the Denver-Pueblo joint line. Maybe this would be the final push to build the Front Range bypass BNSF and Colorado have been talking about for years.
Murphy Siding: MidlandMike: BNSF has a route that crosses the Alberta border at Sweetgrass, MT, then heads for the Billings area, where it has a couple of choices of routes to Texas. True, but aren't those choice routes clogged with coal trains heading to Texas from the Pwder River Basin?
MidlandMike: BNSF has a route that crosses the Alberta border at Sweetgrass, MT, then heads for the Billings area, where it has a couple of choices of routes to Texas.
BNSF has a route that crosses the Alberta border at Sweetgrass, MT, then heads for the Billings area, where it has a couple of choices of routes to Texas.
True, but aren't those choice routes clogged with coal trains heading to Texas from the Pwder River Basin?
The choke point is the Denver-Pueblo joint line. Maybe this would be the final push to build the Front Range bypass BNSF and Colorado have been talking about for years.
The Oil Cans ran from Saco (Bakersfield, CA) to Dolores (Carson, CA) until 1996. The train then originated at Fleta (Mojave, CA) until 1999. It carried oil for Shell until 1992. After that the oil was for Tosco. The oil is now shipped by pipeline.
Another train has run from Wunpost (south of San Ardo, CA) to Dolores since 1996. The oil then goes by pipeline to the ExxonMobil refinery in Torrance.
As noted in a previous post, not all of the tanks are connected by hose.
As far as I know, the Bakken crude oil shipped by rail is shipped in regular tank cars. Also, over the past year it has become somewhat common for 30,000 gallon tank cars hauling crude oil to travel through the San Joaquin Valley.
Link to a great photo (so not mine !) of the TankTrain leaving one plant:
http://www.railpictures.net/viewphoto.php?id=133704
For a few others, search that website for "TankTrain" or "Ultramar" - you should get 12 to 15 more. There may be others of the West Coast operation, and/ or the Montana Rail Link "Gas Local", but I don't have those links handy right now.
Thanks for digging up that thread, Jay - it was just 'before my time' here. I really miss Railway Man's insights and comments on subjects such as that one. . .
This from a few years back has some discussion about movement of oil by rail and rough rail vs. pipeline cost info.
http://cs.trains.com/TRCCS/forums/t/111860.aspx?PageIndex=1
"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
Murphy Siding MidlandMike: BNSF has a route that crosses the Alberta border at Sweetgrass, MT, then heads for the Billings area, where it has a couple of choices of routes to Texas. True, but aren't those choice routes clogged with coal trains heading to Texas from the Pwder River Basin?
Steve Schmollinger's excellent book Tehachapi: Railroad on a Desert Mountain* has quite a bit of information and photos of the Shell Oil Company's oil train, which transported Kern River Basin crude to a refinery over the Tehachapi range near LA's Dolores Yard between 1983 and at least 1992...how much later I don't know. Building a pipeline was too expensive and would take too long, so they contracted with the Southern Pacific to transport the oil at the same speed as a pipeline - 10,000 tons at a time.
GATX built three 72-car trains based on their TankTrain, divided into 12 car sets with each car in the set connected by ten-inch hoses. Cars could be loaded and unloaded 12 at a time at three track loading/unloading facilities, with the crude heated to 140 degrees to allow it to flow. The cars were unloaded by pumping inert nitrogen gas through the cars.
Pull-aparts were uncommon as the knuckles were regularly changed, and in the rare times it did happen, only the oil left in the hoses spilled since valves prevented any from leaking out the car. One derailment did cause nine cars to derail and create a huge mess that spilled 66,000 gallons of crude and shut down the line for two days, but keep in mind this was 1980s technology. Tank car engineering has come quite a ways as far as safety is concerned.
I know the forum rules discourage linking to other forums, but this is one of the only resources on the web about this train and it's GREAT. Mods, feel free to delete if necessary...
http://sptco.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=sp&action=display&thread=881
*Incidentally, this was my first serious railroad book as a child, and not paying attention to the photo dates (almost all from the '80s), I was baffled years later at hearing that the Santa Fe and SP had been merged away for years!
William,
I do not think that rail capacity constraints are the major issue. Given a contracted volume and a compenstory rate the railroads can add the fixed plant capacity.
There are no approvals required to haul the oil. Why congress ever gave the president the power to stop this pipeline is beyond me, but they had to have done it somehow.
The real issue is the cost of transportation combined with Canada's other market operations. Oil trades on the world markets and the various sources carry premiums or discounts that seem to be based on ease of refining which may also affect the ratio of the various marketable products that each crude produces. We do not need to concern ourselves with that, since it is what it is. Lets make it simple and simply assume $100/bbl for illustrative purposes.
Also to simplify, lets immagine that Canada has two export markets; China and the US. For simplicity also assume a single origin point in Alberta. Since Keystone is the proposal on the table, we can assume that it is the cheapest transport option. Canada may also prefer to sell to us for political reasons, and I hope they do.
Lets assume that transport by Keystone would cost $10 per bbl. I have no idea what the real number is but you can bet the Keystone people do. In this case Canada gets $90 for their oil in Alberta.
The China case requires building a pipeline of the same capacity as Keystone to a pacific rim port. I suspect the short mile route would be to Prince Rupert, largely parallel with CN. This would also require oil storage and a deepwater port in Canada. For the ocean portion I assume the Chinese would use the largest ship they can, so ocean freight would be relatively modest. Lets assume cost of this system to be $15, so Canada gets $85 for their oil in Alberta.
The question they becomes can the railroads move the oil to the Gulf Coast for $14.95 per bbl, all costs in? The rails have the technology. I would use tank train if it were me. The real question is; is Keystone really dead, the cost of rail to the Gulf Coast, and the cost of Canada's next best alternative which is selling to China. I presume BNSF, CP, and CN are working on their spreadsheets.
Thanks for the practical thoughts about operations.
Do you have any insights about the design of a "Tank train" of interconnected tank cars?
The "National Rail Freight Infrastructure Capacity and Investment Study" prepared by Cambridge Systematics, Inc for the Association of American Railroads in 2007 forecast railroad system constraints for the USA railroad system in 2035. Your concerns about capacity are valid. But, looking at the study, it could be argued that the railroad infrastructure you described could be built now for the "tank trains," but will be required at any rate.
Thoughts?
MidlandMike BNSF has a route that crosses the Alberta border at Sweetgrass, MT, then heads for the Billings area, where it has a couple of choices of routes to Texas.
WilliamKiesel I recently ran across a study comparing modes as to BTU's required to move a ton of freight. I was surprised to learn that pipelines used slightly less BTU's than rail. So, why dig and build a pipeline when adequate railroad capacity exists?
I recently ran across a study comparing modes as to BTU's required to move a ton of freight. I was surprised to learn that pipelines used slightly less BTU's than rail.
So, why dig and build a pipeline when adequate railroad capacity exists?
As others have mentioned, there is more to the cost of moving oil than just the energy needed to move it. You have to compare the entire infrastructure cost and also the labor cost for both modes of transport.
There may indeed be some degree of spill containment advantage to rail transport. But in the big picture, objection to the pipeline is larger than just the worry about the potential for direct environmental damage such as spills. It is a deeper, philosophical objection to the use of the oil. So I am not convinced that our regulators would give an automatic green light to moving the oil by rail, even if it did prove to be a cost effective option.
Americans alwyas like to think that what they have is passe`, that trains run under the Chirstmas tree and not cross country. But, right, too, about there not being capacity. At this time. Looking outside the pipe, weighing the costs of more rail capacity against the proposed pipeline, is in order, with an eye toward what can be carried by the rail line at any given time especially after the foreign oil market dries up or other wise disappears and with an eye toward greater numbers of employed. Of course, "employees" is the major point of American investments; they would rather avoid employing anyone. Still, it should be explored. We've got to start thinking in terms of maintaining our economy and workforce for the strength for future of our country as a whole and not just the invsetors'' interests.
I like the way you're thinking, William! I'd far rather see those jobs that have been "lost" for now used on creating the terminals necessary along railroads to ship the oil by rail.
Norris is right--there are no direct rail routes along the proposed path of the pipeline. But if the crude is routed east to the Twin Cities, it could then make its way south via Kansas City, via at least two different routes into Texas or wherever processing capacity exists.
But there's the rub...
First of all, I suspect that tank cars are a bit heavier than you're giving them credit for--crude is probably capable of being shipped in cars with a capacity of 26,000 to 28,000 gallons. That would probably add another daily train to the needs to ship the pipeline's capacity. So you now have seven trains per day of roughly 100 tank cars, each about 60 feet in length. Let's add another one for easy figuring...eight trains in 24 hours, or one every three hours. These eight trains would be met by eight empty trains. These meets would occur every 1.5 hours. So your trackage would have to have a decent-length passing siding every 1.5 hours--long enough to give a little flexibility, and not to slow the meeting trains down significantly.
Now, given an average speed of 25 m.p.h. for freight trains (I think UP's average speed last year was 26 or so, by its own accounting method, which provides a lower figure than AAR's method), that means you'll need a two-mile siding or so every 37 miles. Now, keep in mind that this is the infrastructure needed for just these oil trains--add the line's existing load, and you'll either need many more sidings or a second main track.
If these trains move at this 25-m.p.h. average speed for 24 hours, you're taking about two days to travel from one end of the line to the other. That means you'll need 24 trainsets constantly moving--2400 cars. But they aren't constantly moving--they require considerable time to load and unload. You have to ship a train out every three hours to meet demand. So for every three-hour stretch that it takes to load or unload a train (I doubt that it can be done in less time) you need yet another trainset. You're probably talking three more at each end--so that's 3000 tank cars.
Now, terminals: You need people to load and unload these trains...car by car, unless you have something like a TankTrain system that can speed up the process and reduce labor requirements (or both). Unless you can load a train in lengths of 100 cars, or whatever length constitutes the entire train, you have to factor in time for breaking apart and putting together the trains. I don't know how long it takes to load or unload a unit train of crude, but for every three hours that the process takes, your terminal will need a track or tracks capable of loading or unloading (not just storing) 100 tank cars. That's over a mile of tank cars, remember...or else it's the cost in time and tracks (and downtime) to assemble these trains or break them up for spotting.
It is likely that trains will originate at different points, so instead of one massive terminal there may be several smaller terminals adding a train or two per day to the rail route.
We're talking a lot of infrastructure, and one heck of a fine railroad (or railroads) to obviate the need of this pipeline (and thank Goodness it's only XL instead of XXL or more!). If this can be done on existing rights-of-way, the permits for such an undertaking shouldn't be hard--certainly not as hard as getting them to run a pipeline through aquifers and other sensitive areas.
So I'm sure an argument for rail transport could be shot down on many counts. But it could provide construction employment, just as a pipeline would, employment in the manufacture of thousands of tank cars (and a few locomotives more than what might otherwise be built), and permanent jobs in the form of people at the loading and unloading points, not to mention crews to handle these trains...each train would take at least three crews every day.
Wouldn't this be grand for railroads and their fans?(And where's the Midland Continental Railroad, now that we could really use it?)
Carl
Railroader Emeritus (practiced railroading for 46 years--and in 2010 I finally got it right!)
CAACSCOCOM--I don't want to behave improperly, so I just won't behave at all. (SM)
I think they would use a tank train rather than indivdual tank cars. A tank train has a pipe running through it so the entire train can be filled up from one point. As to the presence of north south track, the train might have to take the long way around, maybe over CN. Incidently CN is trying to market their railroad to the oil company according to News Wire. Also, older readers will remember that John Knieling wrote a column in TRAINS in which he advocated building a railroad instead of a pipelinr in Alaska. He stood be that even after the pipeline was built.
George
WilliamKiesel So, why dig and build a pipeline when adequate railroad capacity exists?
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.