I couldn't find the earlier thread by that name, so I thought I would start a new version with some news from today June, 19.
While I'm not sure of the significance of this news in the bigger industry picture, I though forum members might be interested in the back story. First the news:
Cenovus Energy Inc. (TSX:CVE) said Tuesday that it plans to massively increase the amount of oil it ships by rail by the end of 2014 as the fates of contentious pipeline projects remain undecided. It expects to move 30,000 barrels per day by rail by the end of 2014 -- triple the 10,000 it's anticipating by the end of 2013.
So shovel the coal, let this rattler roll.
"A Train is a Place Going Somewhere" CP Rail Public Timetable
"O. S. Irricana"
. . . __ . ______
Some pipeline projects will inevitably get built and price railroads out of those lanes as long as there is capacity. Oil is a very volatile business, much more so than coal.
Oil by Rail sounds like a great TRAINS feature article considering all the activity going on in North Dakota and the stalled Keystone pipeline.
The TRAINS I got in the mail today has an article on it.
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.
From Bloomberg’s Businessweek, last issue, Companies/Industries section, page 21 and 22.
Article about moving crude oil by rail, titled
“All Aboard the Crude Express”
………”The rail industry is now hauling more crude than at any time since the days of John D. Rockefeller’s Standard Oil”
Interesting numbers from the article….
“97,1135 carloads of crude in the first quarter of 2013. That’s 166 percent more than during the first quarter of 2012 and 922 percent more than trains hauled during all of 2008.”
Union Pacific “tripled the amount of crude it moved last year, helping boost the company’s profits to a record $3.9 billion for fiscal year 2012.”
BNSF is “now transporting about 650,000 barrels of crude per day, vs. almost none five years ago.”
“Canadian Pacific expects to haul 70,000 carloads of crude in 2013, up from 500 in 2009.”
According to a June report by Bloomberg Industries, 71 percent of the Bakken crude now leaves the region by train, compared to only 25% in 2012.
Only 21% now travels by pipeline, down 61% from 2011.
Some pretty impressive numbers.
Also from the article.
Plains All American Pipeline spent $500 million to buy four rail terminals in North Dakota, Texas, Colorado and Louisiana.
A pipeline company is buying crude oil rail terminals?
Yes, they are not just the railroads competition, but the railroads customers also.
Kinder Morgan is investing in a crude by rail terminal in Houston, (yup, on the PTRA, right between Highway 225 and the ship channel in Deer Park) capable of taking delivery of 210,000 barrels of oil per day.
We, (the PTRA) are building a new receiving track at North Yard, capable of holding two 125 to 135 car length trains and their motive power nose to tail for just this reason, our bulk petroleum train /ethanol train business will account for an approx. 60% increase in our business/car count next year.
23 17 46 11
The PTRA tidbit is pretty impressive too Ed.
Dan
smpx Oil by Rail sounds like a great TRAINS feature article considering all the activity going on in North Dakota and the stalled Keystone pipeline.
Nine unit trains a day can haul what the Keystone pipeline will be able to haul. Not much when you consider there are about 100 trains a day out of the Powder River Basin.
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
Oil by rail is trending down recently as the oil prices are tending to level (Bakkan vs Brett vs WTI). Oil moves to where the total cost makes it attractive (and refineries can crack it).
Ed
MP173 Oil by rail is trending down recently as the oil prices are tending to level (Bakkan vs Brett vs WTI). Oil moves to where the total cost makes it attractive (and refineries can crack it). Ed
No doubt the presence of rail-transported Bakkan oil in the marketplace affected the price leveling to some extent.
Bakken crude by rail is still increasing on BNSF. Brent crude(North Sea) is the oil source that has been having to compete against Bakken crude. Much of the Bakken crude travels by rail to east coast refineries and is competitive to the Brent crude shipped in via ocean tanker. WTI pricing is still the 'gold' standard in the US, but there is limited refining capacity in Cushing, as well as transport issues(something Bakken crude ran into very early).
The rail cost of delivery to Cushing, OK makes Bakken a poor choice for the oil producer in ND. The rail cost to East Coast refineries is about the same, but the oil producer can get more for his barrel of oil. IIRC, the cost of rail shipped oil to the East Coast is about $15-16/barrel if you get a quote from BNSF. The actual price is negotiated, with delivery terms and quantities affecting the actual shipping cost.
Jim
Modeling BNSF and Milwaukee Road in SW Wisconsin
Cushing, OK is more of a pipeline hub than a refining center, though the pipelines headed south connect to the TX & LA refining centers. The competition there is from all the new Texas crude. However, Gulf Coast refineries that process heavy crudes may be looking to replace Venezuelan with Tar Sands oil.
MidlandMikeHowever, Gulf Coast refineries that process heavy crudes may be looking to replace Venezuelan with Tar Sands oil.
That is the biggest selling point the Keystone people use. The US would no longer be dependent on oil from places governed by people like the late Hugo Chavez. And that is why your State Department is saying the effect on greenhouse gasses is a wash. I don't know what planet your EPA is on.
The oil market fluctuates daily. Today the concern is unrest in Egypt, raising the price of Brent, making Bakken Crude more competitive than is was yesterday. This is what makes oil by rail interesting. It can't respond to changes in delivery points as quickly as pipelines, to refineries connected to pipelines, but it can go to the refineries dependent solely on water borne delivery. So I don't see a downturn in oil by rail anytime soon, the next trainload just might not go to the same location as the last one did.
Bruce
AgentKid That is the biggest selling point the Keystone people use. The US would no longer be dependent on oil from places governed by people like the late Hugo Chavez. And that is why your State Department is saying the effect on greenhouse gasses is a wash. I don't know what planet your EPA is on. ...
...
The Venezuelan heavy crude is more heavy oil rather than the Canadian Tar Sands bitumen. I would guess less energy intensive to produce and refine. The EPA is the expert on environmental concerns rather than the State Dept., and considered more environmental factors than State did.
MidlandMikeThat is the biggest selling point the Keystone people use. The US would no longer be dependent on oil from places governed by people like the late Hugo Chavez. And that is why your State Department is saying the effect on greenhouse gasses is a wash. I don't know what planet your EPA is on.
MidlandMikeThe Venezuelan heavy crude is more heavy oil rather than the Canadian Tar Sands bitumen.
Not significantly different.
I don't want to go into an oil exploration lesson, but as you head south from Fort McMurray you pass through an area known as Lloydminister Heavy Oil. South of there is where the lighter crudes begin to occur.
The Keystone pipeline begins at Hardisty, AB. This was already a refining centre dealing with Lloydminister Heavy Oil since the late '80's, and was therefore chosen as the ideal location to handle both Lloydminister Heavy Oil and Oil Sands bitumen, as well. This is where they turn the bitumen into a product that can be shipped by any common carrier pipeline. And it can be blended to meet any spec. the Gulf coast refineries require.
Hardisty is on the CPR northern mainline and there is a significant increase in business on that line. Both hauling oil out and the necessary refining equipment in. This line is also a major route for Potash coming from northern Saskatchewan mines on its' way to the coast. They just finished spending millions up there, and they may have to do all over again if this keeps up.
Bucyrus MidlandMikeThat is the biggest selling point the Keystone people use. The US would no longer be dependent on oil from places governed by people like the late Hugo Chavez. And that is why your State Department is saying the effect on greenhouse gasses is a wash. I don't know what planet your EPA is on. The EPA is on the anti-fossil fuel planet.
Sorry MIDLANDMIKE, I will attibute the comment to AgentKid. I messed up the quote.
AgentKid MidlandMikeThe Venezuelan heavy crude is more heavy oil rather than the Canadian Tar Sands bitumen. Not significantly different. I don't want to go into an oil exploration lesson, but as you head south from Fort McMurray you pass through an area known as Lloydminister Heavy Oil. South of there is where the lighter crudes begin to occur. The Keystone pipeline begins at Hardisty, AB. This was already a refining centre dealing with Lloydminister Heavy Oil since the late '80's, and was therefore chosen as the ideal location to handle both Lloydminister Heavy Oil and Oil Sands bitumen, as well. This is where they turn the bitumen into a product that can be shipped by any common carrier pipeline. And it can be blended to meet any spec. the Gulf coast refineries require.
I always enjoy a lesson about oil fields besides the ones I'm familiar with. The Lloydminister Heavy Oil sounds more like the Venezuelan Heavy Oil. I presume it's produced thru the wellhead, perhaps with some form of EOR. I think US EPA is worried about energy involved in Tar Sand mining/processing or exotic in situ extraction methods.
Hi everyone!
Here in the NW, we are getting lots more oil trains, and so, there is lots of NIMBY reaction. Most want an "environmental impact statement" just to allow BNSF to operate oil trains along the Columbia River, believing an oil spill that will kill all the salmon is inevitable. Most articles seem to take an anti-rail bent, such as this one:http://www.king5.com/news/business/185072141.html. What are your thoughts?
MidlandMikeI think US EPA is worried about energy involved in Tar Sand mining/processing or exotic in situ extraction methods.
Where is a good Hot Potato icon when you need one?
The oil companies, the Canadian Government, agencies of the US government, environmentalists, and NIMBY's are all saying the same things, and different things, all at the same time. There are extraction issues certainly, but will they be offset by not needing/requiring Venezuela and the Mid-East countries to produce their oil for the US market.
If everybody's right, how come everybody's wrong?
MidlandMikeI presume it's produced thru the wellhead, perhaps with some form of EOR.
While I was out for supper this evening I realized I hadn't properly addressed your question.
My employment in the oil and gas industry was as an accountant. I never did get into the fine points of the processes involved. I found a link to Husky Energy's Lloydminister Heavy Oil Upgrader, which might help answer your questions. This is one of several Heavy Oil Upgraders.
http://www.huskyenergy.com/operations/downstream/facilities/heavyoilupgrader.asp
I have family where a lot of the Sand used in Fracking comes from in IL. You should see how the NIMBY's and Bananas are trying to stop the mines that make it to the point where they have blocked roads and threatened landowners to stop them.
AgentKidThe oil companies, the Canadian Government, agencies of the US government, environmentalists, and NIMBY's are all saying the same things, and different things, all at the same time.
What do you mean? Can you give an example?
$15-$16 per barrel delivered to the east coast seems like great revenue for the railroads....
650 barrels per tank car - $9750 per tank car
100 tank car trains - $975000 (almost a $1million per train!)
Is this an accurate rate ($9750 per carload)? Possibly. CSX shows in the 2012 annual report a revenue per unit of $3571 for "chemicals", by far the most lucrative product grouping.
NorthWestMost articles seem to take an anti-rail bent, such as this one:http://www.king5.com/news/business/185072141.html. What are your thoughts?
LION does not think much of the NIMBYS and their lackey , wacky, environmental imposters.
IF they wish to speak, they must FIRST put their cars up on blocks, and take their homes off of the energy grid, otherwise they are nothing more than frauds and cheats. AND BIG LION WILL MONITOR THEIR COMMS.
ROAR
The Route of the Broadway Lion The Largest Subway Layout in North Dakota.
Here there be cats. LIONS with CAMERAS
BucyrusWhat do you mean? Can you give an example?
Not specific examples but a trend. In the early 2000's when Oil Sands development really got underway(the first project opened in 1966), both the Provincial and Federal governments seemed to be talking to the environmental types in more of a good faith, honest bargaining manner. But as the intransigent position of the environmentalists became clear, it seemed that the governments were beginning to make claims that could never be supported by the facts. It was like who could yell the loudest and spend the most money on advertising.
It has come to pass that our Federal Government is not prepared to talk with anyone who does not come to the table understanding that all issues surrounding the Oil Sands need to be looked at as a replacement of existing supply sources, as opposed to a whole new influx of oil. After all, no new refineries are contemplated for the US, to specifically deal with this product, and demand for oil will not be affected one way or another by where the oil comes from. Price will always be the determining factor
But since the Keystone project, exacerbated by the ideologies of our Prime Minister(and I am no fan), and your President, relations on the whole Oil Sands, International Pipelines and Greenhouse Gas issues have taken a turn for the worse. The last encounter between the two at the last G8 meeting seemed to be more frosty. This latest demand by the EPA that all new sources of oil have to be looked at in terms of the global impact of greenhouse gasses, even projects in countries where the EPA have no jurisdiction, has really annoyed us. Especially when you consider the political and religious behavior of many of the countries you already buy oil from.
This should be considered as a market based decision, like it always has been.
AgentKid This latest demand by the EPA that all new sources of oil have to be looked at in terms of the global impact of greenhouse gasses, even projects in countries where the EPA have no jurisdiction, has really annoyed us. Especially when you consider the political and religious behavior of many of the countries you already buy oil from. This should be considered as a market based decision, like it always has been. Bruce
This latest demand by the EPA that all new sources of oil have to be looked at in terms of the global impact of greenhouse gasses, even projects in countries where the EPA have no jurisdiction, has really annoyed us. Especially when you consider the political and religious behavior of many of the countries you already buy oil from.
I see what you mean. I originally interpreted your comment to mean that both camps were both for and against oil. But, clearly there are two opposing camps; one for oil and one against it.
Since the U.S. administration and the EPA are so much opposed to new oil, I have to wonder why they would not extend that opposition to all forms of importing new oil.
If they are willing to block the pipeline, why would they not try to block rail as the alternative to the pipeline?
AgentKid MidlandMikeI presume it's produced thru the wellhead, perhaps with some form of EOR. While I was out for supper this evening I realized I hadn't properly addressed your question. My employment in the oil and gas industry was as an accountant. I never did get into the fine points of the processes involved. I found a link to Husky Energy's Lloydminister Heavy Oil Upgrader, which might help answer your questions. This is one of several Heavy Oil Upgraders. http://www.huskyenergy.com/operations/downstream/facilities/heavyoilupgrader.asp Bruce
Thanks for the link. Where heavy/oil/sands are to be produced, I am a fan of upgraders near the production area. They clean up the oil and then send the syncrude on the way with no further need for dilutent. I crused the website and found that most of the heavy oil was produced normally, pumped from wells, with another 20% needing steam assist. I was glad to see that they were also planning to produce their Tar Sands with steam assist. While this requires extra energy to generate steam, IMO this is better than wholesale tar sand formation mining with processing.
AgentKid ... It has come to pass that our Federal Government is not prepared to talk with anyone who does not come to the table understanding that all issues surrounding the Oil Sands need to be looked at as a replacement of existing supply sources, as opposed to a whole new influx of oil. After all, no new refineries are contemplated for the US, to specifically deal with this product, and demand for oil will not be affected one way or another by where the oil comes from. Price will always be the determining factor But since the Keystone project, exacerbated by the ideologies of our Prime Minister(and I am no fan), and your President, relations on the whole Oil Sands, International Pipelines and Greenhouse Gas issues have taken a turn for the worse. The last encounter between the two at the last G8 meeting seemed to be more frosty. This latest demand by the EPA that all new sources of oil have to be looked at in terms of the global impact of greenhouse gasses, even projects in countries where the EPA have no jurisdiction, has really annoyed us. Especially when you consider the political and religious behavior of many of the countries you already buy oil from. This should be considered as a market based decision, like it always has been. Bruce
The Tar Sands project may have started out with the Canadian government saying "that all issues surrounding the Oil Sands need to be looked at as a replacement of existing supply sources, as opposed to a whole new influx of oil.", however, unintended consequences and free markets can waylay the best of intentions. Some refineries in the midwestern US have already expanded capacities to handle the new heavy crude. Also there is less need for replacement crude, with expanding domestic supply. Although demand seems to follow supply: when there is more oil supply, the price goes down, and everyone buys SUVs or other gas guzzlers.
I don't believe the US EPA is trying to project jurisdiction into Canada. They seem to be saying that they just don't want us to contribute to what they see as a step increase in CO2 emissions generated by unconventional oil production. And while it is not EPA's mission to worry about the ideologies of foreign governments we buy oil from, I think other agencies are more pragmatic about the situation. Even as Venezuela was railing about the US, their refineries had become so broken down since nationalization, that they had to send a lot of their crude to US Gulf Coast refineries, and then imported back so they had enough gas for their cars.
MidlandMikeI don't believe the US EPA is trying to project jurisdiction into Canada. They seem to be saying that they just don't want us to contribute to what they see as a step increase in CO2 emissions generated by unconventional oil production.
I do not believe that the EPA is objecting to the greenhouse gas production arising from producing the oil. I interpret them to be objecting to the greenhouse gas production arising from converting the oil into energy.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.