No problem Sam. I figured you just misunderstood me to be agreeing with the pipeline delay. I did not really make my personal position clear when I posted the reasons I was seeing for the delay.
According to the article, it will take 12 to 18 months for the new EIR. Only after that will the State Department make a decision.
"‘The process requires a new Environmental Impact Statement for the new proposed route and based on prior projects similar in scope we expect it will take 12 to 18 months to complete,’ the official told Reuters.
“The U.S. State Department still must give the final approval to the project because it crosses an international border. But the Obama Administration will likely not have to deal with the politically charged issue until after the 2012 election because of the time it takes to study a new route.”
Link to GATX “Tank Train” webpage - so glad to see it’s still listed:
Note that it says unloading rates is 3,000 gals. perminute, and a 90-car train can be unloaded in less than 5 hours. So with 3 parallel tracks of just over a mile long - each for 1/3 of the train, my 4 hypothetical 272 car trains daily theoretically could be loaded and unloaded in a 6-hour window, so that part of the cycle can be set.
As to the rest, if it’s a 2,000 mile 1-way route (this is confusing to me - see this webpage for a lot more details than I ever knew before, esp. about Phases 1 and 2 having been completed, and the ‘stitch together’ nature of Phases 3 and 4, etc., though the usual disclaimers apply: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keystone_Pipeline ), let’s look at some possible average speeds, cycle times, and hence the implications for equipment needs:
Avg. speed 20 MPH ==> 100 hrs. (4.2 days) each way + 0.25 day to load/ unload = 4.45 days 1-way x 2 ways = 8.9, say 9 or 10 days, hence 9 or 10 x 1,087 cars, etc. as above.
Avg. speed 30 MPH ==> 66.7 hrs. (2.8 days) each way + 0.25 day to load/ unload = 3.05 days 1-way x 2 ways = 6.1, say 6 or 7 days, hence 6 or 7 x 1,087 cars, etc. as above.
Avg. speed 40 MPH ==> 50 hrs. (2.1 days) each way + 0.25 day to load/ unload = 2.35 days 1-way x 2 ways = 4.7, say 5 days, hence 5 x 1,087 cars, etc. as above.
Keep in mind that per the above, each trainset would be roughly $110 million for cars and $130 million for locomotives, for a tota
I just have one question for those opposed to the pipeline. Whose smokestack do you want it to go up? One here in N America where it is regulated, monitored, and kept reasonably clean, or in China where anything goes(up the stack)??
But when it goes up the stack in China, we are told that it reduces global warming. I think it has something to do with whirlpools spinning backwards over there.
http://www.tgdaily.com/sustainability-features/57022-chinese-coal-use-slows-global-warming
If Leonard DiCaprio and Julia Louis-Dreyfuss are against it, it must be stopped! [;)]
Move it west by 100 miles or so… Wyoming will take the Right of Way money!
In reality, how many accidents happen per year? 1? Those are usually caused by extenuating circumstances, like the Yellowstone River leak or construction activity hitting the line. So, chances are, during the life of the line, odds are a leak will not happen.
Just to put it in perspective, On sunday, I got a call from one of our customers that buys our liquids. They had a reported leak, and needed me to quit pumping into the line. I did, and within an hour I got a call back that it was a false alarm. Moral of the story, if a leak should happen, the operators know right away and are on top of the situation.
I understand the concern of contaminating the ogalala aquifer, but Nebraska doesn’t know what they are missing out on. Right of way Leases will give a much needed financial boost to both the state and private landowners.
Paul great numbers. What I have read indicates the HP needed to move 10 train sets ( of X cars ) at 20 MPH is only slightly less than the HP needed to move 5 train sets at 40 MPH. So the reduction in tank cars needed would certainly reduce the overall costs of tank cars but requires the same costs for locomotives… 5 train sets would have ~ 2-1/2 + times HP to move the cars at 50 MPH. Probably would require both mid train and end of train DPU. If DPU were placed at 1/3 and 2/3 locations of the train quick breakdown of the train at the terminals would be possible for the 3 parallel tracks. Just uncouple ahead of the 1/3 and 2/3 DPUs which would speed up positioning tank cars maybe saving 1 - 2 Hrs in and out ?? Would need a qualified conductor / engineer and maybe one additional engineer or a quick van trip ?
Granted that the empty car trains probably would return at 50 - 60 MPH even if they ran loaded at 20 MPH so savings are not as much as RT trains that have same approximately same trailing tonnage.
Thanks for the compliment, and for making that point. Said another way: A ‘traditional’ railroad practive would run at 20 MPH to save costs by using about 1/2 less locomotives than at 40 MPH. But that will use twice as many cars to achieve the same throughput, and so will have twice as many trains out on the line at the same time, each with half as many locomotives - and 2 x 1/2 = 1, or roughly the same total number of locos ! (i.e., not much savings there, and almost twice as much car expense). Which is why John Kneiling was so obsessed with that element - it’s not that the oil on the train needs a fast trip, but it’s less costly that way, which is more profit for the railroad.
Kneiling also had a dismissive expression for the usual railroad approach to this kind of opportunity back then - it was nothing more than “How do we route the pipe ?” - which meant that the competitive rail movement of the oil wasn’t even being considered or attempted.
Also a good point about the extra qualified personnel to perhaps help separate the train into segments and spot them on each unloading track. Although those arrangements are very site specific, after further thought I ennvision that my suggested 272+ car train would use pairs of locos spaced out in blocks of 30 to 35 cars or so = about 8 or 9 blocks per train, each 2,600 ft. or so long (1/2 mile), all DPU’s and close enough that radio Locotrol and ECP
Two possible game-changing ‘wild cards’ on this came to light today:
- Reversing the flow of the Seaway pipeline from Cushing, OK to the Gulf Coast; and,
- Building just the inside-the-US portion of the Keystone XL pipeline, also from Cushing to the Gulf.
See this article in the NY Times’ on-line edition at:
- Paul North.
That’s pretty much what I wrote earlier in this thread, nice to see someone with pipeline operating experience validate my guesses.
- Erik
With the TCP delay Canada is now seriously thinking of going to the west coast, lots of talk and interest, a sidebar to the tarsands and as large as it is in Alberta, the largest part of the tarsands lies in Saskatchewan which is yet untapped.
Pipes font just leak. There is usually some kind of outside force. Sadly, the most common is dozer operators not paying attention and cutting it with the ripper. Usually causing an explosion. 
A new refinery isn’t economical, the owner would never make thier money back on the investment for a new refinery. Pipe is cheaper to get it to an existing refinery.
Also, did anyone notice, that as soon as the delay was announced, gas prices spiked way up?
Big article on that in yesterday’s (Thurs., Nov. 17, 2011) Wall Street Journal. The analysis there was that oil (and hence gas) prices have been artificially low because of the glut of oil at Cushing, OK. However, reversing the flow of the Seaway pipeline and installing the Cushing to Gulf Coast segment of the Keystone XL pipeline will solve that problem (for the oil producers), and allow the price to be more nearly in line with market levels elsewhere (bad for refiners). There was also a follow-on article back on page C12 or so about how diesel and other ‘middle distillates’ is the stuff that’s really in demand,and even more expensive. It’s all a complictaed web, connected in many places . . .
- Paul North.
In this new scenario, does this mean Canada will just accept the status quo with existing U.S. pipelines handling their tar sands output? Or will Canada push ahead with their own plans to sell their oil to new markets in anticipation of their expanded output?
Link to a much shorter on-line version of the article I referenced above (that notably doesn’t include the mention of the inaugural 103-car unit train of crude from North Dakota last month which is in the print version . . . ):
“Oil Jumps on Pipeline Deal” by Chip Cummins:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203699404577041901234224874.html
See also “Oil Refiners After the Pipe Dream” by Liam Denning, also published Nov. 17, 2011, at:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204517204577042102007987684.html
- Paul North.
Paul,
Strangely, it seems like the news of killing the pipeline project has morphed into news about eliminating an oil transport bottleneck out of Cushing, OK. I don’t get the connection unless it is just to put market happy-face on killing the tar sands pipeline.
I can’t tell if this turnabout is the actual news media thrust, or if it is just something happening in this thread.
The line thru the Sand Hills is only an extra capacity short-cut to existing Keystone lines that already connect Canada with Oklahoma. Additionally they were going to continue the line from Oklahoma to Texas, but for now may simply reverse the flow direction on some one else’s idle line between those points.
But if they needed the extra capacity of the short-cut line through the Sand Hills, how does the “reverse flow” link from OK to TX solve the problem of losing the needed extra capacity of the line through the Sand Hills?