Rail vs. pipeline: How should we ship oil?

The debate over shipping oil via pipelines versus rail hinges on access, price and reliability, Graeber writes. For now, it seems trains are winning the race, but what happens long-term with more pipeline access remains to be seen.

Shannon Stapleton/Reuters/File
A train enters a depot along the Burlington Northern Santa Fe rail line outside of Williston, N.D. Oil companies are turning to rail deliveries as North American oil production overwhelms existing pipeline capacity.

More than 97,000 rail carloads of crude oil were delivered in the United States during the first quarter of the year. That's 20 percent more than the fourth quarter of 2012 and 166 percent more than during the same period last year. Rail shipments of grain, metallic ores and minerals declined, however. Oil companies are moving more of their oil by rail because pipeline capacity can't keep up with North American production gains. Last week, a pipeline planned from Texas to California was shelved because of the lack of shipper interest, though for rail, there's been relative surge in crude oil traffic. It remains to be seen if that can be sustained, however.

The Association of American Railroads said 97,135 carloads of crude oil traveled by rail in the United States during the first quarter of the year. That amounts to about 68 million barrels of oil over the course of four months. For the week ending May 25, rail shipments overall were down more than 3 percent compared to the same time last year. Grain deliveries were down 21.8 percent and metallic ores and minerals were down more than 10 percent when compared to last year. (Related article: “Peak Rail” – Has the Crude Shipping Train Left the Station?)

Oil companies are turning to rail deliveries as North American oil production overwhelms existing pipeline capacity. Provided the U.S. government approves Keystone XL, it will be at least two more years before 830,000 barrels of oil per day in extra pipeline capacity comes on stream for U.S. refiners. In Canadaopposition to the Northern Gateway pipeline from the provincial government in British Columbia means an uncertain future for the 525,000 bpd project planned by Enbridge. 

The American Petroleum Institute reports that U.S. oil production in March increased 13.8 percent year-on-year to 7.1 million barrels per day. For its part, the International Energy Agency said it expected North American oil production to account for more than 60 percent of the gains seen from outside the 12-member OPEC cartel. That suggests the rate at which production is increasing is faster than pipeline construction, federal permits notwithstanding.

Last week, pipeline company Kinder Morgan said it was focusing on rail deliveries from Texas oil fields for the short term. That followed a decision to scrap a pipeline that could've sent 277,000 bpd to California refiners. In March, Phillips 66 said it was "helping to shape the energy revolution in the U.S." by exploring its options for rail loading. Two years ago, BNSF Railway shipped 70,000 barrels of oil from its near Bakken Oil Express, a rail hub servicing North Dakota. (Related article: POLAND: Shale Tax Policy Delay, Little Appeasement for Investors)

The debate over pipelines versus rail hinges on access, price and reliability. Train shipments are more expensive than rail, but rail has more diversity. In terms of spills, pipelines are far more reliable than the alternative, but when a train derails, any oil spilled is typically measured in hundreds of gallons versus thousands of barrels. Kinder Morgan's lack of shipper interest suggests that, for now, there's not much interest in new pipelines, at least from Texas. While much of the argument is, at least in some circumstances, like comparing apples to oranges, for now, it seems trains are winning the race. What happens long-term with more pipeline access, however, remains to be seen.

Original article: http://oilprice.com/Energy/Crude-Oil/Will-Rail-Run-Out-of-Steam-Post-Keystone.html

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.