4 ms·

> The Keystone XL pipeline extension was proposed by TC Energy in 2008 to transport 830,000 bpd of Alberta tar sands oil to refineries on the Gulf Coast of Texa

by rascul 5y ago

> The Keystone XL pipeline extension was proposed by TC Energy in 2008 to transport 830,000 bpd of Alberta tar sands oil to refineries on the Gulf Coast of Texas. Is this oil currently being transported by truck or is it sitting in the ground waiting for a pipeline? Or something else?

exabrial 5y ago
The stuff that is obtained, usually rail, which is hilariously awful accident record. Pipelines are designed with remediation in mind. Tracks were put down by tycoons 100 years ago.
- jcranmer 5y ago
  I think you are seriously underestimating just how frequently pipelines fail. There are definitely more pipeline spills than rail accidents each year, and I believe if you take into account severity of spills (e.g., ignoring spills that don't make it outside a pumping station), I think it comes out to "pipelines spill on average as much in a year as rail has in my entire lifetime."
- yabones 5y ago
  Isn't it cheaper/safer to build railroads that can transport anything rather than a pipeline that only does oil? If the problem is the quality of the aging railways, why don't we just fix that?
  - exabrial 5y ago
    Great question. That can and has been done. The problem is it's enormously expensive as you're dealing with competing optimizations. Railroads can't go "anywhere", generally you need very shallow grades and the right structure underneath the tracks. Unfortunately the soil, rock layers, fault lines (think small fractures that water travels along, not san andres), drainage patterns, and many more factors contribute to environmental safety beneath said lines. So your rail would likely not be able to take the most efficient or straight path for rail. This isn't a problem for something like the XL pipeline, which had sealed clay basins planned in worrysome areas. Train wrecks are also catastrophic, so while catch basins work pretty dang well, they can damaged easily in events like that. So you end up having to make compromises somewhere: efficient trains vs environmental safety. Pipelines have similar issues, but they're not dealing with thundering transient loads, and modern pipelines are very safe compared to their 50 year old counterparts, in the same way US nuclear reactors are far safer than RMBK reactors. Tracks that can "haul anything" certain could be built, but at a larger cost than general freight rail.
enkid 5y ago
According to the government of Canada, [0] typically there is enough capacity in pipeline and rail to transport all of the crude. In 2018, there was a surge in demand and they weren't able to transport it all until the rail network caught up. Transportation by truck does happen, but would be too expensive and doesn't have the capacity to be a primary component. The pipeline mostly would lower transportation costs, as trains are more expensive than pipelines, and would provide some surge capacity, while making the US and Canada's lol industry even more integrated. (Currently over half of all US oil imports are from Canada and 59% of Canada's oil exports are to just the Midwest states.)
- rascul 5y ago
  > According to the government of Canada, [0] The reference seems to be missing. > US and Canada's lol industry Is that supposed to be oil industry? If not, I not sure I understand. What I'm trying to understand is if this pipeline is for additional capacity or if it is meant to replace the trucks and rail? I'm trying to understand a bit of the environmental impact. If the choice is pipeline vs no pipeline then it seems clear from an environmental perspective. But if the choice is pipeline vs truck/rail than there might be some factors in play that I'm not currently aware of.
incomingpain 5y ago
>Is this oil currently being transported by truck or is it sitting in the ground waiting for a pipeline? Or something else? There's already a pipeline going from Canada down to Steele City and then east to Illinois and also south to a few places like port arthur. In terms of Canadian oil it's already going to USA markets. XL doesn't really majorly benefit Canada. What XL would have done would connect up the Baker, MT oil to steele city. XL being cancelled benefits Canada because Baker does have to use trucks or train.

by rascul 5y ago

exabrial 5y ago

The stuff that is obtained, usually rail, which is hilariously awful accident record. Pipelines are designed with remediation in mind. Tracks were put down by tycoons 100 years ago.

jcranmer 5y ago
I think you are seriously underestimating just how frequently pipelines fail. There are definitely more pipeline spills than rail accidents each year, and I believe if you take into account severity of spills (e.g., ignoring spills that don't make it outside a pumping station), I think it comes out to "pipelines spill on average as much in a year as rail has in my entire lifetime."
yabones 5y ago
Isn't it cheaper/safer to build railroads that can transport anything rather than a pipeline that only does oil? If the problem is the quality of the aging railways, why don't we just fix that?
- exabrial 5y ago
  Great question. That can and has been done. The problem is it's enormously expensive as you're dealing with competing optimizations. Railroads can't go "anywhere", generally you need very shallow grades and the right structure underneath the tracks. Unfortunately the soil, rock layers, fault lines (think small fractures that water travels along, not san andres), drainage patterns, and many more factors contribute to environmental safety beneath said lines. So your rail would likely not be able to take the most efficient or straight path for rail. This isn't a problem for something like the XL pipeline, which had sealed clay basins planned in worrysome areas. Train wrecks are also catastrophic, so while catch basins work pretty dang well, they can damaged easily in events like that. So you end up having to make compromises somewhere: efficient trains vs environmental safety. Pipelines have similar issues, but they're not dealing with thundering transient loads, and modern pipelines are very safe compared to their 50 year old counterparts, in the same way US nuclear reactors are far safer than RMBK reactors. Tracks that can "haul anything" certain could be built, but at a larger cost than general freight rail.

enkid 5y ago

According to the government of Canada, [0] typically there is enough capacity in pipeline and rail to transport all of the crude. In 2018, there was a surge in demand and they weren't able to transport it all until the rail network caught up. Transportation by truck does happen, but would be too expensive and doesn't have the capacity to be a primary component. The pipeline mostly would lower transportation costs, as trains are more expensive than pipelines, and would provide some surge capacity, while making the US and Canada's lol industry even more integrated. (Currently over half of all US oil imports are from Canada and 59% of Canada's oil exports are to just the Midwest states.)

rascul 5y ago
> According to the government of Canada, [0] The reference seems to be missing. > US and Canada's lol industry Is that supposed to be oil industry? If not, I not sure I understand. What I'm trying to understand is if this pipeline is for additional capacity or if it is meant to replace the trucks and rail? I'm trying to understand a bit of the environmental impact. If the choice is pipeline vs no pipeline then it seems clear from an environmental perspective. But if the choice is pipeline vs truck/rail than there might be some factors in play that I'm not currently aware of.

incomingpain 5y ago

>Is this oil currently being transported by truck or is it sitting in the ground waiting for a pipeline? Or something else? There's already a pipeline going from Canada down to Steele City and then east to Illinois and also south to a few places like port arthur. In terms of Canadian oil it's already going to USA markets. XL doesn't really majorly benefit Canada. What XL would have done would connect up the Baker, MT oil to steele city. XL being cancelled benefits Canada because Baker does have to use trucks or train.