A Texas energy company is hoping to build an 1,100-mile underground pipeline to transport a highly volatile type of crude oil from North Dakota’s Bakken oil fields through 17 Iowa counties en route to Illinois.
And they expect approval in Illinois? Or Iowa?
Curiously, they don’t mention South Dakota at all, which is a big ol’ state between the North Dakota oil fields and the northwest corner of Iowa. Since this proposed pipeline would cut across the Missouri River, the James River, the Big Sioux River, and the Big Sioux aqua fir, this would effect the drinking water of 2/3 of SD’s population.
Funny - that’s the same thought I had when they wanted to bring that big pipeline right over Nebraska’s part of the aquifer. But it is only drinking and irrigation water. You can’t stop progress. I guess they want us to drink root beer?
Suppose the pipeline is built into Southern Illinois. What effect on rail movements of N. Dakota crude?
The end point is far enough south that a spur to a Mississippi River barge terminal is an option. Such a terminal would be far enough south for year round river navigation.
The usual environmental public pressure groups are all ready making a fuss. What odds would you give on licensing of this proposed pipeline, its construction and going into operation?
Someone explain to me again, why you can’t just build a refinery in N.D. near the oil wells?
I suspect it is because of the fact that little of the oil is consumed in ND, and the refined product would still have to be shipped to areas of greater consumption.
I get the feeling we are just about a cat’s whisker from getting the XL approved.
True, but wouldn’t you be transporting a lot less refined product than you would crude oil?
In pipelines, carrying solely one grade of product greatly reduces loss, as the first bit of any shipment that is sent through a pipe is contaminated by the last shipment, and must be re-refined.
In regard to rail, you still have to ship everything out, it is just in different forms. While petro coke, paraffin and asphalt are more stable, gasoline, diesel, LPG, and jet fuel are more explosive then the crude. So, it is a mixed bag in terms of safety.
The other thing is the great cost and time it requires to set up a new refinery versus the easy way, keeping logistics largely the same and accepting trains instead of tankers.
Article in the paper this morning says that the pipeline will skirt SD’s largest city, Sioux Falls, and run right across the edge of Harrisburg, a few miles south, where I work.
There are some who believe that the controversy over oil-by-rail argues in favor of new pipelines. That would be true if the only concern was public safety from fires and explosions. But the underlying objection to shipping oil is environmental safety and planet safety from the effect of simply using the oil that will be transported.
So the underlying opposition disfavors pipelines as much as oil by rail. And it is far easier for the opposition to stop pipelines than to stop oil by rail. New pipelines must jump lots of hurdles in a prolonged regulatory approval procedure, so there is plenty of opportunity for the opposition to block the process. Rail, however, is already established with the regulations in place. The physical plant and the rates are ready for the traffic. So my bet would be that this new pipeline does not have a chance of being built unless the political climate changes.
Here is a link to the press release on the proposed pipeline being built from N. Dakota to Patoka, IL.
Patoka is not necessarily the crossroads of the nation. Patoka is where the proposed line from N. Dakota would hook into an existing natural gas line that would be converted to transport crude.
Very true In an article in the Des Moines Register the other day about oil trains going through Iowa, some spokeswoman for an environmental group said they were against oil moving by rail. Then she added they were also against oil moving by pipeline. She didn’t day anything about moving it by tank trucks, but I’m sure they would probably be against that, too.
They were just against using oil, period.
I haven’t read the article linked. It’s in yesterday’s DM paper, on the front page, as well. (I’m usually one to two days behind when it comes to reading the papers.) It has the proposed map and shows the end point with, “Connections to railroad tank cars and existing pipeline.” (Carl, someone in the media didn’t use, “tankers or tanker cars.”)
If you&#
Same here with fracking in PA. “They” are against use of any fossil fuel, “They” dont want wind farms,“They” want to tear down the few hydroelectric dams that are here in the state,“They” dont want farmers using there own Methane from cows,“They” dont want solar farms,“They” dont want new light rail or even the bike path. The Amish are more progressive then these Luddites who would rather have us sit in the dark.
Quoting Jeff; " She didn’t day anything about moving it by tank trucks, but I’m sure they would probably be against that, too." She possibly didn’t say anything about moving oil by truck because she is unable to think outside the box that currently is aware the problems of oil by rail and pipeline.
The core of the oil-by-rail opposition has made it clear that they prefer a moratorium on shipping Bakken oil by rail until it can be made safe. They also have called for the ultimate solution of “leaving Bakken oil in the ground.”
Of course, such a moratorium would be a foot in the door to the permanent solution of leaving Bakken oil in the ground. Once such a moratorium is in place to work on safety, the work will never be finished because perfect safety is an unattainable goal. Never attaining the perfect safety solution will prolong the moratorium indefinitely, and Bakken oil will be left in the ground.
Pipeline projects must get permits from energy regulatory agencies that mainly have to show need (the subject pipeline already has signed commitments for its capacity) and that it will not create waste (they will point out that pipeline is more energy efficient than rail or truck). They will also need environmental permits that will need to show that land excavation and water disturbances can be mitigated, population effects are minimized, wildlife is not threatened, spill controls and clean-up plans are in place, and that the proposal is a reasonable alternative. The regulatory agencies can specify modifications to bring the application into compliance, but once the permit applications are complete, accurate, and do not violate applicable law, then the agency has no recours
This might happen if the Green Party obtained a majority in Congress. The thing is, the last time I checked, they have not elected a single member to Congress.
Several positive points that oil and gas companies found about shipping by rail was: it is available now, it is cheap, it allows for a change of destination en route not available in pipelines, and it is safe. Too many pipelines are not built so that will take years just to start digging, pipelines are fixed point to point for the most art, and is safe. New building has environmental hurdles and red tape to contend with, railroads already exist. Markets for the product probably be changed by the time the pipeline is built and it just might never be used (my conjecture)!