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.
Where's all that electricity to run those cars going to come from?
Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.
Murphy SidingWhere's all that electricity to run those cars going to come from?
EuclidI 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.
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.
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 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.
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
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.
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...
.
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.
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.
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.
Actually, I was thinking more how you cannot ship coil steel or finished autos in a pipeline.
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.
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
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.
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!
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.
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
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
Of course with trains, I'll concede, enduring those horns at all hours can seem onerous.
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.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.