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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 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.
Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.
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.
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.
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?
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?
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.
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.
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?
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.
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 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.
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.
- Paul North.
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:
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" - and the comments on it, at:
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 ??
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.
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.
[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 ??
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!!
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....
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 . . .
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....
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.
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.
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
Yoho,
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
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.
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.
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?
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?
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.