The high entry price of pipeline construction was referenced. Pipelines don't get built until a satisfactory number of take-or-pay contracts are signed, that is, oil shippers will pay for at least a minimum volume of product shipped whether they have the oil to ship or not. Whereas the railroads were eager to haul crude at the beginning of the Bakken boom, they lost business as pipelines were built out. Now some railroads are insisting on some commitment before they upgrade lines into the oil patch.
Of course with trains, I'll concede, enduring those horns at all hours can seem onerous.
Pipelines have been making adjustments to handle changes in production and refining. Some pipelines have reversed flow direction from the Gulf northward, to southward toward the Gulf. Here is a recent one that will now carry heavy Canadian crude from a midwest hub near St. Louis to St James, Louisiana (there are also CBR and barge to St. James):
https://rbnenergy.com/part-of-the-plan-part-2-st-james-hub-preps-to-receive-canadian-crude-via-southbound-capline
Convicted OneIf you're going to dedicate a swath of ground 25' wide by 3000 miles long to build a pipeline, you've got a single-use scenario. While a railway on the same turf will have a wider range of utility.
The XL pipeline was to go through here about 10 miles from my house. While the line was to be built, the farmers would be reimbursed quite a bit for the loss of the crops. Once the line was built, the land would be returned to its original condition, and the farmer could farm the land like normal.
We have quite a few pipelines coming through here already, and the only way you can tell is that at certain sites alongs roads, there will be a sign indicating a buried line.
Our county is a little upset because we would have gotten quite a bit of property tax paid by the pipeline company. BNSF pays the county quite a bit of tax for the double mainline that runs through here.
York1 John
OvermodBut oil trains aren't, and I think shouldn't be, thought of as compatible with the general system of coil and car-hauling trains...
Try to see it more from an opportunity cost frame of reference.
If you're going to dedicate a swath of ground 25' wide by 3000 miles long to build a pipeline, you've got a single-use scenario. While a railway on the same turf will have a wider range of utility.
Funny you brought up Elon's whoosh tubes, because when I made the earlier post about coil steel and finished autos, I was tempted to include people was well, until I remembered the whoosh tubes.
OvermodBut oil trains aren't, and I think shouldn't be, thought of as compatible with the general system of coil and car-hauling trains... especially monstrains no matter how slow below 40mph they go. An oil train is like a little section of a pipeline on wheels, wholly occupying the blocks it sits in, requiring dedicated terminal access, and for a while forcing everything around it to a stop or crawl to prevent even low chances of some kind of damage.
The same as most other commdities railroads are handling in the 21st Century.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
Convicted OneActually, I was thinking more how you cannot ship coil steel or finished autos in a pipeline.
I have always seen pipelines as complementary to railroads more than "competitive" with them -- and that includes coal-slurry pipelines, which the more modern here may not realize were supposed to become a 'thing' in some markets.
I think it was clear that oil-by-rail out of the Bakken or Eagle Ford was being 'expediently' shipped -- no other mode effectively serving the lanes -- until the economics, political will, and time to do it at cheaper margin by pipe was there. As noted this was in part an opening-up of domestic production hand in hand with fracked gas production and the demand could cover the... well, originally cheap cost of lowball tank-car transport.
But oil trains aren't, and I think shouldn't be, thought of as compatible with the general system of coil and car-hauling trains... especially monstrains no matter how slow below 40mph they go. An oil train is like a little section of a pipeline on wheels, wholly occupying the blocks it sits in, requiring dedicated terminal access, and for a while forcing everything around it to a stop or crawl to prevent even low chances of some kind of damage.
Overmod If the "broader range of products" involves some that actually reduce 'social benefits' or impede overall effectiveness... do you want to prioritize them? That's not just invoking the Blast Zone rhetoric; it's looking down the line at what is actually involved in making oil-by-rail a safe proposition within a largely PSR-oriented general system.
If the "broader range of products" involves some that actually reduce 'social benefits' or impede overall effectiveness... do you want to prioritize them? That's not just invoking the Blast Zone rhetoric; it's looking down the line at what is actually involved in making oil-by-rail a safe proposition within a largely PSR-oriented general system.
The Class Is aversion to even basic inspections and maintenance (or pretty much anything that costs additional $$$) will make most ideas non-starters unless they are forced into them.
Shipping 100% bitumen without diluent would be a good start, and this could be done entirely on the customer side without the need for railroad participation. Not sure what you'd do for lighter oils or refined fuels.
The public and national media seem to disproportionately worry about unit oil trains. We ship a lot of other commodities that are far more dangerous, like ammonia, chlorine and non-odourized LPG.
CN has been running unit trains of LPG and refined fuels from the Edmonton area to Prince Rupert and various American destinations for over a year now. Some are interchanged to BNSF at Vancouver or Emerson, MB, not sure where they go after that.
Greetings from Alberta
-an Articulate Malcontent
Actually, I was thinking more how you cannot ship coil steel or finished autos in a pipeline.
Convicted OneSo, a social benefit of oil by rail, is that the right of way is not constrained to a single commodity and can be utilized to transport a broader range of products....affording a larger base to defray costs.
Part of the original "wildly unsafe" oil-by-rail 'movement' was the perception that excess capacity existed to run these trains in common with other traffic, and that typical cost-cutting operational approaches could be used with them. Neither of those was remotely true in practice, especially as it became clear that (a) a 40mph ban on oil 'key trains' didn't even begin to confer actual safety, and (b) an accident like Lac Megantic was possible.
Pipelines even over part of the 'route', while restricted to an appropriate mix of slugs, have the advantage of compromising no other traffic... except bicyclists at repair time, which could be easily mitigated if needed.
.
Steven OtteIf you want to discuss how train traffic is affected by this pipeline cancellation, feel free. If you just want to talk about pipelines, that remains off-topic, and off-topic threads get deleted.
But most of the current discussion in the thread explicitly concerns the differences between shipping oil by rail and pipeline. Any removal of that discussion is unwarranted micromoderation and WILL be complained about.
Incidentally, thanks for the selective redaction of posts in certain recent threads. That would be the model I'd like to see followed in threads that drift away from 'permissible' context...
So, a social benefit of oil by rail, is that the right of way is not constrained to a single commodity and can be utilized to transport a broader range of products....affording a larger base to defray costs.
The previous thread on this topic was deleted because oil pipelines are not trains. You might make the argument that the cancellation of an oil pipeline will affect oil shipping via train, but in the previous thread, nobody was talking about that. They were talking only about the pipeline.
If you want to discuss how train traffic is affected by this pipeline cancellation, feel free. If you just want to talk about pipelines, that remains off-topic, and off-topic threads get deleted.
--Steven Otte, Model Railroader senior associate editorsotte@kalmbach.com
EuclidI am not referring to public opinion putting pipelines on thin ice. I am referring to regulatory policy of the public sector doing that.
Indeed - but the installation and maintenance of pipelines continues. Unless there's a political reason not to do so.
Larry Resident Microferroequinologist (at least at my house) Everyone goes home; Safety begins with you My Opinion. Standard Disclaimers Apply. No Expiration Date Come ride the rails with me! There's one thing about humility - the moment you think you've got it, you've lost it...
tree68 Euclid I think pipelines are on thin ice as far as public policy goes. It was once suggested (more jokingly than anything else) that there were two pipelines running into some city - one "high test" and one "regular." The public doesn't realize how many pipelines there are currently operating. Odds are they are driving around with fuel delivered to their area via pipeline. All natural gas arrives via pipeline. During my last visit to Michigan, my bike ride along a popular trail was cut short by a major pipeline replacement project. As far as I know, there was no public discussion of the project.
Euclid I think pipelines are on thin ice as far as public policy goes.
It was once suggested (more jokingly than anything else) that there were two pipelines running into some city - one "high test" and one "regular."
The public doesn't realize how many pipelines there are currently operating. Odds are they are driving around with fuel delivered to their area via pipeline. All natural gas arrives via pipeline.
During my last visit to Michigan, my bike ride along a popular trail was cut short by a major pipeline replacement project. As far as I know, there was no public discussion of the project.
I am not referring to public opinion putting pipelines on thin ice. I am referring to regulatory policy of the public sector doing that.
EuclidI think pipelines are on thin ice as far as public policy goes.
Murphy SidingWhere's all that electricity to run those cars going to come from?
Where's all that electricity to run those cars going to come from?
Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.
EuclidI expect what will result will be fuel prices rising so high that it self-rations and greatly reduces consumption. Where that leads, I don’t know.
The breakeven for syndiesel from renewable sources was a market cost of about $2.33 in the 1970s, and very little in the underlying technology has changed. The supply architecture for liquid hydrocarbon fuels has been silently and demonstrably 'safe' in the eyes of the public for many decades; only the lack of an effective alcohol that is 'pipeline-capable (e.g. butanol) has kept the ethanol trains running.
Fuel and its transport are economic, not practicable, concerns.
There are ways to implement an ECP conversion effectively within a reasonable period. They hinge in part on easy control conversion in equipment as designed, and in part on the ability of the equipment to do BITE whether actively running as ECP or not. I think it is ECP as unfounded-mandate a la PTC that produces much of the nominal resistance to the idea.
In my opinion the 'big oil train disaster' was solved, and rather effectively, by the degassing requirement -- if there is an explosive component to undiluted bitumen in tank trains, someone will have to point it out to me; the question then becoming what transportation-safe diluents would satisfy the economic criteria I mentioned earlier.
Convicted One Euclid I assume oil by rail might be more cost effective if there is not sufficient oil shipping needed to justify the cost of building a new pipeline on routes where rail shipping is available as an alternative. And don't forget that in 20 years when most cars are electric, who will be willing to pay the cost of dismantling a disused pipeline? At least with rail you can use the rail bed one last time as you dismantle it.
Euclid I assume oil by rail might be more cost effective if there is not sufficient oil shipping needed to justify the cost of building a new pipeline on routes where rail shipping is available as an alternative.
And don't forget that in 20 years when most cars are electric, who will be willing to pay the cost of dismantling a disused pipeline? At least with rail you can use the rail bed one last time as you dismantle it.
I think pipelines are on thin ice as far as public policy goes. For oil by rail, the ice is even thinner. Most people believe that oil by rail is less safe than oil by pipelines. Therefore, one more big oil train disaster could lead to a national ban on oil by rail.
After the bitter lesson of Lac Megantic, the oil by rail industry was facing calls for a safer practice. An ECP brake mandate was prepared, but the industry stopped it by offering to make tank cars more crashworthy, thus solving the safety problem of derailments. But gradually the news leaked out that the stronger tank cars were only stronger at very low speeds such as maybe 10-20 mph. They made no difference at road speeds typical of oil trains.
I expect what will result will be fuel prices rising so high that it self-rations and greatly reduces consumption. Where that leads, I don’t know. Can we be a society that simply does not travel?
EuclidI assume oil by rail might be more cost effective if there is not sufficient oil shipping needed to justify the cost of building a new pipeline on routes where rail shipping is available as an alternative.
SD60MAC9500 Euclid Asside from job creation, what about the cost effectivness of oil by pipe versus oil by rail? Surely this was decided by the hard economic facts and not just ballyhooing. When it comes to hydrocarbon type such as heavy crude. Rail is only competitve when its undiluted. Rail cost increase substanially with diluted (dilbit) heavy crude. Field production also plays a role. High production fields favor pipeline due to cost. The cost to transport crude is currently in the 5 dollar/barrel range. Rail is about double that.
Euclid Asside from job creation, what about the cost effectivness of oil by pipe versus oil by rail? Surely this was decided by the hard economic facts and not just ballyhooing.
Asside from job creation, what about the cost effectivness of oil by pipe versus oil by rail? Surely this was decided by the hard economic facts and not just ballyhooing.
When it comes to hydrocarbon type such as heavy crude. Rail is only competitve when its undiluted. Rail cost increase substanially with diluted (dilbit) heavy crude. Field production also plays a role. High production fields favor pipeline due to cost. The cost to transport crude is currently in the 5 dollar/barrel range. Rail is about double that.
That is my assumption, that is that shipping by pipe would be the most cost effective. My comment above was in response to this comment:
Posted by vsmith on Monday, June 14, 2021 12:41 PM
Euclid said: Yes, transit speed notwithstanding, I thought it was well established that oil by pipe was more cost effective than oil by rail. If not, why were they building a pipeline instead of instituting oil by rail? It is also widely claimed that oil by pipe is safer than oil by rail in terms of death, injury, property damage, and oil spills.
I assume oil by rail might be more cost effective if there is not sufficient oil shipping needed to justify the cost of building a new pipeline on routes where rail shipping is available as an alternative.
Euclid Asside from job creation, what about the cost effectivness of oil by pipe versus oil by rail. Surely this was decided by the hard economic facts and not just ballyhooing.
Asside from job creation, what about the cost effectivness of oil by pipe versus oil by rail. Surely this was decided by the hard economic facts and not just ballyhooing.
Convicted OneCrude via pipeline only travels at 8 mph ...extending transit time considerably, and has to be temperature maintained in order to flow.
On the other hand, the pipeline can currently be constructed with very effective nanoinsulation, the pumping power requirements can be quite small (and of course there is no effective 'tare weight' to be carried or empty cars to be returned) and it is relatively easy to 'slug' different (compatible) liquids in a pipeline separated by some pig arrangement. I had thought the relative operating economy of pipeline over rail transport to have been decided in the 19th Century and only more strongly demonstrated since then -- where you have dedicated unidirectional flow at continuous high rate, sufficient to fill capacity at 'best' flow rate, even net of construction cost the pipeline will be superior. If for some reason economical throughput needs to be greater, use multiple lines; I suspect the cost-effective refining capacity is more a critical-path restriction than line throughput. Remember that "8mph" is continuous, whereas... so far... nobody is running monster trains of 8 miles or more of oil cars, separated by draft gear, requiring individual tank connections to charge and discharge.
The other 'ringer' here is that there's likely some diluent used to make the crude in question liquid enough to flow in a cost-effective pipeline structure, and presumably there is some infrastructure to deliver that to the pipeline 'head' and then use it gainfully at the destination refinery. To me it would make little if any sense to 'recycle' the diluent either by pipeline or train.
Euclidwhat about the cost effectivness of oil by pipe versus oil by rail.
Crude via pipeline only travels at 8 mph ...extending transit time considerably, and has to be temperature maintained in order to flow.
SD70DudeI remember telling you our water wasn't for sale. But that wasn't personal, I would have said it to anyone, and it wasn't meant as an insult.
And I did not take it as an insult, I found it mildly humorous in fact.
The thread seemed pretty tame to me, which surprised me after I left for several hours only to come back and find it had gone MIA. Inspiring me to wonder if the climate had heated up after I departed.
York1 BaltACD Kalmbach overlooks the one cardinal rule that applies to railroading. Every interface railroads have with the general public brings politics into the equation. That may be, but the problem is that the comments become personal, and often stray from the original railroad topic to the political side.
BaltACD Kalmbach overlooks the one cardinal rule that applies to railroading. Every interface railroads have with the general public brings politics into the equation.
That may be, but the problem is that the comments become personal, and often stray from the original railroad topic to the political side.
I didn't see any of the allegedly offending political or personal posts. But over time, there has been an intolerance on here (bias?) against any deviation from an unregulated economic system, as though the latter were some divinely revealed, absolute truth. If moderation were more open, they would also say economics is another strengst verboten topic.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.