Western Railroad Discussion > Crude by rail gains steam, is Keystone obsolete?

The Financial Post reports that the movement of crude oil by rail is pushing the Keystone XL pipeline off the "must haves" for Canadian oil exporters. Although the pipe was a national necessity six months ago, there's a growing feeling in Canada and in the US that the pipe isn't necessary. Rail, and alternate pipes, are doing the job.

Tom Steyer, a billionaire Obama fund raiser, isn't taking any chances. In the next few weeks, he's launching an advertising campaign to point out the pipe isn't needed. The campaign, expected to run in US congressional swing districts, is expected to give cover to a likely US decision to kill the border crossing aspect of the pipeline.

That's good news for rail, as far as it goes. However, there's no question that Steyer and his allies may then focus on rail transport of oil. Similar groups have been campaigning against coal by rail transport and export terminals, so this is not unexpected.

http://business.financialpost.com/2013/09/09/keystone-oil-will-travel-through-america-not-to-america-billionaire-steps-up-anti-keystone-campaign-with-us1m-ad-push/?__lsa=9c95-bb2b

The enviro-nutters will love this. Truth is we need transportation diversity so we must have both. If you look at the article his main focus is prevention of so-called global warming including election of candidates who share his views. And you're correct: His next target would likely be rail transport of oil and other fossil fuels. His basic agenda is patently obvious.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/10/13 07:15 by Cumbresfan.

Cumbresfan Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The enviro-nutters will love this. Truth is we
> need transportation diversity so we must have
> both. If you look at the article his main focus is
> prevention of so-called global warming including
> election of candidates who share his views. And
> you're correct: His next target would likely be
> rail transport of oil and other fossil fuels. His
> basic agenda is patently obvious.

Hey, this guy is just doing what the Koch Bros. do to get other nutters to support their paticular agenda. Democracy is a messy process, as someone once said.

Economics of pipe are too good to let Keystone go. When new administration comes in it will be revived.

tomstp Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Economics of pipe are too good to let Keystone go.
> When new administration comes in it will be
> revived.

Economics of pipe are superb, as is the safety record.

The knock is that most pipes tie into just a few refineries. The shippers etc want the flexibility of rail to pick and choose where they send their oil.

It's not a lot different than the commuter express bus (very flexible) compared to fixed rail (very capital intensive but huge capacity)

...and now they say we are in "global cooling".

While a clean environment is preferable to most of us, it is silly to think we can materially impact Mother Nature and planet Earth on any scale.

Thank goodness we had global warming to melt the glaciers thousands of years ago, otherwise, Canada might not exist.

If you want to know what a guy who sells oil for a living thinks, watch this:

http://www.gowebcasting.com/events/canadian-natural-resources-limited/2013/06/19/marketing/play/stream/7497

This is Real Cusson, Senior VP of Marketing for Canadian Natural Resources. CNQ (stock ticker) is one of two or three largest producers of oil in Canada. Basically, his job is to sell oil to refineries and to arrange for its transport.

The discussion of oil starts at the 6-minute mark and transportation in general starts at the 8-minute mark.

BobE

Sounds like Policy is leading from behind, again.

Global Cooling phrase from the news, kinda OT:

Arctic sea ice up 60 percent in 2013
Published September 09, 2013
FoxNews.com

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/science/2013/09/09/arctic-sea-ice-up-60-percent-in-2013/?test=latestnews#ixzz2eW4cIlI1

They also use the phrase:
Noting the growth in ice, the Snow and Ice Data Center said that coverage was still well below the 30-year average. And the year over year growth in ice is “largely irrelevant,”

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/science/2013/09/09/arctic-sea-ice-up-60-percent-in-2013/?test=latestnews#ixzz2eW4idOPv

'It ain't over 'til it's over...'

unclebob Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> ...and now they say we are in "global cooling".


Global Cooling will be here when Al Gore and alike can make money or derive power from it.

NYSWSD70M Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> unclebob Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > ...and now they say we are in "global cooling".
>
>
> Global Cooling will be here when Al Gore and alike
> can make money or derive power from it.

ain't that the truth!

Back in the 1970s, the fear was that a new Ice Age was upon us. And that sheets of ice would extend hundreds of miles into Canada and Alaska, etc.

Chicken Little has always been around, and the media elites know how to rattle his (her?) cage. Most people won't bother to do any research beyond what they hear from Rachel Maddow or Glenn Beck, so they can be rattled pretty easily.

TCnR Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Sounds like Policy is leading from behind, again.
>
> Global Cooling phrase from the news, kinda OT:
>
> Arctic sea ice up 60 percent in 2013
> Published September 09, 2013
> FoxNews.com
>
> Read more:
> http://www.foxnews.com/science/2013/09/09/arctic-s
> ea-ice-up-60-percent-in-2013/?test=latestnews#ixzz
> 2eW4cIlI1
>
> They also use the phrase:
> Noting the growth in ice, the Snow and Ice Data
> Center said that coverage was still well below the
> 30-year average. And the year over year growth in
> ice is “largely irrelevant,”
>
> Read more:
> http://www.foxnews.com/science/2013/09/09/arctic-s
> ea-ice-up-60-percent-in-2013/?test=latestnews#ixzz
> 2eW4idOPv
>
> 'It ain't over 'til it's over...'


http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2013/09/10/climate_change_sea_ice_global_cooling_and_other_nonsense.html

Off the top of anybody's head, how long does a unit tain of crude supply a refinery?

Jim Montague
IRVINE, CA
Train and Nature photo Art

3751_loony Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Off the top of anybody's head, how long does a
> unit tain of crude supply a refinery?


Refineries vary in throughput capacity from "teakettles" that process 30,000 barrels a day or so, on up to behemoths like ExxonMobil's Baton Rouge, Louisiana refinery, which runs over 500,000 b/d. I think Motiva's rebuilt Port Arthur, Texas complex is supposed to handle 600,000 b/d if they can ever get the kinks worked out.

A "typical" Gulf Coast or inland Texas refinery is going to be capable of running 200,000-250,000 a day.

A typical unit train will carry 70,000 barrels, give or take, depending on car count and the grade of crude.

BobE

3751_loony Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Off the top of anybody's head, how long does a
> unit tain of crude supply a refinery?

Perhaps 8 hours

John Gezelius
Tustin, CA