- Reaction score
- 18,488
- Points
- 1,360
Pipelines
- Thread starter QV
- Start date
- Reaction score
- 290
- Points
- 980
If a profit can be made.
If the pipeline is to be closed, a rail link could be established, but, unless closure is announced well in advance, there would likely be a gap in service.
I am sure that somebody, somewhere, is already doing some basic contingency planning.
Barring any other developments, waiting for Witmer (one "m", or two? I remember seeing "Witler" signs in protest videos) to be voted out would be the cheapest option, and probably not take any longer.
- Reaction score
- 290
- Points
- 980
Not sure what that means.
That oil was already being moved by rail. The inhabitants of Lac Megantic didn't want a repeat, so the line was to be moved out of town. No pipeline was in use.
I just read through Lac-Mégantic rail disaster - Wikipedia. I'd forgotten much of the story. It's a chilling read - a disaster just waiting to happen and a railway company much shadier than I realized at the time.
The line may or may not have been moved. The article was not clear, or maybe I missed something as I was reading quickly.,
- Reaction score
- 290
- Points
- 980
The mid-term election, yes.
That makes sense, as she was not elected in the last election.
- Reaction score
- 18,488
- Points
- 1,360
We wer, or at least I was, talking about rail still being an option. Your statement that “all it takes is one Lac Megantic” seemed to imply that it would cause a case for pipelines, vice allowing rail transport of petroleum products to continue.
Rerouting oil around one town doesn’t do anything to weaken the case for rail still being used at current levels, if not increased, to counter potential pipeline closures to Line 5 or others.
- Reaction score
- 290
- Points
- 980
I am not against rail at all, especially as I am a railfan, or against movement of oil by rail, especially if looney-left environmentalists and politicians keep holding up or stopping construction of pipelines and thereby leave no other option.
One advantage is the ability to upgrade lines and add locomotives and cars to handle the load without having to jump through ridiculous regulatory hoops to do so, unless a whole knew line is required. That could/should save years, but facilities still have to be planned, financed, and built and rail capacity increased. If there is a stable market, that may well be worthwhile. If a pipeline is shut down by a wayward state governor and her replacement re-opens it two years later, it would not be worthwhile and might not even be possible in that remaining two years.
It is still less efficient, and would not happen if pipelines were allowed to be fairly negotiated, planned, financed, and built.
Railways already own enough land along their rights-of-way to build additional passing sidings without requiring permission, but they need to be reasonably assured of a resulting benefit. Land would probably have to be negotiated and bought for the transloading facilities but, unless the wells are right next to a track, the oil would have to be moved from there to the transloading facility as well, either by pipeline (but a much shorter one) or road.
One advantage is the ability to upgrade lines and add locomotives and cars to handle the load without having to jump through ridiculous regulatory hoops to do so, unless a whole knew line is required. That could/should save years, but facilities still have to be planned, financed, and built and rail capacity increased. If there is a stable market, that may well be worthwhile. If a pipeline is shut down by a wayward state governor and her replacement re-opens it two years later, it would not be worthwhile and might not even be possible in that remaining two years.
It is still less efficient, and would not happen if pipelines were allowed to be fairly negotiated, planned, financed, and built.
Railways already own enough land along their rights-of-way to build additional passing sidings without requiring permission, but they need to be reasonably assured of a resulting benefit. Land would probably have to be negotiated and bought for the transloading facilities but, unless the wells are right next to a track, the oil would have to be moved from there to the transloading facility as well, either by pipeline (but a much shorter one) or road.
daftandbarmy
Army.ca Dinosaur
- Reaction score
- 26,511
- Points
- 1,160
Forget the safety issues of shipping oil by rail, think about the risks of sending it by truck, which is even more scary:
From 2018:
Canada’s pipeline bottlenecks are pushing Canadian crude prices to the lowest in at least a decade, which has made shipping oil by truck more cost effective. At Hardisty, Alberta, heavy Western Canadian Select sold for US$52.40 a barrel less than West Texas Intermediate crude futures earlier this month, the biggest discount in Bloomberg data going back to 2008.
Almost 230,000 barrels of crude were exported by truck in August, the most in data going back to January 2015, according to data provided by Statistics Canada. Every month since December, more than 100,000 barrels have been exported by truck. A typical tanker truck can carry about 250 barrels of oil, Boettcher said. Hiring a truck to ship crude from the Permian basin of West Texas to Houston, a distance of almost 500 miles, costs about US$15 a barrel one way, or double that if the tanker returns empty, said Sandy Fielden, director of research for the commodities group at Morningstar Inc.
financialpost.com
From 2018:
Desperate Canadian oil producers turn to tanker trucks to ship crude as supply glut grows
Almost 230,000 barrels of crude were exported by oil truck in August, the most in data going back to January 2015Canada’s pipeline bottlenecks are pushing Canadian crude prices to the lowest in at least a decade, which has made shipping oil by truck more cost effective. At Hardisty, Alberta, heavy Western Canadian Select sold for US$52.40 a barrel less than West Texas Intermediate crude futures earlier this month, the biggest discount in Bloomberg data going back to 2008.
Almost 230,000 barrels of crude were exported by truck in August, the most in data going back to January 2015, according to data provided by Statistics Canada. Every month since December, more than 100,000 barrels have been exported by truck. A typical tanker truck can carry about 250 barrels of oil, Boettcher said. Hiring a truck to ship crude from the Permian basin of West Texas to Houston, a distance of almost 500 miles, costs about US$15 a barrel one way, or double that if the tanker returns empty, said Sandy Fielden, director of research for the commodities group at Morningstar Inc.
Desperate Canadian oil producers turn to tanker trucks to ship crude as supply glut grows
Almost 230,000 barrels of crude were exported by oil truck in August, the most in data going back to January 2015
financialpost.com
Brad Sallows
Army.ca Legend
- Reaction score
- 6,972
- Points
- 1,040
As am I. The containment failures will be spectacular.
- Reaction score
- 7,336
- Points
- 1,160
- Reaction score
- 18,488
- Points
- 1,360
“Oh....the humanity....”
Brad Sallows
Army.ca Legend
- Reaction score
- 6,972
- Points
- 1,040
There will be plenty of other combustibles at hand to add colour to flames and exhaust.
daftandbarmy
Army.ca Dinosaur
- Reaction score
- 26,511
- Points
- 1,160
Colin Parkinson
Army.ca Myth
- Reaction score
- 9,218
- Points
- 1,160
I am certainly not seeing that low value reflected in the price at the pump.Forget the safety issues of shipping oil by rail, think about the risks of sending it by truck, which is even more scary:
From 2018:
Desperate Canadian oil producers turn to tanker trucks to ship crude as supply glut grows
Almost 230,000 barrels of crude were exported by oil truck in August, the most in data going back to January 2015
Canada’s pipeline bottlenecks are pushing Canadian crude prices to the lowest in at least a decade, which has made shipping oil by truck more cost effective. At Hardisty, Alberta, heavy Western Canadian Select sold for US$52.40 a barrel less than West Texas Intermediate crude futures earlier this month, the biggest discount in Bloomberg data going back to 2008.
Almost 230,000 barrels of crude were exported by truck in August, the most in data going back to January 2015, according to data provided by Statistics Canada. Every month since December, more than 100,000 barrels have been exported by truck. A typical tanker truck can carry about 250 barrels of oil, Boettcher said. Hiring a truck to ship crude from the Permian basin of West Texas to Houston, a distance of almost 500 miles, costs about US$15 a barrel one way, or double that if the tanker returns empty, said Sandy Fielden, director of research for the commodities group at Morningstar Inc.
Desperate Canadian oil producers turn to tanker trucks to ship crude as supply glut grows
Almost 230,000 barrels of crude were exported by oil truck in August, the most in data going back to January 2015
- Reaction score
- 13,057
- Points
- 1,010
That is a 2018 article and you know that most of what BC residents pay at the pump are taxes...
Colin Parkinson
Army.ca Myth
- Reaction score
- 9,218
- Points
- 1,160
Should have had more coffee before posting.
I used to do pipeline crossing approvals for NEB regulated pipelines under Sec. 108/109 of the NEBA. In the 20 years I did that pipeline technology advanced tremendously, particularly in the area of Horizontally Directional Drilled (HDD) crossings. What they couldn't do in the beginning, became routine near the end, as long as they had the laydown area they generally could do it. What this meant is that it removed abrupt angles from pipelines crossing under waterways and pushed pipelines deeper under the water way and further from the banks. This removed most of the major natural threats to the pipeline and most common failure areas. Another area is the improvement of sensing Pigs and tracking of them, so problem areas can be better identified and located, allowing them to be repaired prior to ruptures or leaks.
I used to do pipeline crossing approvals for NEB regulated pipelines under Sec. 108/109 of the NEBA. In the 20 years I did that pipeline technology advanced tremendously, particularly in the area of Horizontally Directional Drilled (HDD) crossings. What they couldn't do in the beginning, became routine near the end, as long as they had the laydown area they generally could do it. What this meant is that it removed abrupt angles from pipelines crossing under waterways and pushed pipelines deeper under the water way and further from the banks. This removed most of the major natural threats to the pipeline and most common failure areas. Another area is the improvement of sensing Pigs and tracking of them, so problem areas can be better identified and located, allowing them to be repaired prior to ruptures or leaks.
Brad Sallows
Army.ca Legend
- Reaction score
- 6,972
- Points
- 1,040
Biden administration weighing whether shutting down Enbridge Line 5. I suppose they actually have the authority to do so, if they choose (state of MI apparently did/does not). I am skeptical that "weighing" will lead to shutdown. Still, would be a good experiment to run, preferably if it can start before winter.
Colin Parkinson
Army.ca Myth
- Reaction score
- 9,218
- Points
- 1,160
Self-inflicted wounds
daftandbarmy
Army.ca Dinosaur
- Reaction score
- 26,511
- Points
- 1,160
It's the Michigan Governor that wants to shut it down. The Federal government disagrees, it seems:
White House says it's not considering Line 5 shutdown
"The White House pledged to discuss a key pipeline that carries Canadian crude through Michigan with the northern neighbor, stressing the U.S. isn’t considering a shutdown of the conduit the state’s governor wants shuttered.
The Canadian and U.S. governments will “engage constructively” on the future of Enbridge Inc.’s Line 5 pipeline, the White House principle deputy press secretary, Karine Jean-Pierre, said at a briefing Tuesday.
“These negotiations and discussions between the two countries shouldn’t be viewed as anything more than that, and certainly not an indicator that the U.S. government is considering shutdown,” she said. “That is something that we’re not going to do.”
The comments helped clarify the position of the Biden administration in an escalating dispute between Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer, a Biden ally, and Enbridge. Speculation the U.S. was considering a shutdown of the line that delivers propane and oil to the Midwest triggered strong criticism from Republicans at a time when energy prices are surging because of tight supplies."
White House says it's not considering Line 5 shutdown - BNN Bloomberg
The White House isn’t considering a shutdown of an oil pipeline between Canada and Michigan that the state’s governor wants shuttered, a spokeswoman said.
www.bnnbloomberg.ca
Brad Sallows
Army.ca Legend
- Reaction score
- 6,972
- Points
- 1,040
As usual, media have a hard time getting the simple details out correctly. First stories were about shutting down the pipeline, but at least got the part about "just looking at it for now" correct. The most likely candidate for triggering the new headlines is the environmental impact studies being conducted by Corps of Engineers (for proposed replacement). A flat-out statement "we support the continued existence of a pipeline" would help, but they obviously prefer not to do that if they can just refocus the discussion on the replacement studies and drop having to take a strong stand on a contentious issue.
