[WildRose]

Keith, which incident was that? It looks like Hinton.

[Keith_McClary]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('WildRose', 'K')eith, which incident was that? It looks like Hinton.

[ROCKMAN]

Rose - Not that it should make anyone feel less concerned about the increase in oil transport via rail but folks have been at risk for decades from much more dangerous materials moving by train. I live in Houston and there are many thousands of rail cars moving thru the area daily carrying dangerous chemicals. At the moment accidents involving oil catch the big headlines because it's the hot button de jour. And then add the tens of thousands of tank trucks on the road everyday carrying gasoline and a myriad of poisonous chemicals. Maybe the MSM doesn't provide enough coverage but you would think you'd see a lot more of such stories.

What amazes me is how some folks seem surprised that the system is so adaptable to changes. It the US just the sale of hydrocarbons exceeds $1 trillion/yr and globally well over $4 trillion/yr. And that's just the tip of the iceberg when you consider the multiplier effect on the economies. Whether one agrees or not with the system one shouldn’t ignore the financial momentum. Good or bad, it is going to drive the system to wherever it’s going.

[electro-rail]

[quote="Plantagenet"]There is a new proposal afoot to ship Canadian tight oil and tar sands oil to Asia via a rail connection through Alaska.

It is not really "new" in the sense that it was conceptually begun almost 6 years ago…when the proponents of the Game-changing railway first learned that pipeline and supertanker spill risk in BC coastal waters would never fly with most all British Columbians.

We can thank the Coastal First Nations and their leader Art Sterritt for this (among others)


Canada is having trouble getting the "first nations" to agree to a pipeline and oil port to the Canadian west coast.

That should say "Alberta's Oil Patch", instead of "Canada"….


A new idea is to build a rail link into central Alaska to connect with the trans-Alaska pipeline.

Correct but not new. IT is an old idea. (to me), however, we need something to replace the 3 pipelines that will never get built…the ~2 M bpd KM TMX, ENB NG and probably even the TC KXL dilbit capacity total (NET 1.4 M bpd Bitumen)

This new state-of-art purpose built ESR Railway or road will be able to ship more than this to Pacific tidewater quite easily….12-15 trains a day, about 50% of what goes by my home town on the CP Rail mainline track

The pipeline is already built and oil terminal infrastructure already exists at Valdez.

Correct. and they have social license to operate. The key factor. and some spare room on the pipeline.

The rail right-of-way can follow the existing Alaska Highway and connect the Canadian rail system to the Alaska rail system.

NOT correct. A highway is usually a poor route for rail as the ruling grades are too high for trains to climb. under 1% grade is ideal. The best well studied and surveyed route (since 1947) is via the northern route via valley bottoms and is further enhanced by much mineral resources along the way…

Thank you for bringing this to everyone's attention, although for the last 5 years we have concentrated on local social license issues….asking first….not announcing grand plans without locals having their tentative yellow light….given with standard caveats…and regular info updates etc….

We prefer being entirely under-estimated and considered fools for even attempting … to take on such a venture.

It's great.

But true innovative entrepreneurs are hopelessly convinced their pet visionary plans will win out at the end of the day…

I guess we'll see.

[ROCKMAN]

Rose - Took a while but I finally found the answer: At what speed does oil move through a pipeline?

"Product moves from three to eight miles per hour depending upon line size, pressure, and other factors such as the density and viscosity of the liquid being transported. At these rates, it takes from 14 to 22 days to move liquids from Houston, Texas to New York City."

So even with the loading/unloading times a train oil can move much faster. So given the volatility of the oil market getting oil delivered in several days instead of 2 to 3 weeks can be a big advantage.

[WildRose]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('ROCKMAN', 'R')ose - Took a while but I finally found the answer: At what speed does oil move through a pipeline?

"Product moves from three to eight miles per hour depending upon line size, pressure, and other factors such as the density and viscosity of the liquid being transported. At these rates, it takes from 14 to 22 days to move liquids from Houston, Texas to New York City."

So even with the loading/unloading times a train oil can move much faster. So given the volatility of the oil market getting oil delivered in several days instead of 2 to 3 weeks can be a big advantage.

[Pik]

Regarding the speed of oil through a pipe;
If you were to take the proposed Northern Gateway pipeline as an example, it will be 1,100 kilometers long with a diameter of 91 centimeters which means that at any one time it will contain roughly 4.5 million barrels of diluted bitumen. If 525,000 barrels are to arrive in Kitimat everyday that would mean a speed of about 5.3 kilometers per hour. It would take 1000 rail cars arriving daily in Kitimat to match that kind of volume. Rail cars might be more versatile but when it comes to sheer volume rail cars can't compete with pipelines.

[Tanada]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Pik', 'R')egarding the speed of oil through a pipe;
If you were to take the proposed Northern Gateway pipeline as an example, it will be 1,100 kilometers long with a diameter of 91 centimeters which means that at any one time it will contain roughly 4.5 million barrels of diluted bitumen. If 525,000 barrels are to arrive in Kitimat everyday that would mean a speed of about 5.3 kilometers per hour. It would take 1000 rail cars arriving daily in Kitimat to match that kind of volume. Rail cars might be more versatile but when it comes to sheer volume rail cars can't compete with pipelines.

[ROCKMAN]

"...but when it comes to sheer volume rail cars can't compete with pipelines." Actually more to the point: the rail cars can easily out preform the pipeline because the rail lines and terminals exist and the pipeline doesn't. Can't move any oil through a pipeline that hasn’t been laid. And those rail cars can be shipped to the other side of the continent if local demand goes down. That pipeline is buried forever…it ain’t moving when the volume declines. And there's another factor folks don't think about: that pipeline has to have almost $400 million worth of oil pumped into it before it starts delivering at the other end. And that $400 million in revenue is delayed for many years if not decades before the line is decommissioned and that oil is flushed out.

[Pik]

The rail lines might already exist but as far as terminals go there isnt any in Kitimat or Prince Rupert they would have to be built. The line between Kitimat and Terrace would need a substantial upgrade before it could handle that kind of traffic and the line to Prince Rupert is already quite busy moving grain, coal and containers. Adding ten more trains per day would create a lot of congestion, there is a limit to how many trains you can put on those rails. There was a recent news story about farmers having trouble moving their grain this year, partly becuase of a bumber crop and partly due to increased oil traffic which is creating congestion and slowing things down. You cant just keep adding rail cars at some point your going to hit a wall. And its not like there is a bunch of idle tanker cars sitting on sidings, if you want to increase the amount of oil you ship by rail you're going to have to build more rail cars and they dont come cheap.

[ROCKMAN]

Pick - All true. Yet the completion on new unit train facilities are being announced monthly, long back orders for new tank cars, and yes, displacement of other cargos. Despite all the negatives you mention rail transport of oil in the US and Canada has boomed in just a few years. Not long ago east coast refineries were nearly extinct. Now, thanks to rail, those old run down refineries are prime assets. How long will the growth spurt last? I don't know but no boom lasts for ever. Just like the shale plays the oily rails owe their spurt to high prices. Just part of that robust energy dynamic universe we live in.

[Newfie]

We keep the boat in Delaware City. The refinery had been shut down for some years it has recently been rehabbed and is operating again. They built a new turn around yard to go with it. Last week it was full of brand new tanker cars.

[ROCKMAN]

Newfie – And do you enjoy the occasional aroma from the plant while you’re boating? LOL. Long ago a young inexperienced engineer was given the job of describing the rock cores that were being recovered from the well. They gave him standard fill-in-the-blank forms to use. One of the blanks was “Odor”. No odor for most of the cores until they cut an oil sand. So when he got to that core his odor description was “Smells bad”. Back in the office they rode him hard. His boss said: “Son, that doesn’t smell bad …it smells GOOOOOOOD”. True story.

So does it smell bad out there now or does it smell GOOOOOD?

[Newfie]

We'll I live in downtown Philly so all things are relative.

The refinery has large protected spaces, adjacent to nature preserves.

Stepped onto the dock Sat morning and looked up to see a bald eagle glide by. Not an uncommon sight.

So it is a mixed blessing.

[ROCKMAN]

Newfie - And I think that "mixed blessing" is what's helping to polarize the public perhaps more than it’s ever been. If you were drawing a $150k/yr paycheck from your job at the refinery you might say some odors "smell good". Or if you ran the local Walmart where many of those refinery workers spent their paychecks you might not be bothered by the smell. But if you had just retired to your dream home on the shore line just down wind you might say it stinks.

There's no "perfect solution". Never has been and never will be IMHO. And if society continues on its course of 100% black or white evaluation of our relationship with energy production the situation will just become more contentious.

[sparky]

.
A cost not mentioned as yet ,the pipe has to be filled up , that's a lot of oil just to start pumping .

I have read all those project for a Pacific outlet , I'm sure there is a lot of Asian money wanting the oil to go West
but the Atlantic route is simpler , cheaper and can be done in section
plenty of Canadian customers East
there even is the option of a seasonal loading port on the Hudson bay cutting the distance by half

[Pik]

I get the feeling that the oil and gas industry is holding a gun to our collective heads tellling us that if we don't give them pipelines they are going to put our communities at risk by trundelling upwards of ten to fifteen unit trains loaded with crude through our towns and cities everyday. In other words they are willing to place their profits above the healh and saftey of the citizens of this country. It seems to me the message that they are sending is if you reject our pipelines your town could be the next to burn to the ground!
I reject the notion that if Keystone, Kinder Morgan and Northern Gateway are not built we will just simply ship by rail. If Steven Harper expects to acheive his dream of 4 million barrels / day leaving the Alberta by 2020 he'll need pipelines, rail just isn't going to cut it.
So I wonder what if all of these pipelines are cancelled and Mr Harper cannot realize his dream. What then? Maybe the Alberta government should stop rubber stamping all these tarsands projects until we figure this out.

[Newfie]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('ROCKMAN', 'N')ewfie - And I think that "mixed blessing" is what's helping to polarize the public perhaps more than it’s ever been. If you were drawing a $150k/yr paycheck from your job at the refinery you might say some odors "smell good". Or if you ran the local Walmart where many of those refinery workers spent their paychecks you might not be bothered by the smell. But if you had just retired to your dream home on the shore line just down wind you might say it stinks.

There's no "perfect solution". Never has been and never will be IMHO. And if society continues on its course of 100% black or white evaluation of our relationship with energy production the situation will just become more contentious.

[Subjectivist]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Pik', 'I') get the feeling that the oil and gas industry is holding a gun to our collective heads tellling us that if we don't give them pipelines they are going to put our communities at risk by trundelling upwards of ten to fifteen unit trains loaded with crude through our towns and cities everyday. In other words they are willing to place their profits above the healh and saftey of the citizens of this country. It seems to me the message that they are sending is if you reject our pipelines your town could be the next to burn to the ground!
I reject the notion that if Keystone, Kinder Morgan and Northern Gateway are not built we will just simply ship by rail. If Steven Harper expects to acheive his dream of 4 million barrels / day leaving the Alberta by 2020 he'll need pipelines, rail just isn't going to cut it.
So I wonder what if all of these pipelines are cancelled and Mr Harper cannot realize his dream. What then? Maybe the Alberta government should stop rubber stamping all these tarsands projects until we figure this out.

[ROCKMAN]

Sub - I was about to make that point. In the grand scheme of things crude oil is not explosive or particular toxic if you don't swallow any of it. But as you say for ever tanker of oil there's probably 100 carrying really nasty stuff. Stuff that probably wouldn't allowed to be hauled through a city by truck. If one took the time they would probably find a higher death toll from gasoline tankers that deliver fuel to gas stations then from all rail cargo accidents...not just oil tankers.