Shipping Oil By Rail

[Scott h]

Originally Posted by Deer Hunter

To be fair, the oil sands have been producing for over 50 years. And not a government or industry group ever thought of diversifying our market away from the USA.
But it's Notleys fault?
The rest of Canada has never had a sincere appreciation for our energy resources. It's doesn't look like it's going to change in the near future.

That really is the big question isn't it. Canada should have been shipping east and west years ago but chose to only pick the low hanging fruit by shipping only south. Now the political climate has changed everywhere and the producers are backed into a corner. I am by no means a NDP fan but all those eastern refineries could have been supplied with western oil years ago with no opposition at all.

[AndrewM]

Not all refineries can accept crude from everywhere. Usually they are designed for a specific quality.

[Scott h]

Originally Posted by AndrewM

Not all refineries can accept crude from everywhere. Usually they are designed for a specific quality.

Absolutely. Why would any refinery build coking capability to handle Alberta bitumen if it didn't have a guaranteed supply ? Eastern Canada should have had access to Alberta product years ago. They have always had plenty of refining capability and could have easily built infrastructure over the years to handle a guaranteed product that was delivered to their doorstep. Instead it was decided to ship south, the US built built the infrastructure, and now they let Canada know how much they think it's worth and how much they'll take.

[AndrewM]

Originally Posted by Scott h

Absolutely. Why would any refinery build coking capability to handle Alberta bitumen if it didn't have a guaranteed supply ? Eastern Canada should have had access to Alberta product years ago. They have always had plenty of refining capability and could have easily built infrastructure over the years to handle a guaranteed product that was delivered to their doorstep. Instead it was decided to ship south, the US built built the infrastructure, and now they let Canada know how much they think it's worth and how much they'll take.

Absolutely agree but I believe the problem out East is they found it was cheaper to bring in dirty dictator oil rather than Alberta oil. Need to stop referring it as Alberta oil and needs to be called Canada oil. Maybe people will open their eyes that we all benefit and not just Alberta.

[sourdough doug]

I'm surprised that those same people, walking around with their head up their *****, haven't suggested using the fleets of CLT-215, waterbombers, being as how they are now available.. VFRoads, would allow them to set down almost anywhere, should they experience problems....FWIW..

[Big Grey Wolf]

Saudi or North Sea oil is sold at Brent crude prices. Always around $10/bbl higher than US WTI. How can we say cheaper oil when our Western Select was selling for $12/bbl few weeks back. Thanks to Notley we are now getting $44 for Western Select when WTI is selling for $50 and World Oil Brent crude for $60/bbl.

[AndrewM]

Originally Posted by Big Grey Wolf

Saudi or North Sea oil is sold at Brent crude prices. Always around $10/bbl higher than US WTI. How can we say cheaper oil when our Western Select was selling for $12/bbl few weeks back. Thanks to Notley we are now getting $44 for Western Select when WTI is selling for $50 and World Oil Brent crude for $60/bbl.

That’s not thanks to Notley. Took her months to finally listen to Kenney and only listening because an election is right around the corner. Quality comes into account when prices are determined. Don’t forget transportation as well.

[Jamie]

Originally Posted by AndrewM

Absolutely agree but I believe the problem out East is they found it was cheaper to bring in dirty dictator oil rather than Alberta oil. Need to stop referring it as Alberta oil and needs to be called Canada oil. Maybe people will open their eyes that we all benefit and not just Alberta.

This makes sense. Words really do matter.
Well said.

[wellpastcold]

Originally Posted by CaberTosser

When I was reading up on the recent derailment at Field, B.C there were notations that it was one of the most dangerous sections of track in North America. It totally didn't make me wonder how much oil transits there nor how increasing traffic there would increase risk. It was noted that the area was challenging and demanded experienced crew.

Hey, I have an idea! Lets buy thousands of tanker cars on the taxpayer dime and send them through there full of flammable liquids for that passage running parallel to watersheds down to rivers the entire way!

Yeah except that oil by rail doesn’t go to the west coast.

[CaberTosser]

Originally Posted by wellpastcold

Yeah except that oil by rail doesn’t go to the west coast.

If you have proof of this please post it. We can always verify by asking Kokanee9, he’d know what’s in his trains. I personally doubt the claim but for the sake of another pro-pipeline perspective let’s pretend it is true. As noted in the flowing link (which I posted in the other current pipeline thread) the current Trans Mountain pipeline is running at capacity. If your claim of “no crude by rail to the west coast” is true then it means that the Lower Mainland and the Island has zero redundancy for domestic oil supply. Zero. Just the current 60 year old Trans Mountain pipeline. If there is crude by rail from Alberta getting through then of course there is some redundancy, but it’s still insufficient; the growing population there only exacerbates things. BC’s fuel consumption isn’t falling after all, it’s increasing. Fuel is being burned by David Suzuki’s maintenance crews and the jets he’s flying all over the globe, including to his recently revealed property in Australia; being green ain’t easy, ya know!

Current rail capacity in the US is being expanded along the Columbia River though, specifically to transport Bakken crude to Puget Sound area refineries.


https://achemistinlangley.net/2018/0...use-to-answer/

[wellpastcold]

Originally Posted by CaberTosser

If you have proof of this please post it. We can always verify by asking Kokanee9, he’d know what’s in his trains. I personally doubt the claim but for the sake of another pro-pipeline perspective let’s pretend it is true. As noted in the flowing link (which I posted in the other current pipeline thread) the current Trans Mountain pipeline is running at capacity. If your claim of “no crude by rail to the west coast” is true then it means that the Lower Mainland and the Island has zero redundancy for domestic oil supply. Zero. Just the current 60 year old Trans Mountain pipeline. If there is crude by rail from Alberta getting through then of course there is some redundancy, but it’s still insufficient; the growing population there only exacerbates things. BC’s fuel consumption isn’t falling after all, it’s increasing. Fuel is being burned by David Suzuki’s maintenance crews and the jets he’s flying all over the globe, including to his recently revealed property in Australia; being green ain’t easy, ya know!

Current rail capacity in the US is being expanded along the Columbia River though, specifically to transport Bakken crude to Puget Sound area refineries.


https://achemistinlangley.net/2018/0...use-to-answer/

Google is your friend.

[ditch donkey]

I was listening to the financial news on Ched about a month ago. Angus Watt said that CN Rail was putting millions of dollars into research and development into turning bitumen into pucks, allowing them to transport it into open air cars.

[Big Grey Wolf]

I live by Wabamun lake and can view main CN line to Vancouver. The number of trains, many are now unit trains with only tanker car now and almost no trains going west to BC without large numbers of oil cars. Probably a estimated 50 to 80% increase in oil going to BC by rail in last 6 months. Does not even account for CP main line.

[cdmc]

The company I work for uses CNs main with our unit train.
The most delayed track, upping usage seems impossible.
CN cannot deliver our train without being at least a week late.
I cannot see adding tanker cars is anything more than a waste of money

[6.5 shooter]

Originally Posted by cdmc

The company I work for uses CNs main with our unit train.
The most delayed track, upping usage seems impossible.
CN cannot deliver our train without being at least a week late.
I cannot see adding tanker cars is anything more than a waste of money

I agree a one lane track can only move so many cars no matter how many are waiting to leave the yard...now if the line was twinned...Maybe capacity would go up ....

[Jamie]

Originally Posted by cdmc

The company I work for uses CNs main with our unit train.
The most delayed track, upping usage seems impossible.
CN cannot deliver our train without being at least a week late.
I cannot see adding tanker cars is anything more than a waste of money

I question this as well.

I think this whole train buying thing is just a huge waste of $$ and thats one of the reasons that the feds are not interested in it.

[lmtada]

https://twitter.com/Victoria59L/stat...408704/photo/1

[Scott h]

Originally Posted by AndrewM

Absolutely agree but I believe the problem out East is they found it was cheaper to bring in dirty dictator oil rather than Alberta oil. Need to stop referring it as Alberta oil and needs to be called Canada oil. Maybe people will open their eyes that we all benefit and not just Alberta.

Absolutely. To bad a previous government hadn't put up the cash to ship oil east before pipelines became so unfashionable. It would have been less than the $4.5 billion we shelled out for a "maybe someday"

[hal53]

Originally Posted by Scott h

Absolutely. To bad a previous government hadn't put up the cash to ship oil east before pipelines became so unfashionable. It would have been less than the $4.5 billion we shelled out for a "maybe someday"

Why on earth would you expect the previous Gov't. to spend tax payer money on a pipeline??

[Scott h]

Originally Posted by ditch donkey

I was listening to the financial news on Ched about a month ago. Angus Watt said that CN Rail was putting millions of dollars into research and development into turning bitumen into pucks, allowing them to transport it into open air cars.

I wondered at that technology. Would be a kinda cool product to produce in Alberta with the bonus of utilizing waste plastic in the production. Sounds like if it did work, transport would be a breeze and a fraction of the cost. It could be transported and loaded just like coal.

[Scott h]

Originally Posted by hal53

Why on earth would you expect the previous Gov't. to spend tax payer money on a pipeline??

I guess they thought like you. The current situation is the outcome.

[hal53]

Originally Posted by Scott h

I guess they thought like you. The current situation is the outcome.

[AndrewM]

Originally Posted by Scott h

Absolutely. To bad a previous government hadn't put up the cash to ship oil east before pipelines became so unfashionable. It would have been less than the $4.5 billion we shelled out for a "maybe someday"

That's like buying an extra new truck now because one day you may not be able to purchase another new truck due to some climate change law. Hard to justify spending money now because you may need it in the future. Hindsight is 20-20.

[elkhunter11]

Originally Posted by AndrewM

That's like buying an extra new truck now because one day you may not be able to purchase another new truck due to some climate change law. Hard to justify spending money now because you may need it in the future. Hindsight is 20-20.

And it's hard to justify to the taxpayers, why they are paying now, for something they won't need for years.

[beltburner]

There is going to be multiple oil spills from the trains. This will change the view of pipelines when the data is crunched. Suddenly bc and all the greenies will be for the safer transport of oil. What a shock. It's almost like it was a game of politics.
Then a bunch of new pipelines will be built and lng will become the main source of electrical generation instead of coal. THis will boost the price of lng and a bunch of companies and people will get rich.

Then 10yrs down the road political pressure and the obscene cost of lng will get everyone looking at coal again and they will come up with an amazing new technology that all ready could be used now, to give coal a political licence to be used again.
Ahh the circle of bs

[JDK71]

Originally Posted by Big Grey Wolf

I live by Wabamun lake and can view main CN line to Vancouver. The number of trains, many are now unit trains with only tanker car now and almost no trains going west to BC without large numbers of oil cars. Probably a estimated 50 to 80% increase in oil going to BC by rail in last 6 months. Does not even account for CP main line.

I worked on the wabamun train wreck lets hope that dose not happen again everyone should look back at that

[Jamie]

Well, our NDP overlords have changed things up again..
So, with a $4 reduction in price differential that is forecast, will it still make economic sense to ship by rail? Or are we about to make a massive and expensive mistake?

https://calgaryherald.com/news/polit...8-0954652ca27d

[CaberTosser]

Originally Posted by Jamie

Well, our NDP overlords have changed things up again..
So, with a $4 reduction in price differential that is forecast, will it still make economic sense to ship by rail? Or are we about to make a massive and expensive mistake?

https://calgaryherald.com/news/polit...8-0954652ca27d

I hope they don't sign too many other stupid contracts before the election, cancellation payouts might be a real bugger if its necessary to do so. Now I've not read the contracts, but being that it was signed by the NDP generally indicates there will be virtually zero business acumen or common sense baked into it.