- Thread starter gab
- Start date
If you really want a head ache think about this. Just a few weeks ago a ethanol train derailed just North of Dubuque on the Iowa side. That is less than 30 miles apart.
Do any of you want to tell me how this is safer than completing the Keystone pipeline???
We are just moving the oil around by train. Making Warren Buffet richer. Do you think Buffet being a BIG backer of the current president has anything to do with the pipeline holdup?????
Train derailment north of Dubuque Ia.
Illinois Oil Train Derailment Involved Safer Tank Cars
Do any of you want to tell me how this is safer than completing the Keystone pipeline???
We are just moving the oil around by train. Making Warren Buffet richer. Do you think Buffet being a BIG backer of the current president has anything to do with the pipeline holdup?????
Train derailment north of Dubuque Ia.
Illinois Oil Train Derailment Involved Safer Tank Cars
Could you tell me how the Keystone pipeline is going to get N Dakota crude oil to the east coast? Had one train derail in Lynchburg Va. last year delivering oil to Yorktown Va. and there are other delivery points on the east coast too.
Warren Buffet has stated he's all for the keystone pipeline.
And last I feel it's up to land owners as to build that pipeline as it's planned. I don't like the idea that eminent domain be used on American citizens for a pipeline that's owned by another country. Your thoughts on that?
Warren Buffet has stated he's all for the keystone pipeline.
And last I feel it's up to land owners as to build that pipeline as it's planned. I don't like the idea that eminent domain be used on American citizens for a pipeline that's owned by another country. Your thoughts on that?
Most of the oil is refined around the Gulf. There are some refineries in the East but not many.
The Keystone pipe line would take a lot of oil off of railcars.
So while it directly will not carry the oil to where these trains are going it will reduce the stress on the rail infrastructure.
There where 9500 car loads of crude oil shipped by rail in 2007 and over 500,000 in 2014. I do not remember any rail lines being built during that time frame. So that has increased the traffic immensely on the existing rail beds.
As far as the oil lines and private property. The oil lines are better/safer than surface transportation. Just about everyone has some type of easement on their land of some type.
There is a large natural gas line just to the west of me. It was put in about 10-12 years ago. You can't tell where it crosses the fields now if it was not for the pumping lift stations.
The Keystone pipe line would take a lot of oil off of railcars.
So while it directly will not carry the oil to where these trains are going it will reduce the stress on the rail infrastructure.
There where 9500 car loads of crude oil shipped by rail in 2007 and over 500,000 in 2014. I do not remember any rail lines being built during that time frame. So that has increased the traffic immensely on the existing rail beds.
As far as the oil lines and private property. The oil lines are better/safer than surface transportation. Just about everyone has some type of easement on their land of some type.
There is a large natural gas line just to the west of me. It was put in about 10-12 years ago. You can't tell where it crosses the fields now if it was not for the pumping lift stations.
I'm pretty sure the train that derailed this week is Bakken oil, not tar sands oil. KXL is only for transportation of bitumen from athabasca. The bakken shale oil is extremely volatile and would result in a fire like we saw this week. We're confusing two different sources of oil with transportation modes.
That is incorrect, the Keystone Pipeline is a project which
includes tributary lines. The main pipeline proposal has always
dedicated capacity to ship 100,000 plus barrels per day of
Bakken oil to the Texas Gulf Coast and at least one other
smaller line was planned to take even more Bakken oil to the
Oklahoma hub. Where do you get the idea that Bakken oil is
extremely volatile? It is just lighter crude and therefore higher
grade than tar sands oil, as a matter of fact, Bakken oil
consistently runs the same API gravity as West Texas
Intermediate which is the nations benchmark crude.
includes tributary lines. The main pipeline proposal has always
dedicated capacity to ship 100,000 plus barrels per day of
Bakken oil to the Texas Gulf Coast and at least one other
smaller line was planned to take even more Bakken oil to the
Oklahoma hub. Where do you get the idea that Bakken oil is
extremely volatile? It is just lighter crude and therefore higher
grade than tar sands oil, as a matter of fact, Bakken oil
consistently runs the same API gravity as West Texas
Intermediate which is the nations benchmark crude.
I understand easements and such. There are lots of pipelines within 30 miles of me and closest is about 4 miles. Some are large and some small. Have several lines that were built in the 60's and then a second line is beside that now. Some follow main power line routes. Can always tell where they are at a glance because there are no trees. And forrest on both side.
When they were put in we never heard of much resistance against them being built. In recent years we seen explosions like the one in Appomattox Va. and have 3 different lines being surveyed now and in several places folks won't let them survey. Just last month an explosion occurred in WVa. and that line was just 1 year old. So now no one wants to live beside one.
I've never been against pipelines and still not. I also understand eminent domain and that has to be used at times. I just don't agree for another country to be able to condemn property in our country to lay their pipeline. How long before China and Russia want to build one. In America everything is for sale on the world market.
LAA We have one line that comes out of Texas through here to I think Norfolk Va. that runs refined fuel to that area. Just seems like the long way around for this oil that comes on trains now to go to the gulf coast and then back across the country. Thanks for explaining that to me.
I know this is a very political subject. I try and not add that to what's going on because I have read what property owners mainly in the 6 state area of the Ogallala Aquifer say. Many depend on that to farm. I know pipelines are safer than trains. But I also know pipelines can break open. Not often they do but can. It may not take but once for that to happen in that area to end farming for so many. So if that were to happen is the pipeline still worth building? I don't think so when there are other routes that can be taken. So I'll stand with the farmers on this one.
When they were put in we never heard of much resistance against them being built. In recent years we seen explosions like the one in Appomattox Va. and have 3 different lines being surveyed now and in several places folks won't let them survey. Just last month an explosion occurred in WVa. and that line was just 1 year old. So now no one wants to live beside one.
I've never been against pipelines and still not. I also understand eminent domain and that has to be used at times. I just don't agree for another country to be able to condemn property in our country to lay their pipeline. How long before China and Russia want to build one. In America everything is for sale on the world market.
LAA We have one line that comes out of Texas through here to I think Norfolk Va. that runs refined fuel to that area. Just seems like the long way around for this oil that comes on trains now to go to the gulf coast and then back across the country. Thanks for explaining that to me.
I know this is a very political subject. I try and not add that to what's going on because I have read what property owners mainly in the 6 state area of the Ogallala Aquifer say. Many depend on that to farm. I know pipelines are safer than trains. But I also know pipelines can break open. Not often they do but can. It may not take but once for that to happen in that area to end farming for so many. So if that were to happen is the pipeline still worth building? I don't think so when there are other routes that can be taken. So I'll stand with the farmers on this one.
MarkB_MI
Well-known Member
- Location
- Motown USA
It is a fact that the Bakken crude is being shipped with a lot of gas in it. This is hardly surprising since there is no infrastructure to carry natural gas out of the Bakken fields and any gas separated from oil must be flared. Concerns about its volatility has led the state of North Dakota to pass a regulation limiting oil shipped in the state to a maximum Reid Vapor Pressure of 13.7 psi. That's still pretty high; RVP for gasoline is typically much lower than that. By comparison, summer grade gasoline in many areas has a maximum RVP of 7.0 psi.
The ND rule limiting vapor pressure to 13.7 is not yet in effect. It has been determined that the oil in the recent WV crash had an RVP of 13.9.
WSJ crude had high vapor pressure
The ND rule limiting vapor pressure to 13.7 is not yet in effect. It has been determined that the oil in the recent WV crash had an RVP of 13.9.
WSJ crude had high vapor pressure
I will again post my links below. I am not against the pipeline, I am against where it is going. I don't speak about political stuff in public unless it's brought up, but I haven't heard anyone that is for this pipeline here. It does not need to go over a shallow area of our water supply, it can go around it easily over by the others, at least to an area that is much deeper. The say "it almost never leaks" so that is supposed to be good enough, that's what people seem to think that don't live here. Well, there are always leaks at some point. The first Keystone leaked more than they predicted. And the stuff is certainly a different animal than regular oil. For some reason people put blinders on when it comes to this pipeline, all they see is $$ signs, calling people that oppose it names. People here that they tried to seize land from do not, nor the Rosebud Sioux who declared it was an act of war. So they say it's safe, well, which is better? Going 20 ft from a city reservoir, or 200 as an example? Doesn't seem like it takes much common sense to MINIMIZE risk when possible. This area is vulnerable and unique. And there is no risk and no tar sands pipelines here at all now. So, they keep advertising on the radio and telling us we should be ok with taking risk when there is none. They say they are going to bury the line several feet, well, water level isn't that far away, ground water is already there. It took and is taking them YEARS to clean out a river, a surface spill, not done yet really. How long would it take to clean out an underground leak, with chemical contamination from the chemicals they dissolve in it to make it flow? Actually, it could be impossible, if it involves an amount as some previous spills from pipelines. This pipeline only needs built because they are shipping the oil anyway. They could wait to ship it until the safer method was in place, but they won't do that. Plus people keep saying so and so gets so much money while it's shipping by trains. Well, he supports the pipeline. Plus, if the line is built, some other so and so will get more money, I don't see much difference on which so and so gets the money, plus, no doubt they are also buddy buddy with the powerful political supporters too. Everyone acts like it's "our" oil, and it will only help us, and lower prices, etc. But they never seem to look at the truth about it. Build it, be safe, but go around here. Simple. It needs built to be safer, that's all. I'm not going into the environmental impact of this, on how much more goes into each gallon of fuel that comes out compared to regular oil, because it doesn't matter, it will go through anyway, because it needs to be built somewhere, regardless of what it's doing and what it takes.
I count and I have 3 submersible and 4 windmills on my place. Any one of them I can take a drink out of and have clean, pure, no need to filter or purify, water. Flowing wells bordering my property too. I like being able to do that. There's a chance that there would never be a leak in this area, but to me, protecting what a person has, is worth far more money than oil that doesn't even really help us out in any noticeable/perceivable/minuscule if any, fashion compared to what we already have access to. One leak could cost irreparable damage, and if it would hit by any of the farms/ranches, there is no way to haul in enough water to replace what was damaged. To me, even if enthusiastically there is a 0.0001% risk, that's too big. Because spills do happen, and no one can predict where.
Here's a report on the reality of what it will do. http://www.ilr.cornell.edu/sites/ilr.cornell.edu/files/GLI_keystoneXL_Reportpdf.pdf
Couple spills. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2013_Mayflower_oil_spill
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kalamazoo_River_oil_spill
Article on how "effective" the leak detection will be. I forget when they changed to the current route, this may have been written about the first route, which was absolutely stupid.
http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/aswift/the_keystone_xl_tar_sands_pipe.html
Another article.
http://www.npr.org/2012/08/16/158025375/when-this-oil-spills-its-a-whole-new-monster
Area meeting, there was a better writeup than this but I can't find it now.
http://insideclimatenews.org/news/20110930/state-department-keystone-xl-hearing-atkinson-nebraska-sandhills-critics-passions-fla
I count and I have 3 submersible and 4 windmills on my place. Any one of them I can take a drink out of and have clean, pure, no need to filter or purify, water. Flowing wells bordering my property too. I like being able to do that. There's a chance that there would never be a leak in this area, but to me, protecting what a person has, is worth far more money than oil that doesn't even really help us out in any noticeable/perceivable/minuscule if any, fashion compared to what we already have access to. One leak could cost irreparable damage, and if it would hit by any of the farms/ranches, there is no way to haul in enough water to replace what was damaged. To me, even if enthusiastically there is a 0.0001% risk, that's too big. Because spills do happen, and no one can predict where.
Here's a report on the reality of what it will do. http://www.ilr.cornell.edu/sites/ilr.cornell.edu/files/GLI_keystoneXL_Reportpdf.pdf
Couple spills. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2013_Mayflower_oil_spill
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kalamazoo_River_oil_spill
Article on how "effective" the leak detection will be. I forget when they changed to the current route, this may have been written about the first route, which was absolutely stupid.
http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/aswift/the_keystone_xl_tar_sands_pipe.html
Another article.
http://www.npr.org/2012/08/16/158025375/when-this-oil-spills-its-a-whole-new-monster
Area meeting, there was a better writeup than this but I can't find it now.
http://insideclimatenews.org/news/20110930/state-department-keystone-xl-hearing-atkinson-nebraska-sandhills-critics-passions-fla
Buffet hadn't said he was "for it" until very recently. Why is he for it now. I forget the specifics, but he's in line to make a gazillion bucks transporting the equipment to build the pipeline, he's got his fingers in the ownership of the pipeline and he's investing is everything related to it. But at present, he's still making a gazillion bucks on rail shipment. That's, fine, good for him. But he's playing both sides of the game.
The pipeline would no more be "owned by another country" than Ford or GE is "owned by another country". International corps would own the pipeline, not the gov't of Canada.
T in NE
Well-known Member
- Location
- Cambridge, Nebraska
That increase in rail traffic has also tied up a lot of power units. We couldn't get (BNSF) trains in to transport wheat out of the nnalert River valley til corn was on its way into the elevators. Bartley was trucking it to Omaha and Lincoln to make room for corn. Maywood trucked it to North Platte to get bins emptied.
Someone KRVN had on the radio said that there was nowhere to put anything in North Dakota besides piling it on the ground. BNSF didn't have the crews or equipment to move in grain trains and there's no trucks or drivers because they were all working the oil field.
Someone KRVN had on the radio said that there was nowhere to put anything in North Dakota besides piling it on the ground. BNSF didn't have the crews or equipment to move in grain trains and there's no trucks or drivers because they were all working the oil field.
Wemedeeres
Member
Who would be responsible if there was a spill?
The oil companies don't have a very good record
when it comes to cleanup on there own. Most have
to go before Congress for hearings and then get
forced to do what's right.
If the Ogallala Aquifer gets ruined WHO is
responsible and will fix the problem if it could
be fixed?
The oil companies don't have a very good record
when it comes to cleanup on there own. Most have
to go before Congress for hearings and then get
forced to do what's right.
If the Ogallala Aquifer gets ruined WHO is
responsible and will fix the problem if it could
be fixed?
Well known well educated people can write articles along with give speeches about a subject that the actual facts do not support. Take fracking in NY state as an example. A proven safe way of retrieving oil that is rejected by those that are against burning fossil fuels of any kind that are willing to fund political people that will swear to the anything for those funds. There are many chicken little's that will latch on to the negative side of any debate and refuse to even look at the positive side of that debate.
john in la
Well-known Member
With so many existing pipe lines already I am surprised they can find room to put the keystone pipeline.
And for those that think this pipeline may leak into the Ogallala Aquifer; try counting the existing out dated pipelines that already cross the aquifer.
Existing pipelines in the U.S.
And for those that think this pipeline may leak into the Ogallala Aquifer; try counting the existing out dated pipelines that already cross the aquifer.
Existing pipelines in the U.S.
Do any tar sands pipelines cross over here in this shallow area? No. And it's more damaging than regular oil, as the rest of the lines are. Looks to me many are gas lines anyway. The lines i know of cross east, where depth is greater and where this line is going toward anyway. But I like your logic, more is better, especially in areas where there aren't any. Care for me to start telling you what toxic substances should go near your water supply?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/keystone-xl-pipeline-may-threaten-aquifer-that-irrigates-much-of-the-central-us/2012/08/06/7bf0215c-d4db-11e1-a9e3-c5249ea531ca_story.html
http://insideclimatenews.org/news/20110831/keystone-xl-primer-nebraska-oil-gas-pipelines-sandhills-ogallala-aquifer-heineman-external_link
You are correct that North Dakota placed regulations on crude being shipped out to be at an RVP of 13.7 psi or below, but, that 13.7 is still below the average US crude oil RVP of 14.7. Much, if not most of the Bakken oil does not even have a RPV as high as 13.7, which, by the way, is equivalent to most gasoline. It has been reported by the AP that the Rail Road companies are taking the heat for the spate of derailments citing worn out tracks and infrastructure not able to handle the increased volume of traffic and cars since they began hauling Bakken oil. I tend to believe this explanation for one reason, we all know that no corporation falls on their sword unless it is absolutely unavoidable, although I guess the oil haters of the world could turn that around and claim that the demand for freightage created the overloading of dubious infrastructure.
The farmers in the Ogallala Aquifer area are damaging the aquifer much more than any pipeline would. The aquifer is slowly going dry from over irrigating. In some area the water table is so much lower that the wells are dry.
As for the foreign ownership. I really do not count Canada as being too foreign. IF we do not build some type of pipeline to handle the oil then they will do something else that will bypass the US entirely. They are purposing going east where they can fill super tankers. They say that these tankers will haul to the Gulf refineries. I really doubt they will ship much oil to the Gulf refineries if they have another market for their oil.
Believe they are a fast delivery to Europe. With the Russians playing games Europe will be looking for a more stable supplier.
So a few environmental nuts and some self serving people are stopping the pipeline in the US. If Canada has to build their own pipeline they will not be favorable to the US job market or oil market.
Right now Canada is selling their oil at a heavy discount because they only have the US refineries as their main retail source.
As for there being accidents and problems with the pipeline. There are problems with anything. In today's modern media scene you hear of just about every single time something happens. Often with made up/slanted facts to fit the mainly abundant media companies and news personal's personal agendas.
IF electric was just a new product today it would never be in homes as the media and lawyers would drive the companies out of business whenever there was a house fire or problem.
Our country is slowly DIEING from the restrictions that a FAT/lazy/increasingly abundant populace are allowing or even pushing.
How many "NEW" ideas are we missing out on because of our restrictive laws and rules????
Think it does not effect jobs??? We quit the trucking business because of the increasing rules and regulation involving having employees. We hire no one that is not a independent contractor to do anything on our farms or homes.
As for the foreign ownership. I really do not count Canada as being too foreign. IF we do not build some type of pipeline to handle the oil then they will do something else that will bypass the US entirely. They are purposing going east where they can fill super tankers. They say that these tankers will haul to the Gulf refineries. I really doubt they will ship much oil to the Gulf refineries if they have another market for their oil.
Believe they are a fast delivery to Europe. With the Russians playing games Europe will be looking for a more stable supplier.
So a few environmental nuts and some self serving people are stopping the pipeline in the US. If Canada has to build their own pipeline they will not be favorable to the US job market or oil market.
Right now Canada is selling their oil at a heavy discount because they only have the US refineries as their main retail source.
As for there being accidents and problems with the pipeline. There are problems with anything. In today's modern media scene you hear of just about every single time something happens. Often with made up/slanted facts to fit the mainly abundant media companies and news personal's personal agendas.
IF electric was just a new product today it would never be in homes as the media and lawyers would drive the companies out of business whenever there was a house fire or problem.
Our country is slowly DIEING from the restrictions that a FAT/lazy/increasingly abundant populace are allowing or even pushing.
How many "NEW" ideas are we missing out on because of our restrictive laws and rules????
Think it does not effect jobs??? We quit the trucking business because of the increasing rules and regulation involving having employees. We hire no one that is not a independent contractor to do anything on our farms or homes.
JD, you got the fat and lazy right but as far as ideology go most of the bird brains who voted for the current occupant of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue did so for a handout or in hopes of a handout. Roughly 80 percent of people who vote abundant are just stupid, the other 20 percent hate America and all it stands for. If the stupid understood what ideology they were actually enabling and all the inherent human misery associated with their actions at the voting booth then at least half of them would reform.
4 major Gas lines go through our area, it was originally Texas Eastern, and one was called the Rocky Mountain Express, the largest is 48 inch a couple are 36" and I think a 20", the company is always good to work with if crops are damaged, most of the time they will "Double" what you think is fair. Yes it is a big gash when it goes through,, but they seed it down and maintain it nicely in the non crop areas. These lines go East and West 50 miles south of Columbus Ohio.
john in la
Well-known Member
rview_ look at my state. We know well about the dangers of pipelines and oil spills.
I can respect your views that it may cause a problem. For that we need to decide what would be safer for the whole; pipeline or rail; and go with the best choice.
What I have no room for and can not respect is a person like in some states.
We want $1.00 gasoline just don't put none of the oil wells; pipelines; or refineries in our back yard. Let someone else deal with the down side and give us all the benefits.
I can respect your views that it may cause a problem. For that we need to decide what would be safer for the whole; pipeline or rail; and go with the best choice.
What I have no room for and can not respect is a person like in some states.
We want $1.00 gasoline just don't put none of the oil wells; pipelines; or refineries in our back yard. Let someone else deal with the down side and give us all the benefits.
es I know where you are and the whole situation. Pipeline is safer, pretty obvious, if oil is transported, it needs built, no argument there. Not once have I said otherwise, other than to say it's not the magic thing that will create magical long lasting jobs any different than other construction projects and lower prices noticeably like some people seem to think. Oil is being moved, it simply needs built, that's all. I know this area, I know the people here, and I know the ground. To me, build it, but go around sensitive areas as best as possible. They already did with the last line, why not this one? There may be minimal risk, but as I say, the tiniest fraction of a risk at some random point in the future, when permanent severe damage can easily happen, seems a bit much to ask for everyone to just basically tell us to "deal with it and quit whining" and throw in some random put down/name calling as there often is.
I don't get the arguments from people that aren't even directly affected by this. "Well, the farmers are damaging it anyway by using it too much". No argument there, I shudder every time it's dry and my neighbor turns his pivot on and my water holes dry up, but rain and less use can help fix, well lessen that. Water rights and restrictions take a small step in the right direction, very small. What I don't get is comparing that to permanent chemical damage, how is it similar? We use too much oil too, could compare water use to that. What farmer with any crop doesn't run his water as much as he can and needs to? But "I" can't control any aspect of that. Also, the argument that there are already pipelines. Well, there are, but none over much of the area, and none here. I don't know, I guess looking at the reality of what goes on here, I don't care much about the politics of it, seems to be just arguing and getting nothing done. I just know what can and will happen here, and putting it somewhere that doesn't have a shallow water source seems more logical to me, and the end result would still be the same with minimal impact on anyone that isn't already impacted. Going back to that city reservoir analogy I used. If a city had a choice of putting the line within 20 feet, or 200 feet, which would be safer? Plus doomsday scenario is likely not to happen, there may never be a sizable leak at all. But, I see no way to pipe/truck in water if something does happen, at least for the rural folk. To me, if I could help someone out by having something go through that wouldn't affect me much, I would have no issue. But, someone else asking to put in something that could damage the life and livelihood of most people I know, THAT I have a problem with.
jimg.allentown
Well-known Member
Well, this topic has taken on a life of its own. I would like to point out what I observe.....
That pipeline will or will not go through based on whatever the "powers that be" decide to do. There is NOTHING that this discussion will do to promote or hinder it. Period.
Getting our undies all twisted up in a knot will not affect the outcome one bit. There was all kinds of hand wringing and whining about fracking. Well, it is here and it is not going away - at least not because "we" say so. Neither is the whole pipeline debate. I think I would rather get back to more pleasant talk about tractors and farming.
Just my two cents' worth.
That pipeline will or will not go through based on whatever the "powers that be" decide to do. There is NOTHING that this discussion will do to promote or hinder it. Period.
Getting our undies all twisted up in a knot will not affect the outcome one bit. There was all kinds of hand wringing and whining about fracking. Well, it is here and it is not going away - at least not because "we" say so. Neither is the whole pipeline debate. I think I would rather get back to more pleasant talk about tractors and farming.
Just my two cents' worth.
MarkB_MI
Well-known Member
- Location
- Motown USA
Sorry, but most gasoline has a much lower RVP than 13.7 psi. There might be some winter blends in northern regions that high, but summer blend gas is much lower, more like 7 to 9 psi. 14 psi gas will boil on a hot day, as will 14.7 psi crude oil.
Safety is a matter of statistics. The more oil you ship by rail the more likely it is a train loaded with oil will crash. And the more volatile that oil is, the more likely it is that a crash will result in a fire or explosion. Ship huge volumes of highly volatile crude by rail, and a crash/fire like the one in West Virginia becomes inevitable. And sooner or later, the laws of probability catch up with all gamblers. Expect a future oil train crash to result in serious loss of life or significant damage to our transporation infrastructure.
Safety is a matter of statistics. The more oil you ship by rail the more likely it is a train loaded with oil will crash. And the more volatile that oil is, the more likely it is that a crash will result in a fire or explosion. Ship huge volumes of highly volatile crude by rail, and a crash/fire like the one in West Virginia becomes inevitable. And sooner or later, the laws of probability catch up with all gamblers. Expect a future oil train crash to result in serious loss of life or significant damage to our transporation infrastructure.
Paul in MN
Well-known Member
LAA,
I find your broad-brush characterizations to be mighty offensive. You have just shown how little you really know.
Enough!!
Paul in MN
I find your broad-brush characterizations to be mighty offensive. You have just shown how little you really know.
Enough!!
Paul in MN
Indiana Ken
Well-known Member
It really doesn't matter what the trains are hauling. One would never get away with simply saying more airplanes crash because more airplanes are flying. If the airline industry had this many accidents the fleet would be grounded until they had root cause and corrective action in place.
If the oil industry cannot ship their product safely by rail why should someone believe they know how to ship it safely by pipeline?
If the oil industry cannot ship their product safely by rail why should someone believe they know how to ship it safely by pipeline?
It was the railroad making the claim that the mishaps were due to overloaded infrastructure, not the oil companies, and I would have to assume that if the railroad takes responsibility then they will probably do something about it. It is quite a stretch to assign responsibility for what calamities may befall a shipment of any kind to the entity paying the shipper, you echo the thinking in the Middle East, whereby if an accident occurs it is due to the activity being conducted to start with, not because the people responsible to carry out that particular activity are lazy or careless and fail to do the right thing. Oil companies are not responsible for rail safety, or pipeline safety for that matter unless they own and operate same. Maybe you would prefer that oil companies ship no product whatsoever, no fuel or heating oil for your area but I doubt many would agree.
I know enough to vote against tyranny. I know enough to vote against those who will enslave my grandchildrens grandchildren with debt. I know enough to vote against every tax proposed regardless of the do called justification. I know enough to vote against those who have no higher calling than the desire to lord over the docile sheep and tell them what to do and how to live. I know the satisfaction of making my own way in life and raising Sons and Daughters who do the same. Do you know any of these things?
MarkB_MI
Well-known Member
- Location
- Motown USA
Do you have any source for your claim that Bakken crude is less volatile than the average for US crude? Let's take a look at this chart, which lists the properties for all the crude oil shipped by pipeline company Enbridge.
<a href="http://www.enbridge.com/~/media/www/Site%20Documents/Delivering%20Energy/Table%206%20%20Commodity%20Testing%20Summary%20%20%20April%2024%202014.pdf?la=en">http://www.enbridge.com/~/media/www/Site%20Documents/Delivering%20Energy/Table%206%20%20Commodity%20Testing%20Summary%20%20%20April%2024%202014.pdf?la=en</a>
The most volatile crude shipped by Enbridge is "Fort Saskatchewan Condensate" at 94 kPA (13.6 psi). Most of the oil is well below that, with some products having an RVP of less than 2 psi. Since volumes are not reported, we can't calculate the average for Enbridge, but it's certainly nowhere near 14.7 psi. And none of this oil is being shipped by rail.
But whether or not Bakken crude is less volatile than the US average is besides the point. The question is whether or not it is safe to ship massive volumes of this product by rail. Most people would be very concerned to know that 100-car trains loaded with gasoline were traveling through their community every day. Yet the Bakken crude is far more volatile than 7.0 psi summer-blend gasoline.
The 14.7 psi figure you keep quoting is, not coincidentally, the sea level atmospheric pressure. It's often quoted by the petroleum industry as being "safe" because crude oil at or below 14.7 psi RVP won't boil when vented to the atmosphere. Assuming, that is, the oil is below 100 degrees F. But it's still going to release a lot of gas if the vessel it's in ruptures. I assume the state of North Dakota specified an 13.7 maximum to provide a little more safety margin in case of an accident in hot weather. But 13.7 psi crude is still more volatile than most winter blend gasoline.
<a href="http://www.enbridge.com/~/media/www/Site%20Documents/Delivering%20Energy/Table%206%20%20Commodity%20Testing%20Summary%20%20%20April%2024%202014.pdf?la=en">http://www.enbridge.com/~/media/www/Site%20Documents/Delivering%20Energy/Table%206%20%20Commodity%20Testing%20Summary%20%20%20April%2024%202014.pdf?la=en</a>
The most volatile crude shipped by Enbridge is "Fort Saskatchewan Condensate" at 94 kPA (13.6 psi). Most of the oil is well below that, with some products having an RVP of less than 2 psi. Since volumes are not reported, we can't calculate the average for Enbridge, but it's certainly nowhere near 14.7 psi. And none of this oil is being shipped by rail.
But whether or not Bakken crude is less volatile than the US average is besides the point. The question is whether or not it is safe to ship massive volumes of this product by rail. Most people would be very concerned to know that 100-car trains loaded with gasoline were traveling through their community every day. Yet the Bakken crude is far more volatile than 7.0 psi summer-blend gasoline.
The 14.7 psi figure you keep quoting is, not coincidentally, the sea level atmospheric pressure. It's often quoted by the petroleum industry as being "safe" because crude oil at or below 14.7 psi RVP won't boil when vented to the atmosphere. Assuming, that is, the oil is below 100 degrees F. But it's still going to release a lot of gas if the vessel it's in ruptures. I assume the state of North Dakota specified an 13.7 maximum to provide a little more safety margin in case of an accident in hot weather. But 13.7 psi crude is still more volatile than most winter blend gasoline.
There are many substances shipped by rail that you would not want to sop your biscuit in but, that is beside the point, I thought we were discussing who had the liability to get the product from point A to point B, that responsibility and liability should be on the party performing the actual transporting, if I contract to haul a product it would behoove me immensely to know what precautions were necessary to haul that particular product as well as making sure my equipment was fit for purpose and service. Unfortunately for many politicians and "journalists", everything bad that happens in this world cannot be blamed on an oil company. I get my information regarding crude oil from the pertinent API publications.
The airline industry is heavily subsidized by the gov't with taxpayer dollars and tax breaks. The freight rail industry isn't from what I understand. That makes an enormous difference. But in the end, the rail industry is trying to move product at the least possible cost and max profit. Nothing wrong with that at all, it's how you stay in business. But the infrastructure has decayed to the point they are having these derailments and fires. The Feds won't help the railroads, so the railroads cut and cut and cut and here you are. All the gov't does to the RR's is tax and regulate them.
If the RR's were "too big to fail" we'd probably see an entirely different rail system in place. That being said, IMO the answer isn't in gov't handouts, but in getting a tax structure in place that allows growth while bettering the infrastructure.
MarkB_MI
Well-known Member
- Location
- Motown USA
>I thought we were discussing who had the liability to get the product from point A to point B, that responsibility and liability should be on the party performing the actual transporting, if I contract to haul a product it would behoove me immensely to know what precautions were necessary to haul that particular product as well as making sure my equipment was fit for purpose and service.
No, what you and I were discussing was your spurious assertion that Bakken crude is not particularly volatile. Don't try to change the subject just because you have no evidence to support your preposterous claims.
No, what you and I were discussing was your spurious assertion that Bakken crude is not particularly volatile. Don't try to change the subject just because you have no evidence to support your preposterous claims.
There is plenty of evidence to support the assertion that Bakken crude is not as volitile than the average crude oil produced in the USA but you won't find that evidence on MSNBC or reading the Huffinton post and your other usual sources of "facts". Maybe you will get your wish and your supreme ruler or one of his brown shirted agency heads will outlaw crude oil transportation altogether and you can do without the benefits of energy security.
MarkB_MI
Well-known Member
- Location
- Motown USA
Is that the best insult you can come up with, LAA? I'd expect you to be able to bring up quite a bit more bile after being repeatedly pummeled with facts. By the way, there's only one "i" in "volatile".
I have to remind you that my first source was not the HuffPost but rather Rupert Murdoch's band of treehuggers down at the Wall Street Journal. And the second source was Enbridge Corporation, the same environmentally-conscious company whose decrepit pipeline dumped a million gallons of tar sands oil into the Kalamazoo River.
I have to remind you that my first source was not the HuffPost but rather Rupert Murdoch's band of treehuggers down at the Wall Street Journal. And the second source was Enbridge Corporation, the same environmentally-conscious company whose decrepit pipeline dumped a million gallons of tar sands oil into the Kalamazoo River.
MarkB_MI
Well-known Member
- Location
- Motown USA
As you well know, there's nothing on that site that supports your fatuous claims regarding the volatility of Bakken crude. Once again you've been caught blowing smoke. Of course to hear you make stuff up is no more surprising to anyone than to hear Sarah Palin drop a "g".
Indiana Ken
Well-known Member
Agreed, I did not find any thing in the web site about vapor pressure - yes it talked about it but I did not find a number. I did find the IBP (Initial Boiling Point) listed at 99.6 F (avg) with a min of 91.9 F. Better seal the lid on those tank cars.
MarkB_MI
Well-known Member
- Location
- Motown USA
OK, so you actually dug up some data. Cutting to the chase, the report says they found the average vapor pressure for their rail shipment samples to be 11.5 psi. That's still pretty high, higher than most gasoline, and I don't think you'd be happy to have 100-car trains of gasoline tankers going by your house every day.
Questions:
Why did the oil in the WV crash have a vapor pressure of 13.9 psi? Was that particular load an aberration? 13.9 psi is way off the chart from the study's samples.
Why did the state of North Dakota find it necessary to set a limit of 13.7 psi on oil shipped by rail? If this study is to be believed, then that requirement is unnecessary.
Why are North Dakota producers installing equipment to reduce vapor pressure, if their oil is already below the 13.7 psi maximum? You know no company is going to spend money to comply with a regulation if they don't have to.
Questions:
Why did the oil in the WV crash have a vapor pressure of 13.9 psi? Was that particular load an aberration? 13.9 psi is way off the chart from the study's samples.
Why did the state of North Dakota find it necessary to set a limit of 13.7 psi on oil shipped by rail? If this study is to be believed, then that requirement is unnecessary.
Why are North Dakota producers installing equipment to reduce vapor pressure, if their oil is already below the 13.7 psi maximum? You know no company is going to spend money to comply with a regulation if they don't have to.
Gasoline, diesel, lube oils, plastics, synthetic rubber, all the "poly" fabrics, nylon, power generation, home heating fuel, air flight, ships, trains, cars, trucks, asphalt, etc., etc., etc.
Yes, there are always going to be risks. Considering what we get from oils, what is the alternative?
You are of course correct that no company spends money unless they are in regulatory jeapordy or have already suffered a mishap that brought on bad publicity, in this case the N.D. legislature wields the cudgel. That is why I think the oil companies are investing in the vapor chambers to ensure future compliance because as the wells currently in production draw down the vapor pressure will increase. All production zones worldwide contain, gas, oil and water, with varying quantities of each, the wells will flow in the same order and the gas saturation ratio will increase in a well producing predominately oil as the oil depletes.
Use less. Last year we globally produced 64 million cars. People on these forums regularly use tractors that are 40, 50, 60 years old. Why not cars? Cut car production in half and we'd save the energy it takes to make 32 million cars. That's a lot of energy. Not to mention all the other junk we make.
buickanddeere
Well-known Member
Thought you were talking about Ontario at first. Quebec had an ugly runaway and derailment 2-3 years ago that burned down part of a town.http://www.cbc.ca/m/news/canada/sudbury/train-carrying-crude-oil-derails-near-gogama-ont-1.2985703
You're right - it's not that simple - it would take a complete restructuring of society and the way it works. I may be an environmentalist, in the sense that it would be good if we could avoid destroying the earth for future generations, but I'm also a 'familyist' and would rather see us do something without destroying people and their families.
One small consideration towards this is that if we made things that lasted, like old tractors, then we wouldn't [i:d13129a8b8]need[/i:d13129a8b8] to work so much to replace them so often (ideally).
Sounds to me like you're talking about "conservation", an old, tried and true idea that I agree with. I'm not for buying something new just for the thrill of having something new, but I also am not so arrogant as to think my ideas of what someone else should have should cancel out their desires. The question is how to create a long term, sustainable paradigm that works for at least 75% of the people AND doesn't make things worse in other ways. When you come up with the perfect solution, let me know so I can contribute to your election fund!
Similar threads
We sell tractor parts! We have the parts you need to repair your tractor - the right parts. Our low prices and years of research make us your best choice when you need parts. Shop Online Today.
Copyright © 1997-2024 Yesterday's Tractor Co.
All Rights Reserved. Reproduction of any part of this website, including design and content, without written permission is strictly prohibited. Trade Marks and Trade Names contained and used in this Website are those of others, and are used in this Website in a descriptive sense to refer to the products of others. Use of this Web site constitutes acceptance of our User Agreement and Privacy Policy TRADEMARK DISCLAIMER: Tradenames and Trademarks referred to within Yesterday's Tractor Co. products and within the Yesterday's Tractor Co. websites are the property of their respective trademark holders. None of these trademark holders are affiliated with Yesterday's Tractor Co., our products, or our website nor are we sponsored by them. John Deere and its logos are the registered trademarks of the John Deere Corporation. Agco, Agco Allis, White, Massey Ferguson and their logos are the registered trademarks of AGCO Corporation. Case, Case-IH, Farmall, International Harvester, New Holland and their logos are registered trademarks of CNH Global N.V.
Yesterday's Tractors - Antique Tractor Headquarters
Website Accessibility Policy