Here's a statement of the obvious: The opinions expressed here are those of the participants, not those of the Mutual Fund Observer. We cannot vouch for the accuracy or appropriateness of any of it, though we do encourage civility and good humor.
Support MFO
Donate through PayPal
Moving Oil by Train ... A look at what can go wrong!
Pipelines do have accidents, but I think it's rather fascinating how aggressively pipelines have been protested (to the point where the Keystone pipeline is probably not going to happen), despite issues with transporting energy by rail. I own both pipelines and rail and they probably aren't going to be building more of either.
Reply to @scott: I agree with you. If it were up to the do-gooders they would have us burn wood in our stoves to keep warm, and then bitch about losing all those trees. Regards, Ted
While the Keystone pipeline, if built, will employ a few people for a couple of years, before and after that only the oil companies who built it will benefit. It's dirty oil not destined for US markets most likely and the risks to a lot of prime farm land and natural areas are many. I don't believe that pipelines are all that much safer than the rails for transportation. All they do is allow the operator(s) to cover up the damages, or at least, keep them out of the headlines when stuff happens. If you can't or don't see the spill then it never happened. Spill on some persons back 40, no biggie, pocket change will take care of the problem usually.
FWIW, this is spoken as one who invests heavily in pipelines.
Reply to @Mark: In terms of 'dirty' oil, if you mean tar sands, I think if that is not delivered via pipeline, it will be delivered via train and there are definitely indications of that from Canadian National Railway and others. Canada is suffering from lack of infrastructure.
("OTTAWA — Canada lost out on about $25 billion in oil revenues last year due to pipeline and production bottlenecks and is expected to lose $15 billion a year going forward until it deals with its infrastructure deficit, a new CIBC report says.
I do think having easy access to Canadian energy benefits the US in terms of dealing with a friendly, politically stable neighbor. Canada benefits, as well, certainly. However, in a world where there's an increasing amount of demand for energy, Canada could just as easily ship oil to the coast and out to Asia or elsewhere in the world.
Minor pipeline spills are often not discussed, but I think major ones are increasingly discussed - see the Exxon spill in Arkansas, where people filmed oil running down their street in the suburbs and put it on Youtube.
I do think that, despite some serious issues lately, you will not see a change in the way that people view pipelines. Whether or not pipelines would help move energy from all of the new finds or not, I think rail will continue to pick up a lot of business - but not only is rail moving energy, it's seeing a lot of business moving fracking sand and equipment. I still say buy pipelines and rail as they're not going to be building many more pipelines that quickly with increasing regulation and only a handful of names continue to dominate rail traffic.
"The incident could draw more regulatory scrutiny to rail shipments of crude, but analysts say the soaring use of trains to move oil is a long-term trend that isn't likely to change soon."Rail will be the long-term transportation solution out of the Bakken to the U.S. east and west coasts due to the lack of pipeline infrastructure to those refining centers," Tudor Pickering says."
Oil Price News by Rory Johnston | 01 January 2014 00:00 "Transportation is a hot topic in the oil industry at the moment and companies are ever searching for new means to get their product to market. As environmentalists continue to use every method at their disposal to block pipelines like Keystone XL, Northern Gateway, and Energy East, these companies are being forced to consider options potentially far more environmentally devastating than a pipeline." Albertan Bitumen Heading for the Great Lakes "Unlike normal oil, bitumen is heavier than water and sinks, making cleanup far more difficult. Michigan’s Kalamazoo River incident serves as an example of the risks posed when bitumen and water meet" http://oilprice.com/Energy/Crude-Oil/Albertan-Bitumen-Heading-for-the-Great-Lakes.html 'regulation is needed, as four incidents in six months, or one every six weeks on average, have signally proven the inability of Canadian and U.S. railways to provide safety to communities alongside their train tracks, and unless such regulation is implemented, with a 2,500 percent increase in hydrocarbon transit in the past five years, another Lac-Mégantic tragedy is seemingly inevitable.' http://oilprice.com/Energy/Crude-Oil/North-Dakota-Oil-Train-Conflagration-Prompts-Increased-Federal-Scrutiny.html
some people care about the environment and some don't. more money isn't everything!@ Thank goodness for do-gooders - go breathe some air in Xian and then count all the species of wildlife you see in Angola (except for a fewsmall local refuges). Also, see all all the infrastructure improvements for the people of Angola based on resource and mineral extraction. Best thing you can say about Angola is - it has the city with the highest cost of living in the world.
In particular, to the ethanol production noted in your link. What a joke of political crap this has been. A "grow more corn" subsidy to corn production states (including Michigan), pushed by the politicians and others thinking they were on the path of rightousness for the environment, etc. Here are images of the typical damage to a fuel system as the result of mandatory laws for adding ethanol to gasoline. After a few "what the hell" events with small engines, I discovered this common problem. The nominal fix is to add a fuel stablizer chemical to all gasoline used for small engines. I am sure too many found their home generators failing to start during the recent, massive power outage in the Midwest, northeast and Canada; from fuel system damage from ethanol. Bet you that they were some happy folks, and lov'in that biofuel project.
View the results of ethanol/flex fuel upon mileage ratings for typical autos.
I noted over the years in mail to one of our senators; that one previously unknown and only benefit to ethanol being added to gasoline was the continued and expanded work provided to small engine repair facilities for parts and labor, and for profits to the companies that sell and/or produce gasoline additives to reduce the damage done to fuel systems from ethanol.
To the best of my knowledge, any business in our area that sells; mowers, weed wackers, snowblowers, garden tillers, etc.; will also try to sell their gasoline additive with the sale of the main product.
One may only guess as to the number of productive hours lost, and monies spent by consumers to offset the "ethanol follie".
Surely not a fund discussion here; but of value, I do believe.
Hopefully, the above info will help someone here solve an ongoing problem with some gasoline engines.
Reply to @catch22: I agree with you, flex-fuel was a joke when early on it was proven to get less MPG than regular, and the damage it causes to an engine Regards, Ted
Comments
Regards,
Ted
Regards,
Ted
FWIW, this is spoken as one who invests heavily in pipelines.
("OTTAWA — Canada lost out on about $25 billion in oil revenues last year due to pipeline and production bottlenecks and is expected to lose $15 billion a year going forward until it deals with its infrastructure deficit, a new CIBC report says.
CIBC economists Avery Shenfeld and Peter Buchanan said the record price discount received by Western producers of heavy oil — mostly bitumen — is no longer the issue it once was, but Canada will continue to lose big time until it permanently solves its pipeline deficit.") http://business.financialpost.com/2013/04/03/canada-oil-producers-losing-15-billion-a-year-keystone-cibc/?__lsa=8e06-84ac
---
I do think having easy access to Canadian energy benefits the US in terms of dealing with a friendly, politically stable neighbor. Canada benefits, as well, certainly. However, in a world where there's an increasing amount of demand for energy, Canada could just as easily ship oil to the coast and out to Asia or elsewhere in the world.
Minor pipeline spills are often not discussed, but I think major ones are increasingly discussed - see the Exxon spill in Arkansas, where people filmed oil running down their street in the suburbs and put it on Youtube.
I'm increasingly doubtful that Keystone will be built - the rail companies are eager to take up the slack and some pipeline companies are already offering up alternatives, such as Enbridge. (http://business.financialpost.com/2013/10/10/enbridges-keystone-xl-alternative-new-pathway-on-track-to-move-alberta-bitumen-to-gulf-coast-by-mid-2014/?__lsa=8e06-84ac)
I do think that, despite some serious issues lately, you will not see a change in the way that people view pipelines. Whether or not pipelines would help move energy from all of the new finds or not, I think rail will continue to pick up a lot of business - but not only is rail moving energy, it's seeing a lot of business moving fracking sand and equipment. I still say buy pipelines and rail as they're not going to be building many more pipelines that quickly with increasing regulation and only a handful of names continue to dominate rail traffic.
Edited to add: http://seekingalpha.com/currents/post/1487251
"The incident could draw more regulatory scrutiny to rail shipments of crude, but analysts say the soaring use of trains to move oil is a long-term trend that isn't likely to change soon."Rail will be the long-term transportation solution out of the Bakken to the U.S. east and west coasts due to the lack of pipeline infrastructure to those refining centers," Tudor Pickering says."
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/oct/25/north-dakota-oil-pipeline-spills-secrecy
Everyone can decide for themselves which spills are more dangerous and/or frightening.
by Rory Johnston | 01 January 2014 00:00
"Transportation is a hot topic in the oil industry at the moment and companies are ever searching for new means to get their product to market. As environmentalists continue to use every method at their disposal to block pipelines like Keystone XL, Northern Gateway, and Energy East, these companies are being forced to consider options potentially far more environmentally devastating than a pipeline."
Albertan Bitumen Heading for the Great Lakes
"Unlike normal oil, bitumen is heavier than water and sinks, making cleanup far more difficult. Michigan’s Kalamazoo River incident serves as an example of the risks posed when bitumen and water meet"
http://oilprice.com/Energy/Crude-Oil/Albertan-Bitumen-Heading-for-the-Great-Lakes.html
'regulation is needed, as four incidents in six months, or one every six weeks on average, have signally proven the inability of Canadian and U.S. railways to provide safety to communities alongside their train tracks, and unless such regulation is implemented, with a 2,500 percent increase in hydrocarbon transit in the past five years, another Lac-Mégantic tragedy is seemingly inevitable.'
http://oilprice.com/Energy/Crude-Oil/North-Dakota-Oil-Train-Conflagration-Prompts-Increased-Federal-Scrutiny.html
some people care about the environment and some don't. more money isn't everything!@ Thank goodness for do-gooders - go breathe some air in Xian and then count all the species of wildlife you see in Angola (except for a fewsmall local refuges). Also, see all all the infrastructure improvements for the people of Angola based on resource and mineral extraction. Best thing you can say about Angola is - it has the city with the highest cost of living in the world.
GT Advanced Technologies 9.12 +0.40 (4.65%)
https://www.google.com/finance?q=NASDAQ:GTAT&ei=_CLGUpDoIYaxqQGRTg
Guggenheim Solar ETF 37.86 +2.68 (7.62%)
https://www.google.com/finance?q=NYSEARCA:TAN&ei=_CLGUpDoIYaxqQGRTg
Sunedison Inc 13.92 +0.87 (6.67%)
https://www.google.com/finance?q=NYSE:SUNE&ei=_CLGUpDoIYaxqQGRTg
Regards,
Ted
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/4-reasons-why-environmentalists-are-wrong-about-energy-2014-01-03/print?guid=7E15CD6C-7401-11E3-9733-00212803FAD6
In particular, to the ethanol production noted in your link. What a joke of political crap this has been. A "grow more corn" subsidy to corn production states (including Michigan), pushed by the politicians and others thinking they were on the path of rightousness for the environment, etc.
Here are images of the typical damage to a fuel system as the result of mandatory laws for adding ethanol to gasoline. After a few "what the hell" events with small engines, I discovered this common problem. The nominal fix is to add a fuel stablizer chemical to all gasoline used for small engines. I am sure too many found their home generators failing to start during the recent, massive power outage in the Midwest, northeast and Canada; from fuel system damage from ethanol. Bet you that they were some happy folks, and lov'in that biofuel project.
View the results of ethanol/flex fuel upon mileage ratings for typical autos.
I noted over the years in mail to one of our senators; that one previously unknown and only benefit to ethanol being added to gasoline was the continued and expanded work provided to small engine repair facilities for parts and labor, and for profits to the companies that sell and/or produce gasoline additives to reduce the damage done to fuel systems from ethanol.
To the best of my knowledge, any business in our area that sells; mowers, weed wackers, snowblowers, garden tillers, etc.; will also try to sell their gasoline additive with the sale of the main product.
One may only guess as to the number of productive hours lost, and monies spent by consumers to offset the "ethanol follie".
Surely not a fund discussion here; but of value, I do believe.
Hopefully, the above info will help someone here solve an ongoing problem with some gasoline engines.
Rant finished........
Catch
Regards,
Ted