oltmannd A quote from a Jan 23rd Bloomberg article: "Shipping oil using tank cars on rail costs about $3 more a barrel than pipeline transport, using prices in North Dakota, a differential unlikely to slow the development of oil sands crude if no pipeline is build, the State Department said. The gap is shrinking as larger storage terminals are built, the agency said." That's 3% at $100/bbl. Not a lot, but not nothin' either....
A quote from a Jan 23rd Bloomberg article:
"Shipping oil using tank cars on rail costs about $3 more a barrel than pipeline transport, using prices in North Dakota, a differential unlikely to slow the development of oil sands crude if no pipeline is build, the State Department said. The gap is shrinking as larger storage terminals are built, the agency said."
That's 3% at $100/bbl. Not a lot, but not nothin' either....
AS an interesting aside to this piece that Don (oltmand) mentions. Drudge Report has a line posed on its headline area about this, but the intimation is referencing the Politics of the XL Pipeline (denial of permit)
From Drudge Report (01/24/2012b):
"Buffett's Railroad WINNER From Obama's Keystone Pipeline
Denial..."
Unfortunately the link (To Bloomberg article) shows as a bad link, right now.
Found a similar link that makes the same 'insinuation':
http://billingsgazette.com/news/state-and-regional/montana/more-north-dakota-oil-will-travel-by-rail-with-no/article_f8f6b4f1-2715-5d66-a192-f2f2ae2923ee.html
"More North Dakota oil will travel by rail with no Keystone XL pipeline"
By Staff at Billings (Mt.) Gazette [Briefly from the article]
FTA:"..."If the (Keystone XL) is blocked or delayed, we still have to meet our transportation needs," Kringstad said. "It's pretty simple."
BNSF Railway Co. hauls about 75 percent of the oil that now leaves North Dakota by train, Kringstad said..."
With politics being on the spear point of many public and private discussions, the inuendo of some kind of collusion seems to be the point of this conversation. (Or who is pandering to whom)
and Warreen Buffet has this current YouTube video out with his Ukulele solo in celebration of the Chinese New Year " I've Been Workin' on the Railroad"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QBKwTSBBn7U
I have been following this thread with great interest, but wonder why no one has thought of this idea. Why transport the crude anywhere? Have the XL pipeline end about 10 miles east of Williston ND or some such town on the BNSF, and build a refinery THERE! You could also then transport the Bracken oil there as well. Then just transport the finished products where ever they are needed. It doesn't have to go to Texas. Terminals could be built or already exist in Minneapolis/St Paul, LaCross WI, Savanna Il, and the Chicago area to receive and distribute the finished product. Portions of the train could be handed off in LaCross to the CP, or Minneapolis to the UP to feed the Milwaukee area as well. The extra trains would incentivise BNSF to double track the single portions of its northern mainline and this could be done while the refinery was being built. I suspect the building and operating of the refinery would create about the same amout of jobs as building a pipeline. You would create even more jobs building the tank cars and extra engines needed as well as for crews to operate them. So why build a refinery in North Dakota? Fewer NIMBYS. Lots of open range. Build it downwind of any town or city and give any pollution a chance to disburse before it bothers anybody. There is not much east of Williston until you get to Minot ND. Many refineries that have closed were because of local opposition as one writer pointed out are sitting idle, so build one where the oil is and there are few people to bother.
In the 1970's the PRB was a new novelty of unit train railroading, now it is a triple track powerhouse (Orin Sub, joint line). I can see a new railroad (BNSF or CN/CP) corridor empire rise anew. BNSF conqured Abo Canyon again and their transcon is nearly complete. So to could be double and triple track CTC on 140 lb rail, strong ties, and high ballast.
I have to agree here that a rail routing via CP and CN to the gulf is more feasible than another pipeline. With eyes to the North Slope of AK, their production is dropping steadily over time and articles have been written about what to do to keep it going (the drilling issues ulp there). An railroad up there over the permafrost would have been a maintenace headache (i.e. the Ogden cutoff sinking sub), but here we have a pipeline proposal that would run over temperate ground, where railroads are the king of long distance bulk commodity transport. We have to consider the footprint of the pipeline and what we will do with it once it's useful life is over (way more to do than just a torch). the pipeline will create ~20k jobs to build, but only 75 to 100 to maintain and operate. Early estimate place fewer construction number with a railroute but over double the long term jobs. Railcars, locomotives, and track are more easily reclaimed, and we would onlt have to abandon a scant number of miles of track since most of the route is on existing ROW serving other needs for the host railroad.
Sam, thanks for noting and linking to beaulieu's post and thread on NS' new train symbol "64D" - and to him for providing it there, too !
Don, thanks for that snippet from Bloomberg about the rail vs. pipeline $3/ bbl. cost differential !
See, it can be done ! And I'll wager that $3/ bbl. differential can be reduced some more as more experience is gained, better/ faster loading and unloading terminals are built and placed into operation, and train schedules are 'fine-tuned' to get more 'turns' per year and hence use less cars and locos, etc.
- Paul North.
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?
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
Thanks for the link.
Very useful photographs.
There are different kinds of crude oil. Could what you are referring to is that once crude oil has been refined into various products, one companies diesel fuel is the same as the next. It is the refined product that is the market.
The tar sand crude apparently has been identified by Valero Refining as a good crude to refine into diesel fuel with a competitive advantage in the European market.
Pipeline construction is something to behold. Around 2004 I deliberately took a rural road south of the Pennsylvania Turnpike west of Bedford on a trip to Pittsburgh. I was startled to see the existing 24 inch gas pipeline that crosses Pennsylvania having new 36 inch capacity installed, A 50 year old right of way had to be returned to its scalped condition when originally built. The earth was dug and scarred from Allegheny Mountain ridge to the next. Periodic storage depots and equipment depots lined the pipeline right of way observed from the secondary road. Within two years, 2006, the sight was thriving grass. Brush has begun to return. Pennsylvania geography is often amazingly resilient.
Arguably, some of the proposed route over the plains is not nearly as resilient. The concerns for unique aquifers appear to have some merit.
So, if confronted with impediments, why not use a via alaternative - the "tank train."
The President's authority in the pipeline dispute comes the Constitution. He has exclusive authority in international affairs.
Recently in an interview, Governor Brian Schweitzer explained that Montana has approved the pipeline design. Schweitzer explained that but for the international border crossing, the pipeline would have proceeded state by state.
Given the capability of a GATX "tank train," there is no need for the brouhaha that has developed.
Some of the persons who have posted have made plausible arguments for operation "tank trains" the whole way to the Gulf. It is conceivable that a combination of "tank trains" and pipelines move the tar sand oil.
Thanks
You must have meant mining tar sands as opposed to drilling for oil.
It is my understanding that the Valero refining enterprise on the Gulf Coast will export their refined product. This has the advantage of the product sold will have a positive impact upon the country's negative balance of trade account.
Thanks. Good info.
Many thanks for the info.
Many thanks. I checked it out.
Many thanks for your perspective. It has been useful
I certainly hope that BNSF, CP and CN are sharpening their pencils.
"...Lest we think that it can't be done by rail, from another forum (Yahoo NS Altoona - Johnstown - see: http://finance.groups.yahoo.com/group/nsaltoonajohnstown/ ), one of the members there - Josh Hollands - photographed NS train symbol "64D" (Baaken Shale crude oil, to ???, apparently the very first one of that symbol to traverse the NS PIttsburgh Line) at Newport, PA on Friday, Jan. 20, 2012, including this brand-new tank car DBUX 303010 placarded "1267' for crude oil (not my photo).."
PAUL:
link to the following mentioned post:ref: "New Destination for Bakken Crude"
http://cs.trains.com/TRCCS/forums/t/201890.aspx
A post today By Beaulieu indicates the that there is a new destination in New Jersey for Bakken Crude:
Lest we think that it can't be done by rail, from another forum (Yahoo NS Altoona - Johnstown - see: http://finance.groups.yahoo.com/group/nsaltoonajohnstown/ ), one of the members there - Josh Hollands - photographed NS train symbol "64D" (Baaken Shale crude oil, to ???, apparently the very first one of that symbol to traverse the NS PIttsburgh Line) at Newport, PA on Friday, Jan. 20, 2012, including this brand-new tank car DBUX 303010 placarded "1267' for crude oil (not my photo):
http://www.flickr.com/photos/51780943@N07/6737446777/sizes/o/in/set-72157628970015505/
or http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7141/6737446777_d4e6a7f454_o.jpg
http://www.flickr.com/photos/51780943@N07/6737446777/in/set-72157628970015505
Andrew Falconer North America would be better off if that Oil Company refined all the crude oil to petroleum products at a New Refinery built near where they are drilling for oil. The refined petroleum products would then be sold and transported by rail and truck to customers in Canada and the USA, instead of being exported. I guess they do not want long term jobs in Canada and the USA. Andrew Falconer
North America would be better off if that Oil Company refined all the crude oil to petroleum products at a New Refinery built near where they are drilling for oil. The refined petroleum products would then be sold and transported by rail and truck to customers in Canada and the USA, instead of being exported. I guess they do not want long term jobs in Canada and the USA.
Andrew Falconer
Most Canadians have been for years harping to build refineries and not ship ANY crude oil, but only refined products, but to no avail, the Hosers running this country can't figure that out, - - - about the above statement " instead of being exported " Any oil leaving Canada to the U.S. is export
The XL pipeline is a long way from a closed deal, the new application will go on for a long time yet, if the line does not go through, the U.S. portion can still be used to transport crude to Texas from the massive discovery of oil in North Dakota (Baaken Shale) I believe.
Sorry gang, I'm way off topic. back to oil trains.
Bucyrus Andrew Falconer: I guess they do not want long term jobs in Canada and the USA. Andrew Falconer “However many jobs might be generated by a Keystone pipeline,” he [Obama] said, “they’re going to be a lot fewer than the jobs created by extending the payroll tax cut and extending unemployment insurance.”
Andrew Falconer: I guess they do not want long term jobs in Canada and the USA. Andrew Falconer
“However many jobs might be generated by a Keystone pipeline,” he [Obama] said, “they’re going to be a lot fewer than the jobs created by extending the payroll tax cut and extending unemployment insurance.”
One difference is that the Keystone jobs will be paid for by customers buying a product as opposed to being paid for by taxpayers. The pipeline would also be paying local taxes.
I ran across Dibrill du Val's article in the May 1973 Trains on how diesel fuel is produced, he specifically mentioned the tar sands as a likely source of petroleum, though producing oil from the sands was not cost effective at that time. Remember this article was written several months before the 1973 war and subsequent oil price hikes.
- Erik
PNWRMNM Why congress ever gave the president the power to stop this pipeline is beyond me, but they had to have done it somehow. Mac McCulloch
Why congress ever gave the president the power to stop this pipeline is beyond me, but they had to have done it somehow.
Mac McCulloch
Actually, Congress didn't give him that authority. They took away his ability to approve it by forcing the 60 day deadline to make a decision. That was insufficient time to complete the engineering and environmental reviews, thus no approval. It was just political grandstanding before the upcoming election.
Once the pipeline designers jump through all the appropriate hoops I have no doubt it will be reconsidered.
A pipeline can move more product faster than rail provided there is a market for enough product to justify the expense of building the pipeline.
Incidentally, there is no foreign vs domestic difference in oil. All crude, foreign and domestic, is sold on the same international market. American produced oil does not necessarily remain in the US.
Dave
Lackawanna Route of the Phoebe Snow
Andrew FalconerI guess they do not want long term jobs in Canada and the USA. Andrew Falconer
That's a pretty niave` statement, Andrew....China's demand for oil and gas will drive the prices up and our investor capitalists will go where the money is. Neither US nor Canada will outbid China. That crude being discussed here is already sold to China with no regard to either domestic market. American investors are in business to make money not sell crude nor be concerned where they get the money.
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.
Watch my videos on-line at https://www.youtube.com/user/AndrewNeilFalconer
I understand that the pipeline has been in the planning stage and jumping through regulatory hurdles for the last three years. And I also understand that the project has been fully approved and ready to start construction. How did it get this far without any problems with the Sand Hills?
I suppose it is accurate to say that the U.S. did not nix the pipeline because they are offering the builder the opportunity to reapply for it. From Canada’s reaction to these developments, it does not sound like they are likely to do that.
MidlandMike The US didn't "nix" the deal, as they are still waiting on the revised application, since the company said they would reroute around the Sand Hills. They would need to submit revised surveys, EIS, engineering studies, etc. All previous legs of the pipeline have been approved, so an outright denial would be unprecedented.
The US didn't "nix" the deal, as they are still waiting on the revised application, since the company said they would reroute around the Sand Hills. They would need to submit revised surveys, EIS, engineering studies, etc. All previous legs of the pipeline have been approved, so an outright denial would be unprecedented.
Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.
It would seem the Keystone p/l discussion may be for naught, as the U.S. nixed the deal, but Canada is gathering lots of encouragement from their citizens to ship oil to Asia through a pipeline to Kitimat B.C., this has been on their minds for a few years and the U.S. gov't. denying the plan may push the internal Canadian route to the west coast even further.
WilliamKiesel I am aware that a "tank train" of interconnected tank cars has been used in revenue service. I do not recall where, how, why or when. Does anyone have answers? Examples. Regarding the "tank train" design, what kind of control is there for the interconnection? What kind of spill control valves? might there be in the "tank train" design?
I am aware that a "tank train" of interconnected tank cars has been used in revenue service. I do not recall where, how, why or when. Does anyone have answers? Examples.
Regarding the "tank train" design, what kind of control is there for the interconnection? What kind of spill control valves? might there be in the "tank train" design?
WilliamKiesel asked?: About the "GATX Tank Trans"
The following link is a reference to the operations of the GATX "Tank Train" concept for hauling crude, and may be of interest on this Thread, as well.
http://cs.trains.com/TRCCS/forums/p/67350/2105546.aspx#2105546
It contains a number of photos of the interconnections between tank cars, and Paul D.North added a number of links of interest as well.
Mudchicken: "...The railroads would be better off trying to force Colorado Springs and El Paso County to live up to the agreements they made in the mid 1970's and welched-on over the old Santa Fe line Crews to Palmer Lake."
Was the agreement that they could reopen the old Santa Fe line if need be? Have they considered double tracking the existing line between those two points? It would seem a less disruptive alternative (ie., all the rail traffic concentrated to one line thru Colorado Springs.)
MidlandMike Murphy Siding: MidlandMike: BNSF has a route that crosses the Alberta border at Sweetgrass, MT, then heads for the Billings area, where it has a couple of choices of routes to Texas. True, but aren't those choice routes clogged with coal trains heading to Texas from the Pwder River Basin? The choke point is the Denver-Pueblo joint line. Maybe this would be the final push to build the Front Range bypass BNSF and Colorado have been talking about for years.
Murphy Siding: MidlandMike: BNSF has a route that crosses the Alberta border at Sweetgrass, MT, then heads for the Billings area, where it has a couple of choices of routes to Texas. True, but aren't those choice routes clogged with coal trains heading to Texas from the Pwder River Basin?
MidlandMike: BNSF has a route that crosses the Alberta border at Sweetgrass, MT, then heads for the Billings area, where it has a couple of choices of routes to Texas.
BNSF has a route that crosses the Alberta border at Sweetgrass, MT, then heads for the Billings area, where it has a couple of choices of routes to Texas.
True, but aren't those choice routes clogged with coal trains heading to Texas from the Pwder River Basin?
The choke point is the Denver-Pueblo joint line. Maybe this would be the final push to build the Front Range bypass BNSF and Colorado have been talking about for years.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.