Pipelines vs. Rail Cars - Which to Choose for Bakken Crude Shipments?

[MineralMan]

I live in the Minneapolis St. Paul, MN area, specifically in St. Paul. Each day, now, Bakken crude oil passes through the heart of both Minneapolis and St. Paul, primarily on BNSF (Burlington Northern Santa Fe) and CP (Canadian Pacific) rail lines. Here's a map, showing their routes through these two major cities. In the PDF, the routes are highlighted in yellow:

http://www.dot.state.mn.us/ofrw/maps/CBR_routes_aug2014.pdf

An average of 6 trains take those routes daily, each with 110 tank cars approximately. Each train carries 3.3 million gallons of crude oil, on its way southward along the Mississippi River, heading for Gulf refineries.

Here's a link to an MNDOT FAQ page that provides rail oil shipment details for Minnesota.

Back in February of 2014, one such tank car developed a leak, which went unnoticed as the car leaked crude oil along the route from Winona to Red Wing, MN. A mess to clean up, for sure, even in Winter, when cold temperatures kept the crude less viscous than it would have been at higher temperatures. So, with all of that traffic, how long will it be before there is a disastrous train wreck that spills oil and maybe starts a disastrous fire? Where will that wreck occur. In downtown St. Paul, maybe?

I live 2 blocks from a Union Pacific-owned rail line that wends its way from St. Paul to Chicago. Very little crude takes that route, which primarily serves 3M shipments to Chicago. Each day, three trains or so follow that route. I hear them clearly and sometimes get to watch them pass by from my car.

Trains are probably not the safest way to transport volatile Bakken crude oil. Train routes routinely pass through major cities, because that's where train freight shipments of all kinds are headed. That's where the business is. Pipelines, which carry only the crude oil, generally avoid those areas of high population density, since it's cheaper to buy rights to put it under low density population areas, government-owned land and farmland. So, pipelines are probably less risky when it comes to numbers of people at risk from a disaster. On the other hand, the environment is more at risk in areas with lower population densities, and response to disasters is much slower. There's risk either way, though.

In the best case, our oil consumption would drop to levels that did not require moving crude oil from places like the Bakken. That case is not the case, though, so the oil is going to move. The demand is still high and much of our economy is based on energy sources.

I'm torn. Do we continue to transport crude by rail or do we go ahead and build the pipelines. I don't like either option, really. But I recognize that a choice will have to be made. What do you think? At this point, it's Hobson's Choice, so here's a simple poll:

4 votes, 0 passes | Time left: Unlimited
	Continue Shipping Crude Oil by Train.
	2 (50%)
	Build the Pipelines.
	1 (25%)
	Use Both Methods.
	0 (0%)
	Stop Using Oil RFN!
	1 (25%)
	Other (Please explain your alternative solution)
	0 (0%)
	I Hate DU Polls.
	0 (0%)
	0 DU members did not wish to select any of the options provided.
Show usernames Disclaimer: This is an Internet poll

[MineralMan]

1. My vote was to build the pipelines.

I do not believe that it is possible to stop using oil, so it seems clear to me that oil will be transported. I believe that rail transport is the most dangerous way to do that and puts millions of people at risk. So, I think the pipeline option is the best solution overall.

I still do not like either method. We'll be shipping oil, though, one way or another, so Hobson's Choice must be made.

I hope others who vote in the poll will post their reasons for their vote.

[MineralMan]

2. Here's a map of the proposed Keystone Pipeline routes:

I wanted to post this, since I posted links to the rail line routes.



From http://keystone-xl.com/home/keystone-xl-kxl-oil-pipeline-maps/

[MineralMan]

3. And here's a map of existing major crude oil and natural gas

pipelines in the US:



From: http://www.theodora.com/pipelines/united_states_pipelines.html

[malthaussen]

4. My vote was to use the rails.

My reasoning is this: pipelines are permanent infrastructure (and highly susceptible to attack, although fortunately we've avoided that). Not only do they require large investment up-front (good for jobs in the short term, I guess), but they will require maintenance. In the current spending environment, maintenance of infrastructure is a pipe dream (so to speak). Of course, that could be an argument in favor of the pipelines, which at least will be new and not dependant on our eroding rail infrastructure.

But if we do find ourselves somehow reducing or eliminating our reliance on oil in the foreseeable future, then the pipelines will be obsolete, but still standing. Hard to imagine that they would be disassembled, since our attitude towards such things is "let 'em rust." Whereas extant rail lines transport other goods besides crude.

Thirdly, a pipeline breach could be much more destructive than a train spill, because the oil will continue to flow until cut off. With isolated pumping stations and few ready personnel, the response time could be significant. And once the pipe is breached, it has to be repaired,
necessitating alternate means of transport until it is fixed. That would be rails, again.

Of course what we need to do short-term is improve our goddam infrastructure, would would have the benefit of employing citizens and increasing safety and efficiency. I daresay it would cut down on the chance of a rail spill as well.

-- Mal

[MineralMan]

6. Thanks for your detailed response.

That's what I was hoping for. Your points are well-made, too. In looking at the existing pipeline map upthread, it's clear that we're already sending a lot of oil and gas through major pipelines now. I see that some very large ones pass through the Twin Cities area, too. We do hear about pipeline spills from time to time, as well as rail shipment problems.

Personally, I consider rail shipments to be more problematic, since they depend on railroad infrastructure, which has deteriorated in recent years. Also, most major rail lines pass through heavily populated areas, particularly in our major cities. The route that passes just two blocks from my house doesn't carry oil very often, but I watch what it does carry, which includes hazardous materials in a wide range. I have a disaster plan for my household in the case of a major rail disaster on that route, because it's there.

Frankly, I don't know exactly where the crude oil and natural gas pipelines in the Twin Cities are located, exactly. I'll be researching that soon, to see if any pass near my home. I assume that some of them probably follow the rail right of ways, though, since building them elsewhere would be very, very costly. I'll be checking.

Both options are risky, in their own ways, though.

[malthaussen]

9. To say nothing of hazardous materials transported by truck.

Given the increased strain on truck drivers due to long hours and (again!) deteriorating infrastructure, I'm amazed there aren't more trucking disasters. Fortunately, an overturned trailer will do less damage than a pipeline breach or derailment, but we ship a lot of stuff by truck. I don't think there is a non-risky option, but we certainly magnify risk by ignoring maintenance.

-- Mal

[MineralMan]

10. Really. Recently on a major Interstate through my area,

I found myself behind a large tank truck full of liquid oxygen. I passed that one quickly and put some serious distance between it and my car. Scary.

[snooper2]

15. I guess you didn't watch the VICE documentary about oil by rail I posted, this will change your mind

The Crude Gamble of Oil by Rail: Bomb Trains-

VICE

[jwirr]

5. Spills on the surface can be detected immediately and cleaned up as much as possible. A spill into

an aquifer would not be seen immediately and we have no idea how to clean them up just like the BP spill in the Gulf.

I would of course much rather see a move to alternative energies that do not rely on fossil fuels. And as fast as possible. But I do not see that coming any time soon.

[MineralMan]

7. That's a fair point. Following the leaky crude oil car I mentioned

in the OP, the cleanup went pretty well, although only about 20,000 gallons were spilled. Still, there was that Canadian train wreck, explosion and fire. That was disastrous in a different way.

Hobson's choice.

[jwirr]

8. As I said in my response. I would much prefer to start making a swift change to alternatives. Until

we do that we will only have these lesser of two evils to choose from.

I live up here in NE MN where they are putting in a lot of pipelines. One is less than 2 miles from our home. In the middle of the winter last year during the coldest below zero temps we had the pipeline crew with heavy equipment out there working for some reason. IMO it could only have meant a spill because no one in their right mind would be working in that kind of weather for anything else. We the people were never told what was going on. That is why I voted for the more visible alternative in the post.

[MineralMan]

11. I understand. Both methods are of concern to me, too.

Like you, I wish we'd get on with the job of alternative energy, but things are still moving very slowly in that area, too. In the meantime, there are lots of big petroleum pipelines already right in the Twin Cities. Much more than I was aware of. I'm going to go research those, too. It's just not something that's well known.

[jwirr]

16. It is interesting how many of these pipelines we have had put in here in MN without any notices or

public hearings. We do need to do some research. If I am not mistaken the lines in my area are intended to take oil and gas to Duluth/Superior to be shipped by ships across the Great Lakes to eastern states and ports. I don't understand why the environmental groups are not on to this.

[MineralMan]

18. There probably are or were public notices and hearings.

We often don't hear about them, though. I'm not sure where they are published. I just identified a very large natural gas main pipeline really near my own home. It goes along a road I drive daily. I'll have to see if I can notice any signage about it. I think I have seen some evidence of it in the past, so I'll keep my eyes open.

I may have to alter my disaster plan to take that into account, as well as the nearby railroad line.

Here's a great resource for Minnesota underground utilities and pipelines. There's a map viewer feature. It's clumsy, but it works, and you can view maps by county, commodity type, etc.

http://www.mngeo.state.mn.us/chouse/utilities.html

[GeorgeGist]

12. Move the refineries to where the oil is.

[MineralMan]

13. Ah, but that doesn't solve the problem, really.

The refined products still have to get to where they are used. For example, Minnesota doesn't have any oil production wells, but we have a large refinery just outside of the MSP metro area.

Refined petroleum products pose a higher risk, in many cases, than crude. And natural gas is shipped by pipeline almost exclusively.

[MineralMan]

14. Crude Oil and Refined Product Pipelines - Guess Who Owns Them in MN?

The Koch Brothers - who else:

http://kochpipeline.com/about-us/kpl-facts/

Uff da!

The Koch Brothers also own our largest refinery, Pine Bend, right on the Mississippi river just south of the Twin Cities.

[jwirr]

17. Oh great now I am really upset.

[MineralMan]

19. Evening kick.