Canada crude-by-rail exports reach record high of 160,000 bpd

Reuters | May 26, 2014 | Reuters

[thackney]

Canadian exports of crude oil by rail hit a record high of 160,000 barrels per day in the first quarter of 2014, Canada's National Energy Board says, a more than 50 percent rise from the same period a year earlier.

Canada shipped 160,164 bpd out of the country by rail between January and March, a sharp rise from the first quarter of 2013, when it exported 105,632 bpd, the NEB said on Friday. The first-quarter figure was a 7 percent increase from the final quarter of 2013, when 149,479 bpd were exported by rail.

The crude-by-rail boom in Canada has been gathering pace over the past two years as producers seek alternatives to congested export pipelines...

[thackney]

Excerpted due to Reuters

[thackney]

Canada ping

[qman]

It’s going by rail, through the USA to the gulf, on trains owned by Warren Buffet who supports Obama and is against the pipeline. Crony Capitalism at it’s finest!

[thackney]

It is going to the west coast, midwest and east coast as well.

[BilLies]

Crude WAS coming through Albany NY but the depot is within a mile or less of low income government housing and the city and county are toying to put hold shipments and storage until the safety of the handling of the oil is “Asscetained”.

[railroader]

Sad when facts don’t matter.

Canadian National Railway (CN) and Canadian Pacific Railway (CPRS) handle crude-by-rail exports out of Canada, much of which goes to eastern carriers such as CSX Transportation and Norfolk Southern at Chicago. CN handles some to New Orleans.

This has little or nothing to do with Berkshire Hathaway’s BNSF, which gets as much crude-by-rail business as it does because of the region (Bakken) it serves.

http://www.railwayage.com/index.php/freight/class-i/the-crude-oil-challenge.html

[Rodamala]

I have 4 words for ya...

Uniform, Tango, Lima, X-Ray.

[railroader]

I have 4 words for ya...

Uniform, Tango, Lima, X-Ray.

So what? Greenbrier Companies, American Railcar Industries and Trinity Railcar also manufacture (and lease) tank cars used in crude oil service. Also, Warren Buffet announced a deal to purchase Union Tank Car parent Marmon Holdings in late 2007, a few years before the crude-by-rail phenomenon. And crude oil doesn't make up for the loss of coal (long a significant commodity handled by BNSF and predecessor BN) thanks to his best buddy Obama's EPA and increasing natural gas extraction. If he finds a way to benefit from hydraulic fracturing then good for him. BNSF and UTLX will benefit from crude-by-rail regardless of the Keystone Pipeline because so much of it is going to the East Coast. And shipments to the West Coast will soon become a major source of business as well (though Union Pacific will likely handle more of it than BNSF).

[qman]

I mis-understood where this oil came from, sorry! But I think my point stands with correction that the pipeline is being held up so BNSF will not loose out to the pipeline, and that friends of Obama can count on him to block any competition that might be good for the american consumer and bad for Berkshire Hathaway.
I’m sick of the unfair crony capitalism being practiced by both sides of the isle, “my billionaire is a good man, and yours is evil”. It makes it impossible for new competition to spring up and challenge the monster corporations.

[railroader]

My beef is when any news of crude-by-rail comes up, it’s always because Warren Buffet-has-his-friend-Obama-hold-up-the-Keystone-Pipeline-so-his-BNSF Railway-can-benefit, or something like that. Problems with that are:

(1) If Mr. Buffet is so influential, then why doesn’t he tell his friend Obama to lay off his War on Coal, which is reducing a more profitable commodity for which infrastructure is already in place?

(2) BNSF serves the Bakken Shale Formation, but not the Alberta Tar Sands. Many railroads haul crude oil. Several tank car manufacturers benefit, not just B-H’s Union Tank Car Co.

(3) Much of the crude oil extracted from Canada’s oil sands or North Dakota’s Bakken Shale Formation moves to east coast refineries to which pipelines are either not practical or rail transportation is actually cheaper due flexibility. Trains can be diverted, pipelines can’t.

(4) The need to mix diluents with the bitumen extracted from the tar sands to make it flow through a pipeline. Less diluent is necessary when shipping by rail (tank cars have heating coils to ensure product is liquefied when unloading), thus reducing costs.

Freepers need to understand the facts. Conservativism embraces truth, liberalism does not.

[Squawk 8888]

Thanks thackney. To all- please ping me to Canadian topics.

Canada Ping!

[albertabound]

So you are saying that despite the fact the upper keystone is routed to pick up Bakken crude, BNSF crude transportation business will not be affected...bit of a stretch...

[thackney]

The Keystone pipeline routes through North Dakota.

The Keystone XL pipeline, if built, does not go through North Dakota.

[railroader]

So you are saying that despite the fact the upper keystone is routed to pick up Bakken crude, BNSF crude transportation business will not be affected...bit of a stretch...

Not at all. BNSF will likely experience decline in North Dakota crude oil traffic bound for the Gulf Coast because of Texas shale oil being in closer proximity, but at the same time, see a shift in markets to the West Coast (already happening).

Remember BNSF announced in February that it was purchasing 5,000 of its own tank cars for crude oil service, so obviously, it expects to handle such traffic for decades to come regardless where it goes.

Btw, the railroad put out a RFP to several manufacturers, so UTLX isn't guaranteed this business.

[albertabound]

It’s capacity and eastward shift is designed to pick up crude from the Bakken patch which also extends into southern Saskatchewan.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=c4—CI6IdJg

[thackney]

It’s capacity and eastward shift is designed to pick up crude from the Bakken patch which also extends into southern Saskatchewan.

- - - - - -

It is the capacity pipe from Hardisty, AB to Steele City, NE. It is not designed for significant additional capacity pick up along the way. It goes south and east because that is the direction to travel for the product delivery.

Keep in mind the open season when they got commitments for delivery occurred in 2007, before there was such a pipeline bottleneck coming out of North Dakota.

http://www.transcanada.com/3087.html

[albertabound]

http://townhall.com/watchdog/nebraska/2014/05/21/keystonexl-bakken-n4970

just going by this link info

[thackney]

From the link:

other documents has indicated only 8 percent of the pipeline would be Bakken oil

That is more in line with what I have read.

[thackney]

If you choose the “keep reading” link at the bottom, it goes to:

http://watchdog.org/145665/keystonexl-bakken/

This article makes it clear the 250MBPD figure was from when the Gulf Coast Pipeline was included and 150MBPD was counted in the Cushing Marketlink. This portion of the original project is already built. It is not part of the Keystone XL currently waiting for approval.

In my opinion, TransCanada made a mistake by combining several projects into on big approval, trying to push for support of a massive project. It gained too much attention from the NIMBYs and environMENTALists. Eventually they figured that out and split them up.