KEYSTONE PIPELINE VS TRAIN VS SHIP TO MOVE OIL

[orange crusher]

A little time was spent putting some key numbers together:

1 Train has 100 cars, 2 engines and weighs 27,240,000 LBS.
1 Train carries 3,000,000 gallons of oil.
1 train uses 55.5 gallons of diesel fuel per mile.
It takes 119,000 gallons of diesel to go 2150 miles from Hardisty, AB to Freeport, TX.

The Keystone pipeline was to deliver 34,860,000 gallons of oil per day.
It would take 12 trains and an additional 1,428,000 gallons of diesel fuel to deliver that amount. PER DAY!
521,220,000 gallons of diesel per year.

The oil will still get to market with or without the pipeline. By stopping the pipeline, billions of gallons of diesel will be wasted and pollute needlessly.
Does that make you feel good?

Stop the Tar Sands all together? Then we must ship the oil from the overseas sandbox.

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

Or take 3.5 days of Keystone Pipeline to move the same amount of oil with a fraction of the pollution.

*In international waters, ship emissions remain one of the least regulated parts of our global transportation system. The fuel used in ships is waste oil, basically what is left over after the crude oil refining process. It is the same as asphalt and is so thick that when cold it can be walked upon. It's the cheapest and most polluting fuel available and the world's 90,000 ships chew through an astonishing 7.29 million barrels of it each day, or more than 84% of all the 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 Oxides (SOx) annually. The world's 90,000 vessels burn approx 370 million tons of fuel per year, emitting 20 million tons of Sulphur Oxides. That equates to 260 times more Sulphur Oxides 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 SOx as the worlds 760 million cars.

Eliminate all gas consuming cars and diesel vehicles?

Worldwide car gas consumption is 403,583,712,000 gallons a year. That's billion.
Worldwide oil consumption is 1,500,000,000,000 gallons a year. That's trillion.

It takes 2.15 gallons of oil to make 1 gallon of car gas and .6 gal of diesel.
So it takes 867,704,980,800 gallons of oil to run all the worlds cars, most diesel vehicles for a year, and some ships.
That leaves 632,295,019,200 gallons of oil for other uses.

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

So are we willing to dramatically increase mining to get all the minerals necessary to make all these batteries and electric engines?
Mining is way worse for the environment than oil extraction.
So is stopping the Keystone Pipeline still making you feel good?
It is now time for some very serious thinking on this subject!

 

[aaluck]

That's very interesting. I knew it was way worse but not that bad.

 

[mcfarmall]

That information is all well and good but at the end of the day, the pipeline will drastically cut into Warren Buffet's profits.

 

[random]

"The oil will still get to market with or without the pipeline."

I wonder about that. What is the real intent here?

 

[Borane4]

"The oil will still get to market with or without the pipeline."

I wonder about that. What is the real intent here?

Canada will finish the pipe from Alberta to Vancouver and load that oil off to China. Some suspect Buffett (which is prob true), but lowering US's standing in the world by stopping energy independence is also a driving force.

Canada pushes Trans Mountain pipeline to sell oil to China far beyond US shores

Canada's purchase of a long-running controversial pipeline that could help it send oil to Asia comes, coincidentally, during a bitter trade dispute with the U.S., the only buyer of its oil.

www.cnbc.com

 

[torch]

Careful guys. This is getting awful close to politics.

 

[GreensvilleJay]

The Alberta-BC pipeline won't go through...there's a small minority that opposes it, so it'd be DECADES before it MIGHT happen..
Currently Canada exports 90+ % of all oil to the USA, some comes back here....it's currently about $5 USD per USG

 

[skeets]

"The oil will still get to market with or without the pipeline."

I wonder about that. What is the real intent here?

In MHO the intent is very simple,,, CONTROL

 

[NHSleddog]

"The oil will still get to market with or without the pipeline."

I wonder about that. What is the real intent here?

All you need to do is look at the rail carrying the oil and who owns it.

Fun fact, he purchased the controlling share right after giving Barry a huge campaign donation (knowing he was going to table the pipeline in 08).

New admin comes in and sees how stupid it is to move this product by rail and opens up the pipeline project again.

In comes another new admin......

New admin comes in..... Does not care how stupid and unsafe it is to carry the product by rail.
Joe Xiden owes some serious favors to Buffet etc. And the MSM makes you believe it is "saving the environment" talk about science deniers - SMH.

 

[dlsmith]

The figure of 119,000 gallons of fuel to move the trainload of oil 2150 miles is way off. It figures out to 246 ton miles per gallon. Most railroads are getting more like 450 to 500 TM/G now days. At 450 TM/G, the consumption would only be 65,000 gallons, or 45% less fuel used.

I thought the 55.5 G/M figure sounder a little high.

 

[Old_Paint]

Let's not even talk about the minerals and metals required for alternative energy sources. That's some scary stuff.

But, as with anything else, you want to find the real source of silly decisions, just follow the money.

 

[mcfarmall]

Michigan's dictator wants to shut down the Line 5 pipeline under the Straits of Mackinac AND crush the proposed tunnel to replace it! I personally think it's much safer and environmentally friendly to truck the propane and gasoline that the U.P. needs over the bridge instead.

 

[GreensvilleJay]

re:
I personally think it's much safer and environmentally friendly to truck the propane and gasoline that the U.P. needs over the bridge instead.

Not in the long haul, when you consider the continuous, 24/7 traffic of endless tankers that would be needed and that's IF you could hire enough truckers to drive the rigs ! Then there's the cost of 'repackaging' the product from semi tankers into huge storage tanks. THAT can take a lot of time,$$$, and oopsy.......

 

[skeets]

Jay I kind of think that was written as a little piece of sarcasm

 

[armylifer]

Michigan's dictator wants to shut down the Line 5 pipeline under the Straits of Mackinac AND crush the proposed tunnel to replace it! I personally think it's much safer and environmentally friendly to truck the propane and gasoline that the U.P. needs over the bridge instead.

Have you driven on that bridge? It sure sounds like you haven't. When it is windy (very often) it is very dangerous just for passenger cars, let alone trucks. Now let's put trucks loaded with oil on that bridge? I think not!

 

[mcfarmall]

re:
I personally think it's much safer and environmentally friendly to truck the propane and gasoline that the U.P. needs over the bridge instead.

Not in the long haul, when you consider the continuous, 24/7 traffic of endless tankers that would be needed and that's IF you could hire enough truckers to drive the rigs ! Then there's the cost of 'repackaging' the product from semi tankers into huge storage tanks. THAT can take a lot of time,$$$, and oopsy.......

My suggestion of trucking the products across the Mighty Mac was INTENSE SARCASM!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[mcfarmall]

Have you driven on that bridge? It sure sounds like you haven't. When it is windy (very often) it is very dangerous just for passenger cars, let alone trucks. Now let's put trucks loaded with oil on that bridge? I think not!

LOL as a lifelong Michigan resident, I have in fact driven across the Might Mac countless times, walked it many times and used SARCASM all the time.

 

[armylifer]

My suggestion of trucking the products across the Mighty Mac was INTENSE SARCASM!!!!!!!!!!!!

I didn't sense that. It is hard to see on a computer screen. Now I know!

 

[mcfarmall]

Jay I kind of think that was written as a little piece of sarcasm

Someone understands me!
I guess I have to upgrade my account so I can put the following message as my signature:
**WARNING: THIS MESSAGE MAY CONTAIN SARCASM!** READ AND FOLLOW AT YOUR OWN RISK!

 

[BigG]

If people only knew how many miles of gas and oil pipelines are buried in this country. Something like 2.4 million miles. Now that would be a lot of tank trucks.