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
Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.
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.
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.
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/)
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
So where does "safe, clean energy" enter our lives?
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.
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....
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.
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!!
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.