ff

Pipeline vs Train vs Ship to Transport Crude Oil.

Recommended Posts

(shared via facebook)

Pipeline vs Train vs Ship to Transport Crude Oil.

1 Train has 100 cars, 2 engines and weighs 27,240,000 lbs.
1 Train transports 3,000,000 gallons of oil.
1 train consumes 55.5 gallons of diesel per mile.
119,000 gallons of diesel are required to rail 2150 miles from Hardisty, AB to Freeport, TX.

Keystone pipeline was to deliver 34,860,000 gallons of crude oil per day. This volume would require 12 trains and 1,428,000 gallons of diesel to deliver that amount. PER DAY! 521,220,000 gallons of diesel transported per year.

That crude volume is needed daily, and will now be transported by means other than a pipeline. So no Keystone means more pollution from burning 521mm gallons of diesel or more.

Suppose no crude from the tar sands. This means imports via ocean vessels, or increased local production. Local production can supply some, for a while before shale oil is depleted: but always at a higher cost than tar sands, if to be profitable.

1 large oil tanker can haul 120,000,000 gallons of oil
1 tanker needs 15 days to ‘sail’ across the Atlantic.
1 tanker uses 63,000 gallons of fuel PER DAY, that is about 1 million gallons of the most polluting type of fuel in the world PER TRIP. *(See below)

The Keystone Pipeline would need <4 days to move the same amount of oil, with but a tiny fraction of the pollution for the ocean tanker.

*In international waters ship emissions remains one of the least regulated parts of our global transportation system. The fuel used in ships is otherwise a wasted oil, basically what is left over after the crude oil refining process. It's the cheapest and most polluting fuel available and the world's 90,000 ships burn an astonishing 7.29 million barrels of it each day, or more than 84% of all exported oil production from Saudi Arabia.

Shipping is by far the biggest transport polluter in the world. There are 760 million cars in the world today emitting approx. 78,599 tons of Sulphur Oxide (SO) annually. The world's 90,000 vessels burn approx. 370 million tons of fuel per year emitting 20 million tons of Sulphur Oxide. That equates to 260 times more Sulphur Oxide being emitted by ships than the worlds entire car fleet. One large ship alone can generate approx. 5,200 tonnes of sulphur oxide pollution in a year, meaning that 15 of the largest ships now emit as much SO as the worlds 760 million cars.

So, shall we eliminate all gasoline and diesel vehicles?
Total vehicle pollution as a % of total vehicle+ships = 0.395%

Passenger vehicles are only a very small percentage of the pollution problem. If emissions are the problem why not just capture them at the exhaust? Create an industry to clean exhaust instead of crushing an entire industry and building a complete untested, replacement industry?

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

On 2/19/2021 at 7:33 AM, frankfurter said:

(shared via facebook)

Pipeline vs Train vs Ship to Transport Crude Oil.

 

It's not "either or". .  .   Trains vs Pipeline vs ships.

Dilbit doesn't work on trains or ships.

Greenies  have stopped 830,000 bbls/day of oil coming to U.S.

The increased cost Biden is inflicting on U.S.  is disproportionally felt by middle and low income folks.  

 

 

 

Edited by Roch
  • Like 1
  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, frankfurter said:

(shared via facebook)

Pipeline vs Train vs Ship to Transport Crude Oil.

1 Train has 100 cars, 2 engines and weighs 27,240,000 lbs.
1 Train transports 3,000,000 gallons of oil.
1 train consumes 55.5 gallons of diesel per mile.
119,000 gallons of diesel are required to rail 2150 miles from Hardisty, AB to Freeport, TX.

Keystone pipeline was to deliver 34,860,000 gallons of crude oil per day. This volume would require 12 trains and 1,428,000 gallons of diesel to deliver that amount. PER DAY! 521,220,000 gallons of diesel transported per year.

That crude volume is needed daily, and will now be transported by means other than a pipeline. So no Keystone means more pollution from burning 521mm gallons of diesel or more.

Suppose no crude from the tar sands. This means imports via ocean vessels, or increased local production. Local production can supply some, for a while before shale oil is depleted: but always at a higher cost than tar sands, if to be profitable.

1 large oil tanker can haul 120,000,000 gallons of oil
1 tanker needs 15 days to ‘sail’ across the Atlantic.
1 tanker uses 63,000 gallons of fuel PER DAY, that is about 1 million gallons of the most polluting type of fuel in the world PER TRIP. *(See below)

The Keystone Pipeline would need <4 days to move the same amount of oil, with but a tiny fraction of the pollution for the ocean tanker.

*In international waters ship emissions remains one of the least regulated parts of our global transportation system. The fuel used in ships is otherwise a wasted oil, basically what is left over after the crude oil refining process. It's the cheapest and most polluting fuel available and the world's 90,000 ships burn an astonishing 7.29 million barrels of it each day, or more than 84% of all exported oil production from Saudi Arabia.

Shipping is by far the biggest transport polluter in the world. There are 760 million cars in the world today emitting approx. 78,599 tons of Sulphur Oxide (SO) annually. The world's 90,000 vessels burn approx. 370 million tons of fuel per year emitting 20 million tons of Sulphur Oxide. That equates to 260 times more Sulphur Oxide being emitted by ships than the worlds entire car fleet. One large ship alone can generate approx. 5,200 tonnes of sulphur oxide pollution in a year, meaning that 15 of the largest ships now emit as much SO as the worlds 760 million cars.

So, shall we eliminate all gasoline and diesel vehicles?
Total vehicle pollution as a % of total vehicle+ships = 0.395%

Passenger vehicles are only a very small percentage of the pollution problem. If emissions are the problem why not just capture them at the exhaust? Create an industry to clean exhaust instead of crushing an entire industry and building a complete untested, replacement industry?

The Keystone Pipeline would need <4 days to move the same amount of oil ???? crude at best moves 5 or 6 miles an hour in a pipeline. Canada Crud 3 to 4 on a good day or 100 miles a day. 2500 miles of pipe, 25 days.Trains move it faster than a pipeline. PS ships do not burn crap oil, keep up on the new regs for clean fuel  required on all ships.

  • Haha 1
  • Rolling Eye 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, notsonice said:

The Keystone Pipeline would need <4 days to move the same amount of oil ???? crude at best moves 5 or 6 miles an hour in a pipeline. Canada Crud 3 to 4 on a good day or 100 miles a day. 2500 miles of pipe, 25 days.Trains move it faster than a pipeline. PS ships do not burn crap oil, keep up on the new regs for clean fuel  required on all ships.

I haven't checked the op's numbers but they don't seem unreasonable. That is just not how you calculate the delivery rate of a pipeline! The hypothetical journey time of oil from the start to the end of the pipe is entirely irrelevant. All that matters is the flow rate.

Unless you are specifically considering delivering an amount equal to 1.0x the volume of the pipeline, which the op isn't, then, and only then, would the time taken be equal to the time taken for oil to travel the length of the pipeline.

To the subject - well the closing argument at least - yeah I'm kinda infuriated at the intensity of attack on private fossil fueled automobiles, which is most severe in the countries with the highest-tech cleanest fleets. Rrgghh!! It's like global governments going on a crusade for safety in transportation by attacking the aviation industry - barking up the wrong tree! There are more worthwhile areas the greenies could focus their energy on.

Ok I admit it - I just want to be able to own and use a petrol V8 until I die, damnit!! When someone tries to take that away, for the first time I'll wish I was a gun owning American! Oh wait I live in Norway now - shotguns and hunting rifles quite obtainable - happy days. Just remember to write something about hunting and not defence of my right to a V8 :)

  • Like 1
  • Haha 2
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I expect fully the numbers to be challenged. Has anybody accurate data and better explanation? Regardless, bunker fuel is indeed dirty stuff, and ships do consume vast quantities, and pipelines are a cleaner, cheaper means of transport. Even if the numbers are off by a huge factor of 10, vehicles would produce say 3% of total ship+vehicle pollution. Then add coal/diesel power generation. Vehicles are indeed a small fraction of pollution from oil. But we need marine transport. So what is the solution?  A different fuel? Batteries? Atomic?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, frankfurter said:

I expect fully the numbers to be challenged. Has anybody accurate data and better explanation? Regardless, bunker fuel is indeed dirty stuff, and ships do consume vast quantities, and pipelines are a cleaner, cheaper means of transport. Even if the numbers are off by a huge factor of 10, vehicles would produce say 3% of total ship+vehicle pollution. Then add coal/diesel power generation. Vehicles are indeed a small fraction of pollution from oil. But we need marine transport. So what is the solution?  A different fuel? Batteries? Atomic?

The numbers look right, but the focus on sulfur is a bit dated. Also the 120m gallons is high, most tankers only carry 2 million bbls or 84m gallons. That ships contribute more pollution than cars is a given and the fleet numbers about 90,000 ships not counting military. Most of those are containers. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

I have a better idea. Shut down the trains also. That oil from Canada is mostly not needed. That’s around 4 mbpd. Canada can ship and refine their own FF on their own land. The XL pipeline would have made it close to 5 mbpd of oil not needed from Canada. Then we can get rid of Venezuela, Russian and Saudi imports as well. Be a patriot  and buy American.

Edited by Boat

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

22 hours ago, LiamP said:

Ok I admit it - I just want to be able to own and use a petrol V8 until I die, damnit!! When someone tries to take that away, for the first time I'll wish I was a gun owning American! Oh wait I live in Norway now - shotguns and hunting rifles quite obtainable - happy days. Just remember to write something about hunting and not defence of my right to a V8 :)

Now, before you write off the following video, click on the YouTube logo at the bottom of it, which will take you to YouTube to watch it, and then read the first comments underneath it.  It is actually right in line with your thoughts and wishes (and mine).  :) 

 

 

Edited by Dan Warnick
  • Like 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is for you, @Rodent  :) 

(It was on the same YouTube page as the above, and I instantly thought of you.  Isn't that special?)

Copying in a couple of guys so they might share a laugh:

@Jan van Eck

@Tom Kirkman

 

 

  • Like 1
  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  23 hours ago, LiamP said:

Ok I admit it - I just want to be able to own and use a petrol V8 until I die, damnit!! When someone tries to take that away, for the first time I'll wish I was a gun owning American! Oh wait I live in Norway now - shotguns and hunting rifles quite obtainable - happy days. Just remember to write something about hunting and not defence of my right to a V8 :)

Now, before you write off the following video, click on the YouTube logo at the bottom of it, which will take you to YouTube to watch it, and then read the first comments underneath it.  It is actually right in line with your thoughts and wishes (and mine).  :) 

 

Forget the V-8, here's the in-line six that one scribbler in the Comments section wrote he had dropped into his rig:
 

 

Probably need to put Big Duallys on the front axle to hold the weight, though........

  • Like 1
  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Jan van Eck said:
  23 hours ago, LiamP said:

Ok I admit it - I just want to be able to own and use a petrol V8 until I die, damnit!! When someone tries to take that away, for the first time I'll wish I was a gun owning American! Oh wait I live in Norway now - shotguns and hunting rifles quite obtainable - happy days. Just remember to write something about hunting and not defence of my right to a V8 :)

Now, before you write off the following video, click on the YouTube logo at the bottom of it, which will take you to YouTube to watch it, and then read the first comments underneath it.  It is actually right in line with your thoughts and wishes (and mine).  :) 

 

Forget the V-8, here's the in-line six that one scribbler in the Comments section wrote he had dropped into his rig:
 

 

Probably need to put Big Duallys on the front axle to hold the weight, though........

I saw that comment and had no idea what they were referencing.  Thanks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Dan Warnick said:

I saw that comment and had no idea what they were referencing.  Thanks.

Actually, I have my eyes on this little pond cruiser now for sale, fabulous lines on the old girl.  Powered by two of these machines, so you do have some serious oomph.. Asking price for the boat is a paltry $2,200,000.  Hard to beat, price-wise.  Need to get Gerry in on the deal, definitely need my own oil wells to run it (dang!). 

Motor only:

image.png.39044aef9007e452101f9102ed23e84f.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

Frank's suggestions are a bit off the mark.  The specifications for the Keystone XL pipe are:

 The mainline pipe will be: 36" O.D. x 0.465" w.t., API 5LX-70 (0.80 design factor)

A 36-inch pipe pushing heavy crude is not going to have much speed to it.  Now a competing rail track will be pulling tank cars with an 96-inch diameter.  The rail cars are typically run in 100-car strings  ("unit train") with two larger-size locomotives on the nose, and on the flat terrain of the Keystone XL would typically run at 59 mph.   The oil in the pipe is running at 5 mph and is (1.5')(1.5')K = 2.25K  as contrasted with the railcar at (4')(4')K  = 16K, where "K" is a constant to accumulate "pi" as a constant. 

So the railcar is effectively a pipe built 7 times larger, and that is without the speed factor.

Now if we accept that the oil in the pipe flows at 5 mph and the train runs at 60 mph, then the train is moving oil at a factor of 12x that of the pipe.  So, splicing in the factor of 7, we have 7 x 12 = 84, or the train is moving 84 times more oil than the pipe.  That assumes that the train is infinite length, and in fact the oil trains would be moved on 7-minute releases, so the capacity factor for rail is 1/7.   Taking that number and multiplying into the 84, we end up with a dedicated rail moving oil at 84/7 or 12.0   Thus a rail system, running at theoretical efficiency, is moving crude at 12 times the rate of the Keystone pipeline. 

But even that is not the overriding factor.  The pipeline will cost a fortune in capital costs to install.  The rail line requires a 50-ft right-of-way, from lands purchased from farmers, but the building costs of rail today run at about $1.8 million a mile.  That pipeline is going to cost quite a bit more, probably 4-5 million a mile, I dunno, have not checked the numbers.  The pipe represents a sunk capital cost, because you really cannot use it for anything else.  But the rail line has lots of alternative cargo-moving and even passenger-moving prospects in the event that oil is not needed at the Southern end at some time in the future.  So you end up with capital costs being recoverable over the next hundred years for a rail line, and over perhaps 30 years in oil service, so your train rail line ends up costing you 1/10th what the capital losses are for that pipeline. 

Finally, if the pipeline busts while over the Ogallala Aquifer, you wreck the water supply for seven states.  If the rail train derails and the cars split open, the spill is localized and contained to only the oil in the train, and most of that will be tarry and stay on the surface, where it can be scooped up by payloader machinery.  One more aspect for policy-makers to ponder. 

As to fuel use to move the product, I disagree that pipe uses less energy to move the oil than rail.  Once loaded into tank-cars, the stuff is inert, only the energy needed to roll a tank car down the rail line is required.  In pipe, you have to heat the oil, pressurize it, and then use secondary pump stations to re-pressurize, all the way down the line.  That energy cost is huge when compared to rail. 

 

Edited by Jan van Eck
corrected radius calculation
  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Jan van Eck said:

Frank's suggestions are a bit off the mark.  The specifications for the Keystone XL pipe are:

 The mainline pipe will be: 36" O.D. x 0.465" w.t., API 5LX-70 (0.80 design factor)

A 36-inch pipe pushing heavy crude is not going to have much speed to it.  Now a competing rail track will be pulling tank cars with an 96-inch diameter.  The rail cars are typically run in 100-car strings  ("unit train") with two larger-size locomotives on the nose, and on the flat terrain of the Keystone XL would typically run at 59 mph.   The oil in the pipe is running at 5 mph and is (1.5')(1.5')K = 2.25K  as contrasted with the railcar at (4')(4')K  = 16K, where "K" is a constant to accumulate "pi" as a constant. 

So the railcar is effectively a pipe built 7 times larger, and that is without the speed factor.

Now if we accept that the oil in the pipe flows at 5 mph and the train runs at 60 mph, then the train is moving oil at a factor of 12x that of the pipe.  So, splicing in the factor of 7, we have 7 x 12 = 84, or the train is moving 84 times more oil than the pipe.  That assumes that the train is infinite length, and in fact the oil trains would be moved on 7-minute releases, so the capacity factor for rail is 1/7.   Taking that number and multiplying into the 84, we end up with a dedicated rail moving oil at 84/7 or 12.0   Thus a rail system, running at theoretical efficiency, is moving crude at 12 times the rate of the Keystone pipeline. 

But even that is not the overriding factor.  The pipeline will cost a fortune in capital costs to install.  The rail line requires a 50-ft right-of-way, from lands purchased from farmers, but the building costs of rail today run at about $1.8 million a mile.  That pipeline is going to cost quite a bit more, probably 4-5 million a mile, I dunno, have not checked the numbers.  The pipe represents a sunk capital cost, because you really cannot use it for anything else.  But the rail line has lots of alternative cargo-moving and even passenger-moving prospects in the event that oil is not needed at the Southern end at some time in the future.  So you end up with capital costs being recoverable over the next hundred years for a rail line, and over perhaps 30 years in oil service, so your train rail line ends up costing you 1/10th what the capital losses are for that pipeline. 

Finally, if the pipeline busts while over the Ogallala Aquifer, you wreck the water supply for seven states.  If the rail train derails and the cars split open, the spill is localized and contained to only the oil in the train, and most of that will be tarry and stay on the surface, where it can be scooped up by payloader machinery.  One more aspect for policy-makers to ponder. 

As to fuel use to move the product, I disagree that pipe uses less energy to move the oil than rail.  Once loaded into tank-cars, the stuff is inert, only the energy needed to roll a tank car down the rail line is required.  In pipe, you have to heat the oil, pressurize it, and then use secondary pump stations to re-pressurize, all the way down the line.  That energy cost is huge when compared to rail. 

 

Loading and unloading of the rail cars is a slow process and requires a significant amount of energy; it needs to be factored into the analysis. The speed of the total process is limited by the slowest step. Heck, if the rate the refineries can use the stuff is met any further increase in transport speed is near useless.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Readers may keep in mind that Canada is an exporting nation; without its export earnings, the place devolves into aboriginal poverty.  And of the exports, fully 80% flow to the United States.  I dunno what the historical figures are for Canadian oil and gas production exports, but I would be surprised if it was below that 80% overall number.  So, continued access to the US markets is critical for the Canadian oil and gas sector.

This is of course distributed by Province.  The big producer provinces, Alberta, Saskatchewan, and Newfoundland, each ship into different markets.  But the "biggie" is shipment to the US Gulf Coast refineries, that is where the money is.  With Keystone totally dead, and zero hope it will ever be revived, it behooves the Canadians to look seriously at alternatives. It does not look like shipment to BC Ports is going anywhere, and even if the political players and the various Aboriginal tribes all get on board, building pipe through the Rockies is no easy task; you are looking at years and years.  So, for the shorter term, shipping by rail and boat (via the Great Lakes) to markets South and East is the way to go. 

Can the Canadians pull it together?  Probably not. So, the Eastern provinces of Quebec and Ontario will continue to import refined product. And that is what happens when politicians cannot get their heads out of their collective asses. 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Canada already has several export pipelines, people make it sound like there are none.

The Trans mountain expansion is being built, increasing access to tidewater, thereby decreasing the "one customer" problem.

Jan is correct the Keystone XL will never happen and probably not energy east.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, Boat said:

I have a better idea. Shut down the trains also. That oil from Canada is mostly not needed. That’s around 4 mbpd. Canada can ship and refine their own FF on their own land. The XL pipeline would have made it close to 5 mbpd of oil not needed from Canada. Then we can get rid of Venezuela, Russian and Saudi imports as well. Be a patriot  and buy American.

People forget, especially surprising since this an OIL forum, that there are different grades and sulfer grades to oils from different geographic regions of the planet and country.  The oil from, Canda's tar sands are a Heavy crude, and the refineries that it goes to are designed for Heavy crude processing. They used to get it from Venezuela and Iran at points, but guess what, we don't  now. Most of the US crude is light sweet, which will not process at these plants. the only US heavy crude is from California, whose oil production is headed to the crappers due to the state politics.(They were the largest at a point). And no, it is cost prohibitive to change a plant to process light sweet. You also get different products from heavy, due to it large presence of napthenes

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, El Gato said:

The oil from, Canada's tar sands are a Heavy crude, and the refineries that it goes to are designed for Heavy crude processing. They used to get it from Venezuela and Iran at points, but guess what, we don't  now.

All true, of course.  Yet the Gulf refineries can be reconfigured to handle different input grades, all you have to do is throw money at it.  Perhaps to no surprise, the owners are a bit reluctant to do that.  I was under the impression that other viable sources for heavy crude were available; is Mexico not a supplier of heavy grades?  And, how about Trinidad and Tobago - at one time they had a large refinery operation there, since shut down. Did T4rinidad have local drilling and is that production available?

The real reason for the moaning and groaning out of Alberta is not that they cannot get the product to market, they can do that with unit trains.  Their big issue is that the Oilsands oil sells at a giant discount to WPI list, the difference in large part being the rail transport costs.  The rail companies are in effect monopolies, or perhaps oligopolies - businesses that can charge whatever they want.  The rail companies are inefficiently run, do not use their capital assets well, and have all their extra costs baked in, due to decades of poor operating practices.  So it gets expensive to ship by rail.  But it does not have to be that way.  A dedicated rail line, built at a cost of about $1.8 million/mile, would not be so expensive as to deter large OBR shipments.  I see it as the way out. 

the other solution, hinted at by El Gato, is for Syncrude to invest in upgrader plants.  But the price tag for that looks like around $10 billion - a steep hit for a company that is having cash problems.  Is that capital available?  Not when you can import crude from Nigeria and tanker it in to Montreal. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

Mexico does...... but it's Mexico. between corruption and wishiwashness, their oil industry is in marginally better shape than Venezuela. or maybe worse? Government controlled industry at its finest. T&T I'm not sure what type of oil they have, but produce only 23,000 bpd, as of latest data.

Edited by El Gato

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, Dan Warnick said:

This is for you, @Rodent  :) 

(It was on the same YouTube page as the above, and I instantly thought of you.  Isn't that special?)

Copying in a couple of guys so they might share a laugh:

@Jan van Eck

@Tom Kirkman

 

 

💜 Miss you all!

  • Great Response! 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On 2/19/2021 at 1:33 PM, frankfurter said:

(shared via facebook)

Pipeline vs Train vs Ship to Transport Crude Oil.

 

It is mostly about the cost. Pipelines are the cheapest way to transport oil (if you have a large amount of oil to transport so as to keep the pipeline close to its capacity)

 

image.png.384fb25c43b32cae646032292bb4985e.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, Jan van Eck said:

 

Finally, if the pipeline busts while over the Ogallala Aquifer, you wreck the water supply for seven states.  If the rail train derails and the cars split open, the spill is localized and contained to only the oil in the train, and most of that will be tarry and stay on the surface, where it can be scooped up by payloader machinery.  One more aspect for policy-makers to ponder. 

 

Various studies show that pipelines are safer, that is less oil spilt per volume transported than trnasport by rail over the transport route. Pipeline spills are mainly at the failities, not along the route.

So if the oil is moved by rail along the same route that prospective pipeline will do, the safety/ecology is better for pipeline transport.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Like power generation, its not a binary proposition of "one is better than the other", its a mix.    The reason its important to have diverse sources of power generation and transport is that if you allow one thing to dominate that mix, the demand for, and therefore the price of that thing rises--making the alternatives more attractive by comparison.

The physics/technical discussion here is informative and interesting, but I'd like to throw in that any examination of the COST of each alternative is predicated on the existing economic ecosystem.    If we decide trains are better, then we would use more diesel, which would cause the cost of train transport to rise, and then it is no longer "better".

This is the same argument for renewables and power mix.    Alternatives reduce reliance on one thing.   1973 isnt going to happen again for a variety of reasons--but one of them is that there are simply other ways to generate power and transport and oil-producing states no longer have a monopoly they can relentlessly exploit.

Politically, they simply should have built the pipeline.   IIRC its an expansion pipeline--so other similar lines exist and are politically, economically, and technologically not-controversial.    As you suggest, it is a "green" choice, even though XL hasn't been successfully marketed that way.    However this website and the endless nostalgia about oldtech prove that the only way you can get people to adopt newer, better, faster things is to propagandize them endlessly about why smoking and coal and oil are bad even though they are not nearly as bad as the sentiment about them is.   

Until the sentiment is created that emphasizes why they are poor choices, people will just continue to keep making bad, illogical choices because those are comfortable and obvious to them.

All technologies (and plans) have drawbacks, limitations and characteristics that do not make them simply "better" or "more efficient" than others--they are complimentary to one another.

Final point;  pipelines do not roll backwards into small towns and blow them up.    That was one of the main arguments for XL and similar projects; life ($$$) vs spill ($) safety.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Watch the Senate today.  Deb Haaland is up for a vote for the head of the Department of Interior.  She said she'll follow Biden's agenda and we know what that is.  Banning drilling and leasing on federal lands and shuttering pipelines.  She protested with the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe to shut the Dakota Access Pipeline which has been moving crude for 3 years without incident.  It is still active, but not for long with Haaland.  She says "the earth is here to provide for us".  In other words, she's lying through her teeth and needs to be voted down!  That's a "feel good" message which means the earth will provide for us but there will bebno access.

We're currently producing 9.7 million barrels a day from 13.5 million barrels a day in 2019.  If Haaland gets the nod and Biden joins hands with Iran, we'll have an energy crises on our hands, with pipelines shuttered and explosions by rail like the one that occurred yesterday here in Texas.  Called my Senators this morning, please do the same.

  • Great Response! 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, please sign in.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.