Tuesday, January 21, 2014

Did anyone else pick up this Pielke prediction?

From November 11, 2011, RPJr says:

The Obama Administration has put off a decision on the Keystone XL pipeline until immediately after the 2012 election. At that point a newly elected Republican president will be able to quickly approve it or President Obama can do the same without concern for an upcoming election.
Responding to enviro claims that rejecting the original Keystone application was a victory, RPJr continues:
Let's return to this February, 2013 and see if "victory" still smells as sweet -- when plans re-emerge for crude oil flowing south, regardless of who wins the election.
Well, so much for the timing of Pielke's prediction. I think it's quite possible that Obama will approve Keystone, but unlike Romney, he'll counterbalance any approval with something to help the climate. And the more he delays, the more he'll have to counterbalance with something meaningful rather than refer to past actions. Each year the tar sands stay in the ground increases the chance that at least some of it will stay there, so delay has a value in addition to making victory possible.

Happy to link to anyone who pointed this out before.


Daniel Wirt said...

Brian, I read a site called "Rigzone" just to keep up with the latest in the Belly of the Beast (rigzone.com)

I think they are gearing up to carry a lot of tar sands hydrocarbon via rail, fiery crashs notwithstanding. This will make Canadian National Railway and Warren Buffet (Burlington Northern happy). They are already talking about beefing up the tanker cars to make them more crash resistant.

Bryson said...

Rail still puts a cap on what they can move. It's a stop-gap, not a long-term plan for full exploitation. I'm hoping Pielke isn't just wrong, but completely off base.

Daniel Wirt said...

The rail advocates are dreaming big.



Dano said...

Here in another oil patch some are making noise about having a Plan B, and the reporting on rail is starting to pick up. Still think the KXL will be approved after mid-terms, but not a done deal.



EliRabett said...

Well sort of. Unit trains can be efficient (and dangerous)

Daniel Wirt said...

More news from the Belly of the Beast:


Daniel Wirt said...

Yes, their planning includes unit trains ( see Association of American Railroads link above):

"Railroads also help crude oil customers find ways to load and unload tank cars more quickly and reduce en-route delays. Promoting unit train shipments is often a key part of this process. Unit trains are long trains (usually at least 50 and often 120 or more cars) consisting of a single commodity. These trains use dedicated equipment and generally follow direct shipping routes to and from facilities designed to load and unload them efficiently — say, from a gathering location near production areas to an unloading terminal at or near a refinery — and generally have much lower costs per unit shipped than non-unit trains or all other modes except much less flexible pipelines. A single large unit train might carry 85,000 barrels of oil and be loaded or unloaded in 24 hours. Significant amounts of crude oil continue to be moved in non-unit train shipments too."