Euclid Thanks for that information Mike. I see that there is growing optimism that XL will be approved by the Obama Administration. It is bolstered by new scientific information that shows minimal carbon impact due to the construction of the pipeline. However, there is one thing about that point that I have never understood: Was President Obama's earlier opposition that was based on carbon referring to only the carbon produced by building the pipeline; or did it include all the carbon produced by burning the contents delivered by the pipeline? When the President referred to opposing the pipeline if it will lead to a net increase in greenhouse gases, I would interpret that to include the effect of using the oil delivered by the pipeline as well as the construction of the pipeline. Without clarifying that point, the statement is quite ambiguous. Certainly the burning of all of the fuel products derived from the oil moved by the pipeline will produce a big net increase in greenhouse gases. Yet today’s news about scientific evidence of minimal carbon refers to only the construction of the pipeline.
Thanks for that information Mike. I see that there is growing optimism that XL will be approved by the Obama Administration. It is bolstered by new scientific information that shows minimal carbon impact due to the construction of the pipeline.
However, there is one thing about that point that I have never understood:
Was President Obama's earlier opposition that was based on carbon referring to only the carbon produced by building the pipeline; or did it include all the carbon produced by burning the contents delivered by the pipeline?
When the President referred to opposing the pipeline if it will lead to a net increase in greenhouse gases, I would interpret that to include the effect of using the oil delivered by the pipeline as well as the construction of the pipeline.
Without clarifying that point, the statement is quite ambiguous. Certainly the burning of all of the fuel products derived from the oil moved by the pipeline will produce a big net increase in greenhouse gases. Yet today’s news about scientific evidence of minimal carbon refers to only the construction of the pipeline.
The big increase in carbon footprint from tar sands comes from the unconventional nature of its production.
In a conventional oil field, oil either flows from a well due to natural gas pressure, or is pumped, usually using a pumpjack powered by casinghead gas from the well. Very little energy needs to be use to produce the well.
Tar sands can't be pumped up via conventional means. They either pump steam underground to get the bitumen to flow to wells, and have to drill a lot more wells, or they simply mine the tar sands near the surface. After they extract the tar sand they have to process it to remove the bitumen from the sand. All this burns a lot more energy to produce.
And then to transport the bitumen, they either put it in cars with heating coils to load/unload,or they dilute it with very light oil (eg. condensate). They either have to ship condensate to Alberta, or recycle it back from the refinery. There is some loss of efficiency because of the dead weight transport of the condensate both ways. They could convert the bitumen to syncrude which is easy to transport, but requires the extra energy for the extra processing.
I don't know that the actual burning of the fuel from tar sand would be any more carbon intensive, it's mainly the initial production that is the problem. From what I heard on the news tonight, the Keystone study said that the tar sands would probably be produced by somebody anyway, so it would not be any different whether it went thru the Keystone pipeline, or somebody else's pipeline. Some choice.
Actually, the topic of this thread was a concept for a new oil train that would be specialized for optimum safety and performance. It would be a dramatic advance in railroad state of the art. All the components are already available. They would just need to be combined.
This advancement could benefit all freight trains, but the need to meet the standardization for such a massive conversion would be a bridge too far. However, with this oil train fireball public relations / regulatory crisis, it might pay to radically advance just the oil trains. That would be a big change, but it might be manageable, considering what is at risk in losing the oil traffic over safety issues.
A new train such as this would improve safety, but perhaps more importantly, it would change perceptions among the public and the regulators.
to the one who was wondering when this thread would be locked. if it ain't u do not sweat it?
rbandr why does in need to be locked? are u the forums morality police? does political discourse make u paranoid dude?
why does in need to be locked? are u the forums morality police? does political discourse make u paranoid dude?
To whom was the question directed?
Norm
a perfectly ambiguious answer brought to u by our professional politicians in DC
MidlandMikeThe Keystone XL is the only major pipeline where environmental concerns have gained enough traction to put a PL project in possible jeopardy. The fact that it is international, gives the politics an opening. When domestic pipeline projects meet all legal requirements, their permits are issued.
"When domestic pipeline projects meet all legal requirements, their permits are issued."
And meeting all those legal requirements, dealing with federal, state, and local agencies can take years.
So, in the mean time?????
Euclid MidlandMike Euclid Murphy Siding Also, if the Bakken crude doesn't ship by rail, how would it ship? It might not ship if the cost of transportation drives up the cost of production so high that it cannot compete with foreign oil. We were living without Bakken before. We can live without it in the future. Some (domestic) pipeline projects were put on hold when rail became an viable option. If new tank car regulations push up the cost too much, then in the time allowed for the upgrade, pipelines will start to be built. Mike, Were those pipelines put on hold because rail was suddenly regarded as a preferable option compared to the pipelines; or were the pipelines put on hold because of opposition to them, thus leaving rail as the only alternative?
MidlandMike Euclid Murphy Siding Also, if the Bakken crude doesn't ship by rail, how would it ship? It might not ship if the cost of transportation drives up the cost of production so high that it cannot compete with foreign oil. We were living without Bakken before. We can live without it in the future. Some (domestic) pipeline projects were put on hold when rail became an viable option. If new tank car regulations push up the cost too much, then in the time allowed for the upgrade, pipelines will start to be built.
Euclid Murphy Siding Also, if the Bakken crude doesn't ship by rail, how would it ship? It might not ship if the cost of transportation drives up the cost of production so high that it cannot compete with foreign oil. We were living without Bakken before. We can live without it in the future.
Murphy Siding Also, if the Bakken crude doesn't ship by rail, how would it ship?
It might not ship if the cost of transportation drives up the cost of production so high that it cannot compete with foreign oil. We were living without Bakken before. We can live without it in the future.
Some (domestic) pipeline projects were put on hold when rail became an viable option. If new tank car regulations push up the cost too much, then in the time allowed for the upgrade, pipelines will start to be built.
First note that I used the qualifier domestic pipelines. That is to remove the international Keystone XL pipeline project from the conversation because it has little to do with the Bakken, and much to do with political controversy over tar sands.
The first domestic pipeline on hold that comes to mind was mentioned a couple of times in Fred Frailey's blog. Kinder Morgan had an "open season" to gage interest on a PL project from Texas to California. (IIRC it was to convert a underutilized natural gas line to crude.) Those oil companies interested would eventually have to sign "take-or-pay" contracts (ship at least a minimum amount of oil or pay anyway). Whereas rail isn't so inflexible, apparently it was considered a better option. There was also a pipeline project from the Bakken (unrelated to Keystone) that was put on hold.
The Keystone XL is the only major pipeline where environmental concerns have gained enough traction to put a PL project in possible jeopardy. The fact that it is international, gives the politics an opening. When domestic pipeline projects meet all legal requirements, their permits are issued.
schlimmIt requires either a paranoid mentality or some cognitive slippage to see the concerns about the safety of transporting Bakken crude as merely a cover for eliminating the use of oil. That is what conflating means.
The issue of public safety from fire and explosions, and the issue of the damage from CO2 are indeed being conflated by some to form the basis of their opposition to oil trains. I did not say that all of the opposition was based on such a conflation.
Euclid Gee Norm, I was agreeing with you about the opposition to pipelines. Now I am beginning to wonder which side you are on.
Gee Norm, I was agreeing with you about the opposition to pipelines. Now I am beginning to wonder which side you are on.
And I'm beginning to wonder when this thread will be locked!!!!
"I Often Dream of Trains"-From the Album of the Same Name by Robyn Hitchcock
It requires either a paranoid mentality or some cognitive slippage to see the concerns about the safety of transporting Bakken crude as merely a cover for eliminating the use of oil. That is what conflating means.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
schlimm You are conflating safety with your anti-green agenda. Rather a crass effort. Already we have seen the usual circular, endless display of conspiracies, the "yes buts" ad nauseam. Same old stuff like before with the Nevada crossing signal.
You are conflating safety with your anti-green agenda. Rather a crass effort. Already we have seen the usual circular, endless display of conspiracies, the "yes buts" ad nauseam. Same old stuff like before with the Nevada crossing signal.
Those "if's ands, and buts" keep coming back, just under a different name. Is it coincidence that both were manufacturers of earth moving equipment based in Ohio? Fill us in, Bucky.
schlimmYou are conflating safety with your anti-green agenda. Rather a crass effort. Already we have seen the usual circular, endless display of conspiracies, the "yes buts" ad nauseam. Same old stuff like before with the Nevada crossing signal.
Much of the pipeline opposition has made it clear that they oppose the development and introduction of new oil from Bakken and Canadian tar sands. They base their opposition on safety. They say that these new oil supplies will prolong the use of oil, and that the use of oil is threatening our safety by causing climate change. They also say it is threatening our safety by transportation spills contaminating our water, and by fire and explosions killing people outright. It does not require a conspiracy to see this view being widely promoted. It is as plain as day.
Norm48327The pipelines were put on hold for political reasons that I won't get into here.
That was my point. I am not sure what pipelines mike was talking about, but I know of no case where a pipeline project was started, and then the sponsors suddenly stopped the project because they realized that oil trains were a better option to move oil.
The pipelines are being killed by the anti-fossil fuel movement and rail is being turned to as the second-best alternative to pipelines. So now the anti-oil target is the oil trains. It was simply a matter of oil taking the route of the least resistance by switching to rail.
There are a lot of regulatory hurdles to building new pipelines, so the opposition has a lot of leverage. Rail is an established transport system, so there are a lot fewer regulatory hurdles. But that will soon change as the green movement gets the ear of the regulators. The ultimate goal is to leave the oil in the ground because the issue is about using the oil. It really has nothing to do with how the oil is transported.
The pipelines were put on hold for political reasons that I won't get into here.
Norm48327 While I agree Lac Megantic was truly a crisis I can only believe that the other two accidents have been pounced on by the media in hopes of upping their ratings. Compared to the number of unit oil trains operating safely every day, two accidents with no injuries are being seriously over-played.
While I agree Lac Megantic was truly a crisis I can only believe that the other two accidents have been pounced on by the media in hopes of upping their ratings. Compared to the number of unit oil trains operating safely every day, two accidents with no injuries are being seriously over-played.
One of the reasons that the ND derailment got so much press was there was video of the explosion. Without that, it would have been a small bit buried somewhere deep in the news cast.
An "expensive model collector"
Euclid They have to recognize those negatives before they can do something about them. So I think that pointing out those negatives is constructive.
They have to recognize those negatives before they can do something about them. So I think that pointing out those negatives is constructive.
The industry started replacing the tank cars with a better design 3 years ago. The railroads restricted the speed of trains carrying hazmat 30 years ago. The railroads reviewed the routes that carried hazmat with the Federal government about 2-3 years ago. The Federal government ratcheted up the securement of trains a year ago and the major railroads were already doing most of what was required.
I don't think you are pointing out anything they haven't already recognized (in some cases many years ago). The railroads don't need to play catch up, you do.
Dave H. Painted side goes up. My website : wnbranch.com
Norm48327 Euclid, With you consistently pointing out all the negatives, I sometimes have to wonder which side you're on. Your 'talking points' remind me of the original discussion on the Lac Megantic thread.
Euclid,
With you consistently pointing out all the negatives, I sometimes have to wonder which side you're on. Your 'talking points' remind me of the original discussion on the Lac Megantic thread.
Norm,
There are a lot of negatives whether I point them out or not. The oil industry and the railroads are far better off by recognizing the negatives working against them than they would be by ignoring those negatives or failing to recognize them. They have to recognize those negatives before they can do something about them. So I think that pointing out those negatives is constructive.
"Not only did the Lac Megantic wreck do physical damage and kill people, it also damaged the image of oil, and particularly the hated Bakken oil. It also damaged the image of railroads by default. In terms of that image damage, I would say that Lac Megantic will go down as the most costly train wreck in world history to this date. "
I'll second that statement
Norm48327While I agree Lac Megantic was truly a crisis I can only believe that the other two accidents have been pounced on by the media in hopes of upping their ratings. Compared to the number of unit oil trains operating safely every day, two accidents with no injuries are being seriously over-played.
I would say that the crisis is not what has happened with oil trains, but what is expected to happen. Lac Megantic was an anomaly that caused a very large pileup due to the high speed and the curve. It was a bad accident, but not a crisis on its own. However, it did do two things to set the stage for a crisis of expectation.
1) It showed what can happen when an oil train derails.
2) It exposed a previously unknown fact about the nature of Bakken oil.
And because Lac Megantic was a very bad accident, it got a lot of press, and therefore drove home the two points I mention.
Add to that the fact that both Bakken and Canadian tar sands oil are particularly maligned to begin with. There is a movement that wants to wean us off of oil. It makes no difference whether or not that is possible. They tell us we will soon be out of oil and we can live without it; and they say that is a good thing. Therefore this green movement is most distraught at the prospect of the sudden development of vast new domestic oil supply that promises a bright, new future with oil.
So the prospect of towns being destroyed for the sake of hauling this hated new Bakken oil is bound to be controversial. This is a major societal tug of war. The green movement has an advantage because the oil train crisis is a crisis in the future rather than now. So it can be shaped by the media as a work of fiction. One can predict doom and gloom whether it actually happens or not. This shaping of a future crisis with oil trains is the same with the climate change crisis which we are told is ultimate reason we need to wean ourselves off of oil.
So this whole oil train issue is a convergence of factors coming together as a kind of perfect storm. Before Lac Megantic, as the green movement was celebrating the killing of the Keystone Pipeline, rail suddenly emerged as a viable alternative to pipelines. As a desperate response, the green movement stepped up their opposition to oil trains. They made plenty of dire predictions about the danger of hauling oil by rail. They warned of spills, but mostly they warned of the danger of fire and explosions posed to towns along the railroads. So as a public relations tool to make their point, Lac Megantic was heaven sent.
Not only did the Lac Megantic wreck do physical damage and kill people, it also damaged the image of oil, and particularly the hated Bakken oil. It also damaged the image of railroads by default. In terms of that image damage, I would say that Lac Megantic will go down as the most costly train wreck in world history to this date.
jeffhergertEuclidWell then there are new standards coming, as I originally said.It sounds like you are supposing that new Federal standards will be better and safer than the current standards (the ones that new cars are being built to) used by the industry. That may or may not be the case. Railroads at times have requirements or practices that exceed what the Federal regs require. It could be that new Federal standards will mirror the industry standards. Some that are said to be anti-rail I don't think really are. I think they like railroads just fine. It's corporations they don't like or trust. That a corporation won't act unless the government forces them to. So since the government has yet to act, industry must not be doing anything. Or if the industry is doing something it can't be enough or effective. Jeff
EuclidWell then there are new standards coming, as I originally said.
Some that are said to be anti-rail I don't think really are. I think they like railroads just fine. It's corporations they don't like or trust. That a corporation won't act unless the government forces them to. So since the government has yet to act, industry must not be doing anything. Or if the industry is doing something it can't be enough or effective.
Jeff
Jeff,
Regarding this oil train crisis with the volatile Bakken oil, like you, I don’t sense an anti-rail agenda being part of it. But there is definitely an anti-fossil fuel agenda, and an anti-corporation sentiment, as you say. So railroads being corporations hauling oil just happen to be in the target zone.
I would not be surprised if the industry has come up with better tank car standards than what the government might come up with. I certainly do not necessarily prefer a government solution as opposed to a private sector solution.
But as this oil train news calls for solutions to the problem, one of the key solutions that everyone is talking about is a need for new standards for tank cars to make them safer. So if the railroads’ best and newest standards are adequate, why is everyone talking about the need for new standards to be the solution to the problem?
Certainly the regulators must be aware of what the railroad industry is doing to improve tank cars. If the regulators deemed the railroad standards to be adequate, why would the regulators be talking about the need for new standards and offering all the players a chance to give input to develop new standards?
Based on all that, I suspect the new standards to be more rigorous than any existing standards. They may not be better, but I think they will be more rigorous than the current railroad standards. It is just the way this seems to be shaping up as the news flows out. And of course, the new goverment standards will be the law.
Here is why I brought it up:
Assume that the solution to the problem will be new standards being implemented. If that is true, that process has not even begun yet. And once it begins, it will take several years to fully implement the new standards. That seems to be an awfully slow response to a problem that is rapidly gaining popular momentum every day now. Because of this urgency of the problem today, and the solution being years away, there seems to be a giant disconnect between the problem and the solution.
So I am just wondering how this will play out. I reckon that the new regulations that come out of this oil train crisis will be the largest wildcard the oil industry has ever faced. As I mentioned before, it strikes me that this is more of a marketing problem than an engineering problem. A marketing solution could be put into action with great effect within a few weeks.
RKSThe vast majority of crude being shipped from North Dakota to Chicago passes thru Minneapolis and St. Paul on tracks that are close to residential areas. The local press is starting to ask about alternate routes. Evidently the reporters do not understand the history of railroads: cities and towns came after the tracks.
Irrelevant and ahistorical. Whoever came first doesn't matter when it come to safety, noise, etc. Times change. Heck, native Americans were there first. And in the mid 19th century, huge amounts of highly volatile crude oil were not being transported. In fact, the Bakken crude has really been being transported only in the last five-six years.
RKS It seems to me that what is more needed is to reduce the volatility of the Baken crude oil. I live in MN and there is currently a shortage of propane. As I understand, propane and other "light" chemicals are the cause of the explosions that follow train accidents. Currently, the oil is not "treated" in any way before being loaded into tank cars. Separating out will reduce the volatility and make the treated-crude safer to ship. ... Bob
It seems to me that what is more needed is to reduce the volatility of the Baken crude oil. I live in MN and there is currently a shortage of propane. As I understand, propane and other "light" chemicals are the cause of the explosions that follow train accidents. Currently, the oil is not "treated" in any way before being loaded into tank cars. Separating out will reduce the volatility and make the treated-crude safer to ship.
...
Bob
Production fluid from an oil well goes thru a gas separator and then a heater treater which removes more gas. If they did add some sort of degasser, the propane and butane would still need to be transported by rail. I have no doubt that better tank cars and safer operating practices will reduce the crude hauling risk to acceptable levels, or pipelines will be built
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.