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.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.