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.
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 ??
$3 per barrel higher cost for rail compared to pipeline.
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
- 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:
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.
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.
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.
Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.
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!
Darren (BLHS & CRRM Lifetime Member)
Delaware and Hudson Virtual Museum (DHVM), Railroad Adventures (RRAdventures)
My Blog
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.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.