Western Railroad Discussion > More oil cans on the way?

"President Joe Biden's revocation of the March 2019 permit enabling the construction of the Keystone XL pipeline will likely result in more crude-by-rail volumes, according to industry observers. But how much volumes will increase could largely depend on the price that heavy crude oil can fetch in the global market."


https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/keystone-pipeline-cancellation-means-crude-145130251.html

 

So which one will be the better plan. Keep trying to build that pipeline or build a refinery in Canada that can handle the Tar Sands oil?

PHall Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> So which one will be the better plan. Keep trying
> to build that pipeline or build a refinery in
> Canada that can handle the Tar Sands oil?

I could never find out why a refinery could not be built in Canada. Do they lack the technology to work the tar sands?

There are 8 refineries in western Canada which refine all of their needs and export about 40% of their output to other Providences and the states.

Could be where its at and the need for more capacity there. Might be more cost effective to ship it south and refine it there to what is needed.

Canadians have discussed oil, oil refining, oil shipments, oilexports, etc for many years. Different provinces have different views. 

PHall Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> So which one will be the better plan. Keep trying
> to build that pipeline or build a refinery in
> Canada that can handle the Tar Sands oil?

If they build a big refinery in say Alberta where all the current needs are already being met, then would you rather see trainloads of Gasoline, Jet A, and Diesel fuel moving by rail?
The heavy crude is a lot less flammable.

SOO6617 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> PHall Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > So which one will be the better plan. Keep
> trying
> > to build that pipeline or build a refinery in
> > Canada that can handle the Tar Sands oil?
>
> If they build a big refinery in say Alberta where
> all the current needs are already being met, then
> would you rather see trainloads of Gasoline, Jet
> A, and Diesel fuel moving by rail?
> The heavy crude is a lot less flammable.

I TOTALLY disagree with your last sentence!!!!!!

needles_sub Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> PHall Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > So which one will be the better plan. Keep
> trying
> > to build that pipeline or build a refinery in
> > Canada that can handle the Tar Sands oil?
>
> I could never find out why a refinery could not be
> built in Canada. Do they lack the technology to
> work the tar sands?

I think in the early years refineries were generally built by the production but most newer refineries seem to have been built where the demand is rather than where the oil is.

HotWater Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> SOO6617 Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > PHall Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > So which one will be the better plan. Keep
> > trying
> > > to build that pipeline or build a refinery in
> > > Canada that can handle the Tar Sands oil?
> >
> > If they build a big refinery in say Alberta
> where
> > all the current needs are already being met,
> then
> > would you rather see trainloads of Gasoline,
> Jet
> > A, and Diesel fuel moving by rail?
> > The heavy crude is a lot less flammable.
>
> I TOTALLY disagree with your last sentence!!!!!!

Why?

EricSP Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> HotWater Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > SOO6617 Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > PHall Wrote:
> > >
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> >
> > > -----
> > > > So which one will be the better plan. Keep
> > > trying
> > > > to build that pipeline or build a refinery
> in
> > > > Canada that can handle the Tar Sands oil?
> > >
> > > If they build a big refinery in say Alberta
> > where
> > > all the current needs are already being met,
> > then
> > > would you rather see trainloads of Gasoline,
> > Jet
> > > A, and Diesel fuel moving by rail?
> > > The heavy crude is a lot less flammable.
> >
> > I TOTALLY disagree with your last
> sentence!!!!!!
>
> Why?

Not all heavy crude is the same, that's why.
The heavy crude from California is usually not classified as Flammable. It's usually classified as Combustable which is why the Oil Cans trains on the SP didn't require buffer cars.
But the heavy crude from the Northern Plains and Alberta is so heavy that they have to thin it with solvents to make it flow and the resulting mixture is normally classified as Flammable and thus requires buffer cars.

Here's an extensive thread from 2014 about volatility in various grades of crude oil, combustability,  packing groups and the requirements for each, the impact of adding bitumen, etc.  Many of the same people on this thread discussing many of the same issues.

Following the unpleasantness in Lac Megantic, there was an effort to do something about shipping oil by rail.

https://www.trainorders.com/discussion/read.php?1,3289189,3289189#msg-3289189

PHall Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> But the heavy crude from the Northern Plains and
> Alberta is so heavy that they have to thin it with
> solvents to make it flow and the resulting mixture
> is normally classified as Flammable and thus
> requires buffer cars.

So you haven't heard of the latest plan to ship heavy crude from Hardesty, Alberta. They plan to remove all the diluent from the crude reducing it to a hot but heavy state, and then load it into coiled insulated tank cars for the rail movement to Port Arthur, Texas where they will steam heat it and then add the diluent back in and pipe it to the nearby refineries.

SOO6617 Wrote:
------------------------------------
>
> So you haven't heard of the latest plan to ship
> heavy crude from Hardesty, Alberta. They plan to
> remove all the diluent from the crude reducing it
> to a hot but heavy state, and then load it into
> coiled insulated tank cars for the rail movement
> to Port Arthur, Texas where they will steam heat
> it and then add the diluent back in and pipe it to
> the nearby refineries.

Forgive me, but doesn't that increase cost..???

Posted from Android

SOO6617 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> PHall Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > But the heavy crude from the Northern Plains
> and
> > Alberta is so heavy that they have to thin it
> with
> > solvents to make it flow and the resulting
> mixture
> > is normally classified as Flammable and thus
> > requires buffer cars.
>
> So you haven't heard of the latest plan to ship
> heavy crude from Hardesty, Alberta. They plan to
> remove all the diluent from the crude reducing it
> to a hot but heavy state, and then load it into
> coiled insulated tank cars for the rail movement
> to Port Arthur, Texas where they will steam heat
> it and then add the diluent back in and pipe it to
> the nearby refineries.

You mean like they've been doing with California heavy crude for about 150 years now?

ns1000 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> SOO6617 Wrote:
> ------------------------------------
> >
> > So you haven't heard of the latest plan to ship
> > heavy crude from Hardesty, Alberta. They plan
> to
> > remove all the diluent from the crude reducing
> it
> > to a hot but heavy state, and then load it into
> > coiled insulated tank cars for the rail
> movement
> > to Port Arthur, Texas where they will steam
> heat
> > it and then add the diluent back in and pipe it
> to
> > the nearby refineries.
>
> Forgive me, but doesn't that increase cost..???

Undoubtedly, but it must be worth it. ConocoPhillips signed a contract with CP/KCS and USD Group for the movement of up to two 120-car trains per day starting July 1st, 2021.
The Hardesty facility is complete and the Port Arthur facility is under construction.

This contract is likely the reason that CP has restarted the upgrading of more AC4400CWs to AC4400CWMs and has purchased 40 retired UP SD9043MACs intending to upgrade them to SD70ACUs. Of course the planned move of the Hapag-Lloyd container business from the Port of Montreal to the Port of Saint John, NB will also require a few additional locomotives. 

It is the time now, for you investors, to buy stock in CP and CN, as this business grows, and will be steady. It will grow profits, and put money in your pockets as well. I saw this and invested immediately after Biden screwed the 10k plus workers out of jobs building the Keystone XL Pipeline. 

I suspect a lot of folks who were making pipe for the remaining section of the Keystone XL line will soon be making pipe for the ten thousand miles of fresh water pipe that America desperately needs.  Not just "old cities" like Chicago and Detroit need new water pipes, places like Phoenix, Fort Lauderdale, Houston, etc need them at least as much.

amtrak34east Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I saw this and
> invested immediately after Biden screwed the 10k
> plus workers out of jobs building the Keystone XL
> Pipeline. 

Jobs that would - at most - last 5 years then disappear? Quite a tragedy indeed!

ODevalDragon Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> amtrak34east Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > I saw this and
> > invested immediately after Biden screwed the
> 10k
> > plus workers out of jobs building the Keystone
> XL
> > Pipeline. 
>
> Jobs that would - at most - last 5 years then
> disappear? Quite a tragedy indeed!

Hello? That is what a construction job is!! You move from project to project. Once one is finished you move to the next one. That shouldn't be difficult to understand...

Allen

Posted from Android