Eastern Railroad Discussion > WSJ: Background on unit oil trains

The Wall Street Journal has an article about the evolution of unit oil trains, and why the Journal expects more oil will be moved by rail. In short, the economics of oil by rail are far too compelling to ignore. Good article.

Couple of major take aways

--13 major crude trans-load sites now in North Dakota
--you can move a terminal from an idea to loading trains in under a year
--$50,000,000 is a good starting point for a loading point and access track (or a mile of Keystone XL)
--rail is up to 20% of all oil moved in the US

Harold Hamm of Continental Resources, a long time critic of rail safety and an investor in the HH pipeline, takes a shot at rail safety. Nothing new there.

Subscription site, but should be available on the internet

http://online.wsj.com/articles/dangers-aside-railways-reshape-crude-market-1411353150?mod=WSJ_hp_EditorsPicks



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/23/14 02:24 by Lackawanna484.

I think a lot of important investors need to realize the economics have changed. It was axiomatic that almost all crude oil moved by pipeline, tanker and barge, but not rail. At least not in the post war era.

These people seem to have missed the fact that tank cars now weigh 143 tons, not 130 tons, and AC diesels can move 16,000 ton trains without significant problems. Crew districts are longer, too. That adds up to big time productivity gains.

There are many other advantages for using rail instead of pipelines. The market seems to know that.

At any rate, I doubt if we are going to see new oil pipelines between ND and the refineries out on the East and West coasts.