Transporting crude oil or refined petroleum products using pipelines is more practical and more economic when the circumstances are a longterm contract for large amounts of a single grade or variety of crude oil, or a single refined product like gasoline, diesel or jet fuel. So the pipeline can be operated for a long period of time, flowing product 24/7, without the interruptions that would be needed to change whatever product is being flowed.
But the flip side of that coin is exactly where crude-by-rail or shipping other refined petroleum products by rail is more practical and economic than pipelines.
Think about the spot market for crude oil and refined products, of one-off transactions for near-term delivery. The spot market amounts to only a small percentage of the crude and refined products that are traded, worldwide, but it has an outsized role in determining market prices, according to the McKinsey&Company's "Energy Insights": https://www.mckinseyenergyi...ce-desk/spot-market/
Demonizing Warren Buffett and the Buffett-owned BNSF Railway's "oil trains" is a self-defeating exercise.. It's a bullet fired directly into one's own foot. These oil trains are as American as the Stars and Stripes and Apple Pie, and frankly, I doubt that any of us would be able to go online here at Pennock's and bloviate, without them.
That's my take.
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 04-12-2022).]
Of course rail is the preferred method in some situations, otherwise it would not exist. But to suggest that there are often cleaner, more efficient alternatives is certainly not "demonizing" the railroad.
Rail has its place, as do trucks and ships. From personal experience, rail is often the preferred means of transport for lumber, but it can take weeks and sometimes over a month to get a car of lumber from the PNW to Phoenix. When I worked for J.B.Hunt, intermodal was their most profitable division, but a lot that comes from Asia goes straight from the ship to a truck, then out to places like El Paso.
[This message has been edited by williegoat (edited 04-12-2022).]
All that Canadian Oil that might eventually have been shipped via pipeline will continue to get transported via rail and truck to us. Buffet will continue to make amazing profits. Anyone wonder why he didn't get on the Trump train?
Elections have consequences and rewards. Someone please advise me on which method of transportation of crude oil has the lesser environmental impact..............
That strikes me as "demonizing" of Warren Buffett and the Buffet-owned BNSF Railway's crude-by-rail operations. It's from the previous page of this forum topic. And if it's not outright, full-scale demonizing, then it's borderline demonizing, or quasi-demonizing. Perhaps even crypto-demonizing.
If it's not quasi-demonizing, I don't know what is.
It's like the social media posts that were discussed in that Reuters report that I posted. What report? The report that I "CP'd" onto the end of the previous page (page 4) of this forum topic. It's at the very end of page 4.
This is not to depreciate or gainsay any of the remarks that just came in from "williegoat", accompanied by a photo of a container ship. Nay, those remarks stand. They must stand. They are indispensable to a full understanding. They are sine qua non.
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 04-12-2022).]
Transporting crude oil or refined petroleum products using pipelines is more practical and more economic.........................
You could have and should have stopped with the quote.
There is nothing to compete that is anywhere nearly as efficient or safer than pipelines for transporting crude oil products.
The effort here is obviously to get us all to buy and drive EVs. While I have no issues with an EV if, it meets the needs of the population as a whole, there are those who can't use EVs to get the job done. Forcing the US into this will cost Biden a chance at a second term, I have no doubts.
Many thought how he handled the COVID 19 Pandemic would determine his political future, I stated before and will restate it here, the Economy will determine who is in the Oval Office next.
Rams
[This message has been edited by blackrams (edited 04-13-2022).]
Originally posted by blackrams: . . . There is nothing to compete that is anywhere nearly as efficient or safer than pipelines for transporting crude oil products.
The effort here is obviously to get us all to buy and drive EVs. While I have no issues with an EV if, it meets the needs of the population as a whole, there are those who can't use EVs to get the job done. Forcing the US into this will cost Biden a chance at a second term, I have no doubts.
Many thought how he handled the COVID 19 Pandemic would determine his political future, I stated before and will restate it here, the Economy will determine who is in the Oval Office next.
On the whole, I agree with this statement. There's more here that I agree with, than not.
Parenthetically, I don't understand why the spell checker or grammar checker that's in effect is flagging the word "than" in my previous sentence. This always happens. But I want to return to a previous statement, from page 4 of this thread:
quote
Originally posted by blackrams: All that Canadian Oil that might eventually have been shipped via pipeline will continue to get transported via rail and truck to us. Buffett will continue to make amazing profits. Anyone wonder why he didn't get on the Trump train? . . .
I consider this one a suspect statement. I think it assigns an over-sized and largely imaginary role to Warren Buffett, vis-Ã -vis the cancelation of the Keystone XL pipeline, than the reality of that history and of the current and likely future situation fairly warrants. An over-sized and largely imaginary role for Warren Buffett as an influencer upon the decision to cancel Keystone XL, and an over-sized and largely imaginary role for Warren Buffett as a particular beneficiary of the decision to cancel Keystone XL.
I think this (second) statement is "cap". That's a slang word that I first encountered only yesterday, from MSNBC anchor Ari Melber. It means "hype". Which I guess is another slang word. Certainly, an informal word. "Exaggerated." "Over-blown."
I stand upon the Reuters article from February, 2021, which—thanks to my efforts—is now comfortably ensconced for all to see at the very end of the preceding page (page 4) of this thread. I've not seen a more credible-looking analysis that contradicts this one from Reuters. (Have "you"..?)
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 04-14-2022).]
Perhaps "fierosound" or one of the forum's other "petroleum-smart" members can correct me, if I'm mistaken, but I think an important aspect of (some of) the opposition to Keystone XL is connected with the kind of oil that would have been imported into the U.S. via Keystone XL. And what kind of oil is that? Oil from the Athabasca oil sands in Alberta province. I just saw it described as the single largest potential source of more oil on the planet.
An undated report from NASA (it looks like it was published in 2011, judging from the footnotes) included this:
quote
Because it takes energy to mine and separate oil from the sands, oil sands extraction releases more greenhouse gases than other forms of oil production. The mines shown in the image emitted more than 20 million tons of greenhouse gases in 2008— a product of both oil production and electricity production for the mining operation. The effort produced the equivalent of 86 to 103 kilograms of carbon dioxide for every barrel of crude oil produced. By comparison, 27 to 58 kilograms of carbon dioxide are emitted in the conventional production of a barrel of crude oil.
I agree... OK, it was a cheap shot, but just tongue in cheek.
The largest part of your argument is, well, I don't know the exact terminology, but it ignores a lot of stuff.
Namely that Canadian oil, no matter where it comes from doesn't stop getting shipped into the United States. The US takes about 75% or so of Canada Oil Sand. (from memory), and Canada doesn't have the refineries capable of refining the oil sand stuff. Dirty Oil, Clean Oil, we still get it even if one method of getting it is taken away.
The XL was just one safer, more efficient way of getting the oil here. Shutting it down simply costs the consumer more in the end. And I would argue is a net loss for environmental stuff because the other methods of transporting the oil is more dangerous.
..., and Canada doesn't have the refineries capable of refining the oil sand stuff.
Popular misinformation.... but Alberta (4.3 million population) is producing 3.7 million/bbls/day more than we can possibly refine and use. And in current circumstances with this government we don't have enough pipeline capacity to Eastern Canadian refineries either. NIMBYism (Not In My BackYard) is popular in Canada and also keeps refineries from being built.
It's a heavy oil like what the US imports by tanker from Venezuela into the Texas gulf region refineries. Biden seems to be fine with that.
[This message has been edited by fierosound (edited 04-17-2022).]
The US is the largest importer of this product and it's silly to not buy and transport from one of our best partners by the most effective means. To make those purchases even more difficult and costly even harder is to deny that a pipeline is less safe than other forms of transportation to our production facilities. All of this (IMHO) to force Americans to go to EVs. Honestly, I don't care what other folks drive but, the EV technology has not progressed to the point that I want one. Maybe someday but, we aren't there yet and it's just plain stupid to try and force this issue while inflation is running rampant. My humble opinion.
Rams
[This message has been edited by blackrams (edited 04-17-2022).]
A caveat from my previous statements about not caring about what other folks and EVs. To be clearer, I don't care what other folks drive but, I do care if they aren't paying their fair share of road maintenance. Based on what I've heard, seen and a bit of research on the "internet", EVs are not paying a fair share for the upkeep of roads.
Although not convinced on how to make it equitable for all, I'm thinking the only real fair way would be some kind of mileage tax. How that's going to be accomplished is up to others but, currently even if only driven locally, EVs aren't paying their fair share IMHO.
