Bobby Ogage posted:

As the new North Dakota and Keystone pipelines go into operation, the BNSF will likely see a significant decline in its tank car trains. Those who fancy the BNSF's tank car trains should consider loading up on photos of them before the decline. I am wondering if Warren Buffet will selloff the BNSF because transporting oil is likely the railroads largest income source.

Your thoughts???

My thought is; just how did you arrive at THAT deduction? There are many oil train loading facilities that will NOT be served by either of those two pipelines.

Plenty of tank car unit trains rolling past me.  I'd say they are the second most common I see, after unit grain trains.  They aren't hauling crude oil.

Kent in SD

We have them in Seattle all the time, The state is fighting against it, but there is a company that says its going to build a port for oil shipping I think.

mike g. posted:

We have them in Seattle all the time, The state is fighting against it, but there is a company that says its going to build a port for oil shipping I think.

Yep, I see oil trains all the time...

If I had the money I would buy a boat load of them, I am going have to down the road as most of my layout is oil stuff.

We even get oil trains rolling through the SF Bay Area all the time.  I don't know where they are coming from or where they are going.   There are large refineries the north Bay Area in Richmond and several other cities.  The oil for these facilities mostly arrives by ship.

NH Joe

And if the pipeline network gets congested, trains can take the product.

Train can take oil to almostany refinery, pipe cannot.

And there might be less oil from Mexico in the future.

America's largest supplier of "outside" oil is Canada.  Even with the completion and use of the XL Pipeline, trainloads of oil will still be crossing into U.S. refineries.  True, the XL and other new pipelines will transport a immense amounts of crude, but, existing pipelines (in the hundreds) still do the same every day.  And, with the introduction of the XL line usage, older, "end of lifetime"  pipelines will be shutdown due to reduction of maintenance costs and spill hazards.  That said, the overall amount of crude transported by way of pipelines will increase, but not, IMHO, by the huge amounts the media reports.  So, the usage of tank trains will still be required, for this and all the reasons stated in prior posts.

Jesse    TCA 

The oil stocks that the pipelines will transport are currently transported by train, so it stands to reason that the number of tank car trains will decline.

Its rare but they have rolled by here.Both ns and csx have tank trains.Heck I have even saw the tropicana juice train here.Due to hurricane fran and the flooding it caused.It was rerouted through my area.Which is monroe n.c.

Remember that the Keystone XL pipeline is to transport Canadian crude to ports on the Gulf of Mexico to be sent overseas.  That oil is not going to be for domestic consumption.

Stuart

Stuart posted:

Remember that the Keystone XL pipeline is to transport Canadian crude to ports on the Gulf of Mexico to be sent overseas.  That oil is not going to be for domestic consumption.

Stuart

 

To be correct, the Keystone XL pipe line, owned by the TransCanada Corporation, is to run from Alberta, Canada 1180 miles to Steele City, Nebraska, where the connection will be made to "other pipe lines" for distribution to various refineries along the US gulf coast.

Please provide factual support for your statement, "That oil is not going to be for domestic consumption.".

Tank car builders still have a backlog of thousands of units to make that have been ordered by the rr's so I don't see much of a decline in product being shipped by rail. 

Taken from Railway Age News...

“The current energy environment is sluggish, at best, and we noted a slowing in orders and assemblies of tank cars. As a result, we are lowering our 2016 tank car deliveries estimate from 20,000 to 18,000 and then to 8,000 cars in 2017. From 2018 to 2021, demand for tank cars will gradually rise from 9,000 units to 15,000.”

Casey Jones2 posted:

Tank car builders still have a backlog of thousands of units to make that have been ordered by the rr's so I don't see much of a decline in product being shipped by rail. 

Absolutely. Plus BNSF just recently began offering "special incentives" (discounts?) to their shippers of ethanol, and other flammable liquids other than crude oil, if those ships start using the newest/safest "crash worthy" tank cars.

Lets remember folks,,,,,,,all those various "tank car trains" you see are NOT necessarily crude oil!

On another note, it is interesting that at one location in the US, the environmentalists were all up in arms, and protested against all those crude oil tank trains, yet right adjacent to their location of protests, is an ethanol unloading depot. Unbelievably, NOT A WORD OF PROTEST was made towards the ethanol tank cars!!!!!!

Hot Water posted:

Stuart posted:

Remember that the Keystone XL pipeline is to transport Canadian crude to ports on the Gulf of Mexico to be sent overseas.  That oil is not going to be for domestic consumption.

Stuart

To be correct, the Keystone XL pipe line, owned by the TransCanada Corporation, is to run from Alberta, Canada 1180 miles to Steele City, Nebraska, where the connection will be made to "other pipe lines" for distribution to various refineries along the US gulf coast.

Please provide factual support for your statement, "That oil is not going to be for domestic consumption.".

I think what we have is the different groups, each telling .... half the story.

While it's true that little of the crude will be exported, much of the refined products of those particular refineries will be.

Which is why Canada is still considering other pipeline projects. They want to be a larger supplier of crude to the world, not just more refined products via the U.S.

Me? I love tank cars! Especially those really nice Atlas ones. Some modelers enjoy long trains of black tankers. I prefer the older, various private name tankers. It's all good. 

645 posted:

One other advantage tank trains have for transporting oil is that they are in effect "rolling warehouses". I've heard sometimes a loaded tank train will be held somewhere enroute (for example: if a refinery can't take it for a few days) and/or re-routed to a different destination while in transit if the supplier finds a buyer who is willing to pay more or needs a trainload sooner than a competitor can supply one. I think Trains magazine covered some of these details in an article they ran a few years ago on this subject. Point here is that one cannot "reroute" a pipeline to a different destination unlike a train so the railroads offer more flexibility here. I'm sure product in a pipeline can be rerouted long as there are available pipelines going to a particular destination but it still won't offer the same flexibility rail does.

One of these "rolling warehouse" tank trains of over 100 cars was parked on a siding in the heart of Northern CA's wine country for several months about 6 months ago.  I believe that the tracks were owned by a short line railroad.  The train is gone now.

It caused a huge controversy with the community and the environmentalists.  The train was  unguarded and just about anyone could have damaged the cars causing a spill or worse, blown it up.  Napa enacted several new laws because of this requiring railroads to provide advance public notice before parking loaded tank trains in the community and requiring guards, etc.  I suppose it one thing to park a loaded tank train in unpopulated mid-west farm country and another to park it in the center of CA's wine growing region which is also one of the busiest tourist areas in the state.  The Napa valley gets millions of tourists every year from all around the world to visit the many wineries.  

NH Joe

I hope to see an O gauge model of a dot 111 tank car.

NEW HAVEN JOE,

I believe you will find that the tank cars you are referring to in the Napa Valley area, were actually propane carrying cars. No wonder the residence were all wound up!

Bobby Ogage posted:

As the new North Dakota and Keystone pipelines go into operation, the BNSF will likely see a significant decline in its tank car trains. Those who fancy the BNSF's tank car trains should consider loading up on photos of them before the decline. I am wondering if Warren Buffet will selloff the BNSF because transporting oil is likely the railroads largest income source.

Your thoughts???

 

Bobby ... I heard similar on a few cable news channels ... most consider tank cars dangerous and it goes beyond the mindset of the EPA snowflakes..

Joe G posted:

Bobby Ogage posted:

As the new North Dakota and Keystone pipelines go into operation, the BNSF will likely see a significant decline in its tank car trains. Those who fancy the BNSF's tank car trains should consider loading up on photos of them before the decline. I am wondering if Warren Buffet will selloff the BNSF because transporting oil is likely the railroads largest income source.

Your thoughts???

 

Bobby ... I heard similar on a few cable news channels ... most consider tank cars dangerous and it goes beyond the mindset of the EPA snowflakes..

More "fake news"?

Funny that the "EPA snowflakes" don't seem to be concerned with OTHER tank cars/trains of various flammable products, such as ethanol, propane, gasoline, diesel fuel, and lube oils.  OH,,,,,,and lets not forget the shipments of military explosives such as bombs and rockets!

We have LOTS of tank cars rolling by here off of the CSX main. Almost 50 percent of the traffic... however not sure how many are crude oil... mostly Liquefied Petroleum Gas and Corn Starch.

Some of the nasty stuff I have not seen:

Ethylene Oxide; Vinyl Chloride; Anhydrous Hydrofluoric Acid; Anhydrous Ammonia; Metallic Sodium Chlorine; Liquefied Hydrocarbon Gas; and Chlorine. And I am glad I have never seen!

Most other freight cars are lots of coal, grain, and autoparts.

This may because we are on State Park, and there is a restriction? Not sure...

Hot Water posted:

NEW HAVEN JOE,

I believe you will find that the tank cars you are referring to in the Napa Valley area, were actually propane carrying cars. No wonder the residence were all wound up!

Hot Water - You are correct.  It was 80 cars of gas.  Here is a link to the story:

http://www.sonomanews.com/news...ger-on-a-rail-siding

http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.c...-smart-train-tracks/

Thanks for the correction.

NH Joe

Since combustion of fossil fuels of any sort (particularly coal, but also oil, less so for natural gas) produces airborne microparticulates that contribute to and are a major cause of vascular and heart disease, lung disease and probably cancer as well, our children and grandchildren can hope that all this oil and similar products will be replaced by some combination of solar, wind, fission and fusion, fuel cell and geothermal based electricity over the coming decades. 

Most of the airborne pro-inflammatory dreck comes from automobiles and trucks burning gasoline or diesel.  Another major source is coal burning power plants.  Hopefully automobiles and trucks will be all electric and all robotic by the end of the century or sooner.  These technical advances will make the issue moot at some point in the future.  And our health, our time wasted in traffic, and the cleanliness of our lungs and  environment will be all the better for it.   New technology will help us deal with whatever comes next, whether it be a new ice age or rising seas, or both.  Good news all around, except for the manufacturers of internal combustion engines and coal mining equipment.   And, unfortunately, coal miners, oil drillers, taxi and truck drivers.  But they are a relatively small proportion of the workforce and hopefully the changes will occur slowly enough so adjustments can be made without too much pain.

Funny that the "EPA snowflakes" don't seem to be concerned with OTHER tank cars/trains of various flammable products, such as ethanol, propane, gasoline, diesel fuel, and lube oils. OH,,,,,,and lets not forget the shipments of military explosives such as bombs and rockets!

possible fake news, believe I heard it on CNN..

Landsteiner posted:

Since combustion of fossil fuels of any sort (particularly coal, but also oil, less so for natural gas) produces airborne microparticulates that contribute to and are a major cause of vascular and heart disease, lung disease and probably cancer as well, our children and grandchildren can hope that all this oil and similar products will be replaced by some combination of solar, wind, fission and fusion, fuel cell and geothermal based electricity over the coming decades. 

 

Most of the airborne pro-inflammatory dreck comes from automobiles and trucks burning gasoline or diesel.  Another major source is coal burning power plants.  Hopefully automobiles and trucks will be all electric and all robotic by the end of the century or sooner.  These technical advances will make the issue moot at some point in the future.  And our health, our time wasted in traffic, and the cleanliness of our lungs and  environment will be all the better for it.   New technology will help us deal with whatever comes next, whether it be a new ice age or rising seas, or both.  Good news all around, except for the manufacturers of internal combustion engines and coal mining equipment.   And, unfortunately, coal miners, oil drillers, taxi and truck drivers.  But they are a relatively small proportion of the workforce and hopefully the changes will occur slowly enough so adjustments can be made without too much pain.

" Warren Buffet will selloff the BNSF because transporting oil is likely the railroads largest income source."  I think Warren and Company will simply go into hauling 'WALL' parts!    Russ

Bobby Ogage posted:

.....I am wondering if Warren Buffet will selloff the BNSF because transporting oil is likely the railroads largest income source.

 

Incorrect. Here's a list showing 3rd quarter 2016, for example, for BNSF. Consumer products are by far the major cargo. Oil is considered an "industrial product" and is included in that category, but included there also are products such as plastics, ore, sand and gravel, and steel, among others. So oil itself would be a much smaller number.

Revenues (in millions) Consumer Products $ 1,666  

Industrial Products 1,219

Agricultural Products 1,095

Coal 953

Other Revenues 234 

To those of you who responded, "I see tank car trains all the time!" or similar:

You won't see a decline NOW, because the pipelines haven't been built yet! Some guy signed a paper negating a paper some other guy signed a few years ago. We've still got years of court battles and legal hassles before any pipelines will ever be built, if ever.

You also won't see a decline NOW, because the price of crude has come up, making it profitable to pump shale oil again. Shale oil is transported by trains because there are no pipelines.

Also, the assertion that most pollution comes from cars is incorrect. Last I heard, and this was some time ago, only 2% of total air pollution came from vehicles. The rest is from industry and power generation.

On the subject of power generation if you think we will ever be able to get away from fossil fuels, keep in mind the wind doesn't always blow, the sun doesn't always shine, fission plants melt down so nobody wants them in their back yards, and fusion is still science fiction.

645 posted:

Casey Jones2 posted:

Tank car builders still have a backlog of thousands of units to make that have been ordered by the rr's so I don't see much of a decline in product being shipped by rail. 

It's not simply a case of being able to move product. Part of the reason for new tank cars is the DOT-111 tank design is being phased out (not allowed) in Canada anymore as a result of the Lac-Megantic incident so an improved tank car design  is required now. The USA is following suit but at a slower pace.

http://news.gc.ca/web/article-en.do?nid=1104139

So the newer design tank cars (DOT-112 and DOT-117 specification - both are cited in the link below) are more for replacing older DOT-111's and not necessarily increasing available transportation capacity.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DOT-111_tank_car

But here's the latest news on the retrofitting...

"The manufacturers acknowledged that the expected retrofit boom for tank cars has not materialized, with Rader noting that capacity put in place to retrofit non-compliant tank cars has not delivered a return on investment. All parties on the panel echoed the potential for a spike in demand for regulation-compliant tank cars and by association retrofit tank cars as the rail industry approaches the 2021 date by which all tank cars for crude must meet the new guidelines (DOT 111 legacy cars are already being phased out of service in the U.S. and especially in Canada)."

Matt01 posted:

While it's true that little of the crude will be exported, much of the refined products of those particular refineries will be.

Which is why Canada is still considering other pipeline projects. They want to be a larger supplier of crude to the world, not just more refined products via the U.S.

A common misconception is that increased domestic oil production lowers the cost of gasoline and other petroleum products in the U.S.. Petroleum is a commodity, and an international one, and trades at prices based on current worldwide valuations. It ships where the best price can be found. It has been conclusively shown that over the years that increased domestic oil production has no effect at all on domestic oil prices. The premise of the "drill baby drill" cry was nonsense. The natural gas market has different economics.

It is true that a good deal of the petroleum products from refineries is sold to international markets. In fact, the U.S. exports an amount of petroleum products that is fully half of all that is imported! 

"In 2015, the United States imported approximately 9.4 million barrels per day (MMb/d) of petroleum from about 88 countries. Petroleum includes crude oil, natural gas plant liquids, liquefied refinery gases, refined petroleum products such as gasoline and diesel fuel, and biofuels including ethanol and biodiesel. About 78% of gross petroleum imports were crude oil.

In 2015, the United States exported about 4.7 MMb/d of petroleum to 147 countries. Most of the exports were petroleum products. The resulting net imports (imports minus exports) of petroleum were about 4.7 MMb/d."

"Also, the assertion that most pollution comes from cars is incorrect. Last I heard, and this was some time ago, only 2% of total air pollution came from vehicles. The rest is from industry and power generation."

Most people in the USA live in cities.  In cities in developed nations like the USA, most particulate air polllution (which is the most damaging to health) comes from automobiles and trucks/buses.  In the less developed world, most air pollution comes from heating, cooking fires, etc.  Depends on which pollutants you worry about, of course, and where you are measuring it. 

There is little or no doubt that getting rid of the last bits of combustion microparticulates in our breathable air will yield health benefits.  Burning oil is so 20th century .  Burning coal and wood is so 19th century.  As for wind, it is always blowing offshore.  As for solar, it is always sunny in some large segment of the USA.  Distribution of electric power is more the issue for whether wind or solar are going to be the wave of the future. That and cost for infrastructure, and the efficiency of solar as better solar cells are developed.  And storage.  But the internal combustion engine and coal fired plants are dead, lethal technologies  because they cause terrible health and environmental effects is my suggestion. Reviving the coal industry is not going to happen thanks be, due to economic issues. It would be a health and environmental disaster.

Landsteiner posted:

"Also, the assertion that most pollution comes from cars is incorrect. Last I heard, and this was some time ago, only 2% of total air pollution came from vehicles. The rest is from industry and power generation."

Most people in the USA live in cities.  In cities in developed nations like the USA, most particulate air polllution (which is the most damaging to health) comes from automobiles and trucks/buses.  In the less developed world, most air pollution comes from heating, cooking fires, etc.  Depends on which pollutants you worry about, of course, and where you are measuring it. 

 

There is little or no doubt that getting rid of the last bits of combustion microparticulates in our breathable air will yield health benefits.  Burning oil is so 20th century .  Burning coal and wood is so 19th century.  As for wind, it is always blowing offshore.  As for solar, it is always sunny in some large segment of the USA.  Distribution of electric power is more the issue for whether wind or solar are going to be the wave of the future. That and cost for infrastructure, and the efficiency of solar as better solar cells are developed.  And storage.  But the internal combustion engine and coal fired plants are dead, lethal technologies  because they cause terrible health and environmental effects is my suggestion. Reviving the coal industry is not going to happen thanks be, due to economic issues. It would be a health and environmental disaster.

There are still a fair amount of trains moving crude.  More than pipelines reducing rail traffic, the foreign producers dropped prices to compete.  East coast refinerys have to buy the crude at the best price to remain competitive.

There seems to be some misunderstanding relative to DOT 111 cars.  They are only being phased out of flammable service. Shippers may continue to use 111's for non-flammable products. 

Curt

Petroleum fuels will be the ruling energy sources in the world until a more NATURAL energy efficient fuel replaces it. That alternative fuel is nuclear energy. A nuclear powered steam engine may become a reality.

I am predicting that in the future there will be less tank car trains, so those observations of tank trains today are not relevant. Regardless of where the future oil from Canada and North Dakota wind up, every gallon in a new pipeline is one less gallon in a future tank car.

BNSF said these pipelines will not affect crude by rail.  In fact the railroads have been operating and planning on these pipelines being constructed since day 1.  

Landsteiner posted:

" As for wind, it is always blowing offshore.  As for solar, it is always sunny in some large segment of the USA.  

OK great, but I happen to live about 1,200 miles from the closest ocean (and for me that's Hudson Bay.)  It's notoriously overcast here in winter--the time we most need electrical power.  It's also generally not very sunny at night here, and at this latitude night can last a long time about a quarter of the year.

Kent in SD

"OK great, but I happen to live about 1,200 miles from the closest ocean (and for me that's Hudson Bay.)  It's notoriously overcast here in winter--the time we most need electrical power.  It's also generally not very sunny at night here, and at this latitude night can last a long time about a quarter of the year."

No doubt there may be a few places where natural gas heating and fuel cell powered cars will make sense .  However it also may be the case that the day  will come that solar and wind power will be so inexpensive and so compellingly important for health that  the main issue will be the cost of distribution to parts of the country where these sources alone are not sufficient. 

Two23 posted:

Landsteiner posted:

" As for wind, it is always blowing offshore.  As for solar, it is always sunny in some large segment of the USA.  

OK great, but I happen to live about 1,200 miles from the closest ocean (and for me that's Hudson Bay.)  It's notoriously overcast here in winter--the time we most need electrical power.  It's also generally not very sunny at night here, and at this latitude night can last a long time about a quarter of the year. 

Kent in SD

Lots of potential for wind generated power in SD - ocean not necessary, have significant wind across the prairie. Here's some information from the Dept. of Energy (we need to take a look - this kind of information will probably disappear with the new administration). 

South Dakota Wind Resource Map and Potential Wind Capacity

Enlarge image

This South Dakota wind map shows the wind resource at an 80-m height. If you have a disability and need assistance reading the wind map, please email the webmaster.

Enlarge image

This South Dakota wind map shows the wind potential at a 110-m height. Download a printable map.
* Grid Granularity = 400 sq km
* 35% Gross Capacity Factor (GCF) ~= 30% Net Capacity Factor (NCF)¹If you have a disability and need assistance reading the wind map, please email the webmaster.

Enlarge image

This South Dakota wind map shows the wind potential at a 140-m height. Download a printable map.
* Grid Granularity = 400 sq km
* 35% Gross Capacity Factor (GCF) ~= 30% Net Capacity Factor (NCF)¹If you have a disability and need assistance reading the wind map, please email the webmaster.

Enlarge image

The chart shows the potential megawatts of rated capacity above a given gross capacity factor (without losses) at varying hub heights. Download a printable chart.If you have a disability and need assistance reading the chart, please email the webmaster.

The U.S. Department of Energy's Wind Program and the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) published an 80-meter (m) height wind resource map for South Dakota. This map is a key component of understanding the state's potential wind capacity from a development, policy, and a jobs and economic development impact perspective.

About the 80-Meter South Dakota Wind Resource Map

The wind resource map shows the predicted mean annual wind speeds at an 80-m height, presented at a spatial resolution of about 2 kilometers that is interpolated to a finer scale for display. Areas with annual average wind speeds around 6.5 meters per second and greater at 80-m height are generally considered to have a resource suitable for wind development. Utility-scale, land-based wind turbines are typically installed between 80- and 100-m high although tower heights for new installations are increasing—up to 140 m—to gain access to better wind resources higher aloft.

The average wind speeds indicated on this map are model-derived estimates that may not represent the true wind resource at any given location. Small terrain features, vegetation, buildings, and atmospheric effects may cause the wind speed to depart from the map estimates. Anyone planning to estimate energy production potential should seek expert advice or detailed wind resource assessments.

South Dakota Potential Wind Capacity at 110-m and 140-m

The potential wind capacity maps show land area with a gross capacity factor¹ of 35% and higher, which may be suitable for wind energy development. AWS Truepower produced the wind resource data with a spatial resolution of 200-m, which was binned into 20-kilometer (km) grid cells. Map shading shows the amount of area with the potential to be developed within each 20-km cell: the darker the color, the larger the potentially developable area within each cell. Areas that are excluded from development by law, such as wilderness areas and national parks, and other areas unlikely to be developed, such as urban areas and water bodies, are shown in grey. Potential wind capacity maps are provided for a 2014 industry standard wind turbine installed on a 110-m tower, which represents plausible current technology options, and on a 140-m tower, which represents near-term future technology options.

Site evaluation for wind projects should be coordinated with appropriate authorities and should consider potential effects on local resources and land uses, including but not limited to impacts to wildlife, sound, the visual environment, radar, aviation, safety and other local priorities. Various federal agencies have authorities relating to the siting and permitting of wind plants, depending on the location and resources that might be affected. For example, potential impacts to air traffic and military missions are evaluated by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and U.S. Department of Defense Siting Clearinghouse through the FAA's airspace obstruction evaluation process. Potential impacts to migratory birds and endangered species are evaluated by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Other federal agencies that may have a role include, but are not limited to, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers for projects impacting wetlands and waterways and the Bureau of Land Management or U.S. Forest Service for projects on federal lands. Similar state, tribal, and local agencies may also have jurisdiction.

The chart shows another way to understand the potential wind capacity above a given gross capacity factor at 80-, 110-, and 140-m tower heights for South Dakota. The table lists the estimates of land area with a gross capacity of 35% and greater at 80-, 110-, and 140-m heights and the potential wind capacity from development of the "available" land area after exclusions. In the table, "installed capacity" shows the potential megawatts of rated capacity that could be installed on the available land area. Areas excluded for wind development by law as well as urban areas and water bodies are not included (see Wind Resource Exclusion Table for more detail).

These maps and wind potential estimates resulted from a collaborative project between NREL and AWS Truepower. The U.S. Department of Energy's WINDExchange initiative supported these mapping efforts.