% | $
Quotes you view appear here for quick access.

Canadian Pacific Railway Limited Message Board

  • smokedlobster smokedlobster Apr 1, 2013 12:14 PM Flag

    So, to recap:

    1) Ship oil by pipeline. Expensive to build, long planning and lead-times required, cheap to use, destinations fixed and limited. Spills very infrequent, but potentially large.

    2) Ship by rail. Not as cheap, immaterial upfront costs, immediate service. Flexible and changeable destinations. Spills more likely, but limited in size.

    In either scenario, spils get cleaned up, entirely paid for by the company(s) involved.....this little detail gets "glossed over" in the ADD insanity that makes up a good soundbite.

    Or...3) Stop using any oil. If you didn't keep buying it, they wouldn't keep shipping it.

    PIck your poison, and then #$%$.

    SortNewest  |  Oldest  |  Most Replied Expand all replies
    • Just seemed like a good time to dig that post up for the predictable "nouveau outrage" ......

    • Excellent synopsis, smoked. I would add that, in the particular case of the shipment of bitumen, rail has a couple of other checkmarks in the "pro" column. At ambient temps in a rail car, bitumen has the consistency of warm peanut butter - it tends not to flow too far, too fast if released. (As I'm sure you know, but others may not, it loads hot, and unloads only following steam tracing of the car(s)). When shipped by pipeline, bitumen must be diluted with condensates, at around 70% bitumen / 30% diluent. When released, this 'dilbit" will flow more or less like a medium crude. And you have the added transportation risk (and cost) of shipping more "stuff", and buying and shipping the diluent.

130.89+0.56(+0.43%)11:31 AMEDT