Grain or oil

[Topaz]

The grain farmers are having problems moving their grains out by train because CP &CN say the very cold temps. are having an affect on the air brakes and they have to do shorter trains and lighter loads. Really, does that go for all those tankers cars, which probably weigh more than the grain??? http://www.cbc.ca/player/News/Business/ID/2439896900/

[hitops]

Yet another reason arguing in favour of more pipelines.

[Big Guy]

^{_{At the conservative think tank, Saskatchewan Premier Brad Wall seemed to be between the rock and the hard place or between the grain and the oil. The railways claim that now with the 600% of increase in railway oil traffic and the oil sands expecting to expand at 30% per year they no longer have the capacity to ship all the grain shipments. Brad can't side with either the oil guys or the grain farmers.}}

[waldo]

Yet another reason arguing in favour of more pipelines.

or more sustainable production

[hitops]

^{_{At the conservative think tank, Saskatchewan Premier Brad Wall seemed to be between the rock and the hard place or between the grain and the oil. The railways claim that now with the 600% of increase in railway oil traffic and the oil sands expecting to expand at 30% per year they no longer have the capacity to ship all the grain shipments. Brad can't side with either the oil guys or the grain farmers.}}

This is exactly why we need more pipeline capacity. It's safer, faster, more reliable, cheaper, more environmentally friendly and more profitable for the province.

The other thing that could happen would be building out more rail capacity or maybe even new rail companies.

[PIK]

And the country is losing out on international contracts because they can't get it to market.

[TimG]

---

Edited March 1, 2014 by TimG

[Topaz]

The New York times had an article about how more oil tankers are going into the Port of Albany N.Y then on to St John Nova Scotia. So it seems the gas and oil industries is taking over the rail and probably paying the CEO's of the rail money to do it and other who use the rails are just going to have to wait...after all there's big money in hauling oil. The residence are all too aware of what happen in Quebec and they aren't happy. http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/28/business/energy-environment/bakkan-crude-rolling-through-albany.html?_r=0

Edited March 6, 2014 by Topaz

[TimG]

So it seems the gas and oil industries is taking over the rail and probably paying the CEO's of the rail money to do it and other who use the rails are just going to have to wait.

Simple economics: oil and gas are worth more and the producers are willing to pay more. There is a simple solution: speed up the approval of pipelines. Of course, I bet you would rather see grain farmers suffer because idiotic enviros delay the approval process for the much safer pipelines. Edited March 6, 2014 by TimG

[Spiderfish]

Simple economics: oil and gas are worth more and the producers are willing to pay more. There is a simple solution: speed up the approval of pipelines. Of course, I bet you would rather see grain farmers suffer because idiotic enviros delay the approval process for the much safer pipelines.

I think there's more to the equation than simple economics, and believe that the new fight to control and limit this new transportation option is just heating up. If economics was the only consideration, pipelines would be the obvious choice.

The DOT has implemented 4 new Emergency Orders in the last 7 months to the existing Safety Standards for transporting crude by rail, something that is inevitable and ultimately necessary. There has been relatively little effort by environmental organizations so far to exploit this new safety fear, but this too I believe is inevitable.

Shipping Crude By Rail: The New Front In The Tar Sands Wars

Tar sands advocates are happy to promote the idea that continued development of the tar sands is inevitable because it implies that opposition to Keystone XL is futile and that Americans should therefore cash in on its jobs and construction expenditures before somebody else does. However, as tar sands opponents point out, much evidence suggests that this conclusion is at best premature and perhaps flat-out wrong.

What is certain is that rail has now joined a half-dozen proposals for tar sands pipelines as an arena of contention, with the future of the Florida-sized Alberta basin of western Canada at stake. Just as pipeline safety has been a key issue in the Keystone XL debate, this development has raised questions about the safety of crude-by-rail to new prominence, especially since a tanker accident in Quebec last July that killed 47 people. With these safety questions, such arcane matters as the design of tank cars and the carbon-hydrogen ratio of their contents have taken on heightened importance. How regulations governing these issues are decided will help determine whether the tar sands basin — the world's largest fossil fuel reserve outside Saudi Arabia — stays close to its current production level of 1.8 million barrels a day or expands to four or five times as much, as its developers hope. That in turn will have a significant impact on climate change's intensity in coming decades.

I think this pretty much sums up the strategy that can be expected moving forward:

"The rail guys right now are in the same space the pipeline guys were five years ago," said Keith Stewart, Greenpeace Canada's climate and energy campaign coordinator. "They're assuming they can have massive growth rates and there won't be any hiccups along the way. I think the pipeline guys have now realized it's not that easy, and the unnatural exuberance about rail will soon come crashing down in the same way."

[TimG]

I think this pretty much sums up the strategy that can be expected moving forward:

Except blocking rail transport would hurt US producers as well. I can't see the oil state representatives sitting idle while limousine liberals destroy the biggest bright spot in the US economy. Edited March 6, 2014 by TimG

[WestCoastRunner]

There is a simple solution: speed up the approval of pipelines. Of course, I bet you would rather see grain farmers suffer because idiotic enviros delay the approval process for the much safer pipelines.

I'm impressed how you are now pitting grain farmers against people who care about the environment. If it weren't for our idiotic enviros, we wouldn't have the preservation of what little rain forests we have in Canada, or the comeback of many endangered species of mammals, animals, plant life etc. Sometimes you just need to get out of the way and let the enviromentalists do the job that most of us would rather not do.

[Spiderfish]

Except blocking rail transport would hurt US producers as well. I can't see the oil state representatives sitting idle while limousine liberals destroy the biggest bright spot in the US economy.

Sure it would, just like delaying and opposing the Keystone XL is. As I said, there's more than economics at play.

Edited March 6, 2014 by Spiderfish

[TimG]

If it weren't for our idiotic enviros, we wouldn't have the preservation of what little rain forests we have in Canada, or the comeback of many endangered species of mammals, animals, plant life etc.

Environmentalists, like unions, served a useful purpose in the past. But now they are simply self absorbed obstructionists who have no understanding for how the economy works.

[Spiderfish]

If it weren't for our idiotic enviros, we wouldn't have the preservation of what little rain forests we have in Canada, or the comeback of many endangered species of mammals, animals, plant life etc.

Has pipeline construction caused the endangerment of many species of mammals, animals, plant life, etc.? Are you simply generalizing the positive protection efforts of environmentalists overall versus the evil pipe?

Edited March 6, 2014 by Spiderfish

[WestCoastRunner]

unions, served a useful purpose in the past.

I agree with you there.

[WestCoastRunner]

Has pipeline construction caused the endangerment of many species of mammals, animals, plant life, etc.? Are you simply generalizing the positive protection efforts of environmentalists overall versus the evil pipe?

I was referring to Tim's reference to grain farmers and idiotic enviromentalists and how he subtedly pitted one against the other.

[Spiderfish]

I was referring to Tim's reference to grain farmers and idiotic enviromentalists and how he subtedly pitted one against the other.

The added pressure on rail transport due to an exponential increase in the movement of crude has created a shortage and competition for rail capacity, although I wouldn't necessarily define it as subtle, he did offer a viable solution to the bottleneck.

[WestCoastRunner]

The added pressure on rail transport due to an exponential increase in the movement of crude has created a shortage and competition for rail capacity, although I wouldn't necessarily define it as subtle, he did offer a viable solution to the bottleneck.

You didn't get what I was referring to. I agree this is an important and critical issue. I was referring to Tim's subtle attempt to pit grain farmers against environmentalists.

[Spiderfish]

You didn't get what I was referring to. I agree this is an important and critical issue. I was referring to Tim's subtle attempt to pit grain farmers against environmentalists.

Your implication that environmentalists are fighting the good fight and that "Sometimes you just need to get out of the way and let the environmentalists do the job that most of us would rather not do" will do nothing to solve the problem of transporting oil to market, and in fact would surely slow it down to a crawl if not stop it completely if not challenged.

Restriction and limitation of transportation options is an effective way of controlling the rate of production, as I'm sure you are aware. It's in grain farmers best interest to transport oil as cheaply and efficiently as possible, their industry is heavily dependent on fossil fuels and their profitability is directly linked to the cost of fuel.

Edited March 6, 2014 by Spiderfish

[Wilber]

Restriction and limitation of transportation options is an effective way of controlling the rate of production, as I'm sure you are aware. It's in grain farmers best interest to transport oil as cheaply and efficiently as possible, their industry is heavily dependent on fossil fuels and their profitability is directly linked to the cost of fuel.

Their profitability is linked to being able to sell their product. The cost of fossil fuels means dick if they have no income to buy them.

Edited March 7, 2014 by Wilber

[TimG]

Their profitability is linked to being able to sell their product.

And the well being of the Canadian economy depends on the ability of resource producers extract and sell their product. Limousine liberals from NY and California may not care if the Canadian economy goes into the tank but everyone in Canada should care.

[Wilber]

And the well being of the Canadian economy depends on the ability of resource producers extract and sell their product. Limousine liberals from NY and California may not care if the Canadian economy goes into the tank but everyone in Canada should care.

Now grain growers are limousine liberals. Who knew?

Yup, oil is the only thing that counts in this country, everyone else just better get out of the way.

[TimG]

---

Edited March 7, 2014 by TimG

[guyser]

Ah Tim, stay the course.

Business= all good and virtous

People with evironmental concerns= all idiots out to destroy the country

Good thing we dont follow your lead, it'd be like sulfur mining in Africa.

"ya dont need a mask there son"