Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Oil Trains

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Oil Trains

    http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe...1881460/page1/

    Interesting to read the idea is actually less greenhouse gas intensive than pipelines.

    CN, CP eye shipping oil to West Coast

  • #2
    I wonder which has a better safety record.


    Ottawa-Edmonton-Vancouver-Edmonton

    Comment


    • #3
      ^Per below. Whats more important, saftey, local pollution, or greenhouses gasses?

      A PIPELINE ON RAILS

      Benefits

      Uses existing rail lines from Fort McMurray, Alta., to Prince Rupert, B.C., skirting opposition to Pacific crude exports via new pipeline(s).

      Low capital costs. Each 550-barrel tanker car costs roughly $100,000; given a 10-day transit time from Fort McMurray to the West Coast, 55,000 barrels per day of capacity would cost $100-million for 1,000 rail cars, running in 100-car trains every day. CN would also need to build a terminal on the coast, at a cost of $200-million to $500-million.

      Could be put in place quickly, and scaled up or down rapidly.

      Rail, by CN’s calculation, is less greenhouse-gas intensive than pipelines.

      Downsides

      Rail is generally less efficient than pipe on large volumes.

      Canadian oil patch is built around pipe. Shipping by rail would require creation of new facilities to on-load and off-load crude, creating potential logistical problems.

      Pipelines generally have a better safety record than rail lines.

      Is as vulnerable to a proposed tanker ship ban as a pipeline, since both would load onto ships.
      Last edited by moahunter; 24-01-2011, 05:29 PM.

      Comment


      • #4
        We may have a lot of Lake Wabamun like problems along the way. CN especially has a shaky record for derailments. They are now a US company and their maintenance track record is poor. Can you imagine spills in Jasper National Park and other prestine areas. I think they can do it with strict govt regulation and in the meantime build a pipeline as well. It's something that is very important to the future of Alberta as China will purchase all we could deliver I'm sure.
        Just enjoying another day in paradise.

        Comment


        • #5
          check your facts on "US Compnay"
          Still waiting for the Arlington site to be reborn .......

          Comment


          • #6
            CN corp head office is in Montreal..
            "Do you give people who already use transit a better service, or do you build it where they don't use it in the hopes they might start to use it?" Nenshi

            Comment


            • #7
              I think the CEO is/was American. But that's not unusual. So was Donald Carty when he ran Canadian Airlines.
              ... gobsmacked

              Comment


              • #8
                Great idea if we fill those cars with refined products, not bitumen. In addition to adding value in Alberta, more volatile products are much less environmentally persistent in the event of a spill.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Canadian National Railways - Definition


                  Canadian National Railway ... CN also has extensive U.S. trackage running along the Mississippi River valley from ..... the company is no longer Canadian, being primarily owned by American stockholders.www.wordiq.com/definition/Canadian_National_Railways
                  Just enjoying another day in paradise.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    It would be great to have the refining and secondary industry before exporting but then ottawa would likely come down hard on us for creating even more pollution so we are stuck between a rock and a hard place, i think we should seperate...lol....i was surprised to read that eastern canada still imports most of their oil http://danny.damours.net/wordpress/c...n-oil-importer
                    Just enjoying another day in paradise.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      ^it makes sense, it is cheap to ship oil. Eastern Canada is too far away to build a pipeline to (it would make more sense to pipe to West Coast if we ever had that, or to the Gulf of Mexico, then put on a ship to go to East coast).
                      Last edited by moahunter; 26-01-2011, 06:45 PM.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Ya, the Martin boys could ship the oil from Vancouver or Prince Rupert thru Panama and around flying their Liberian flags. I remember an incident at Sydney harbour (NS) when they returned from S. America with a large extra cache of "stuff" under the hull, it was gone from the news the next day. "Anybody could have put that there". It helps when your Pop is the PM. lol http://www.lufa.ca/news/news_item.asp?NewsID=4769 But that's a whole new topic. Corruption in Canada, especially in Quebec.
                        Last edited by Drumbones; 27-01-2011, 01:07 PM.
                        Just enjoying another day in paradise.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          ...oil-by-rail to Prince Rupert, B.C., in same quantity as Gateway

                          Ill revive this thread:

                          http://www.timescolonist.com/cn-feds...teway-1.633861

                          OTTAWA - CN Rail, at the urging of Chinese-owned Nexen Inc., is considering shipping Alberta bitumen to Prince Rupert, B.C., by rail in quantities matching the controversial Northern Gateway pipeline, documents show.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            ^ this is why I never understood the opposition to building a pipeline. Shipping by rail is more risky of a disaster but the rail is already there and good luck telling cn or cp what they may ship. I knew that prolonged opposition to the pipeline would result in this. Someone choose a river to destroy between here and PG

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              I asked this in another thread, but I'll ask it again here; if you didn't dilute the bitumen to pipe into a tanker car but instead shovelled the molasses thick undiluted product into a water tight shipping container to ship over to China on a container ship to let them dilute and refine it on site, would that provide less of an environmental hazard then shipping a more refined product on a pipeline or via tanker cars?

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X