JM_ Posted January 19, 2019 Share Posted January 19, 2019 49 minutes ago, Mackcanuck said: An answer/solution to both sides? Maybe, just maybe instead of our government investing $5B in 1950,s technology buy buying a pipeline they should be investing $$$ into this Indigenous energy company touts job creation in joint venture to make bitumen pucks a year too late for the KM project (imo the fight has been lost), but moving forward for other capacity this is a terrific idea. What the pipeline-only crowd doesn't seem to understand is this puts bitumen on standard boxcars, so the rail capacity bottleneck for the current heated cars doesn't exist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mackcanuck Posted January 19, 2019 Share Posted January 19, 2019 (edited) 15 minutes ago, Jimmy McGill said: a year too late for the KM project (imo the fight has been lost), but moving forward for other capacity this is a terrific idea. What the pipeline-only crowd doesn't seem to understand is this puts bitumen on standard boxcars, so the rail capacity bottleneck for the current heated cars doesn't exist. The fight has not even begun by those protesters over TMX, they are not going away. There will be little or no protests set up at railway crossings, nobody will be irritated with an investment from our FED Gov't to solve the pipeline dilemma and you won't need Super Tankers to carry Alberta Oil pucks to overseas markets. Pipelines are 1960's, Bitumen pucks are 2020's, It is Canadian technology, Made in Canada. What could be more Canadian than pucks! I know you have been previously championing pucks Jimmy and kudos to you for it, I have a greater understanding now. Edited January 19, 2019 by Mackcanuck 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ryan Strome Posted January 19, 2019 Share Posted January 19, 2019 34 minutes ago, Mackcanuck said: You Lol at the idea, how is this not surprising. Solution to oil spill clean up in the Salish sea as they float in water and can be also be carried in containers on ships and transported by rail on flatbed railcars or flatbed trucks in containers and in open hopper rail cars rather than tank cars which are smaller and much more expensive. It will Recycle the plastics out of our land fills, this is what our Federal Gov't should be investing in for Alberta not handouts of $Billions to support destitute oil companies and buying pipelines! https://www.cbc.ca/news/business/cn-rail-canapux-1.4982153 You totally missed it. Why am I not surprised. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ryan Strome Posted January 19, 2019 Share Posted January 19, 2019 30 minutes ago, Jimmy McGill said: AB will never receive equalization payments unless oil completely tanks. Without equalization, there's no reason for other provinces to play along with what AB wants. And thats just not true, in terms of AB carrying all the load. I don't recall saying that in my post. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chon derry Posted January 19, 2019 Share Posted January 19, 2019 4 minutes ago, Mackcanuck said: The fight has not even begun by those protesters over TMX, they are not going away. There will be little or no protests set up at railway crossings, nobody will be irritated with an investment from our FED Gov't to solve the pipeline dilemma and you won't need Super Tankers to carry Alberta Oil pucks to overseas markets. Pipelines are 1960's, Bitumen pucks are 2020's, It is Canadian technology, Made in Canada. What could be more Canadian than pucks! I know you have been previously championing pucks Jimmy and kudos to you for it, I have a greater understanding now. and, the long shore men can break open a container of hockey sticks , 1 bitumen puck ,BOOM , street hockey on their breaks , no wait maybe they can make bitumen hockey sticks too..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mackcanuck Posted January 19, 2019 Share Posted January 19, 2019 2 minutes ago, Ryan Strome said: You totally missed it. Why am I not surprised. What was it that I missed? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ryan Strome Posted January 19, 2019 Share Posted January 19, 2019 2 minutes ago, Mackcanuck said: What was it that I missed? Environmentalist eh? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ryan Strome Posted January 19, 2019 Share Posted January 19, 2019 31 minutes ago, Jimmy McGill said: safer transport is. If you can get over the idea that its pipelines or nothing, this is a potentially great solution, particularly for moving oil through Quebec which is a major irritant for you guys. Pipelines are safer and better for the environment. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JM_ Posted January 19, 2019 Share Posted January 19, 2019 12 minutes ago, Ryan Strome said: Pipelines are safer and better for the environment. actually they're not when compared to the canapuck technology in terms of safety. Maybe environmentally, I haven't seen that comparison, just the ones on the pure economics of moving pucks by rail vs pipelines, its essentially equivalent and one study I posted a few pages back shows it might be cheaper, for 2 reasons: standard boxcars are cheap, and you're not shipping diluent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JM_ Posted January 19, 2019 Share Posted January 19, 2019 29 minutes ago, Mackcanuck said: The fight has not even begun by those protesters over TMX, they are not going away. There will be little or no protests set up at railway crossings, nobody will be irritated with an investment from our FED Gov't to solve the pipeline dilemma and you won't need Super Tankers to carry Alberta Oil pucks to overseas markets. Pipelines are 1960's, Bitumen pucks are 2020's, It is Canadian technology, Made in Canada. What could be more Canadian than pucks! I know you have been previously championing pucks Jimmy and kudos to you for it, I have a greater understanding now. I know, just legally they have nothing left to stand on. The court ruling delayed construction by a year, thats all, the feds will "consult" and the whale study will be completed. IMO its a done deal but I've been wrong before so we'll see. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inane Posted January 19, 2019 Share Posted January 19, 2019 44 minutes ago, Ryan Strome said: Environmentalist eh? Must put other people in simple boxes to avoid having to question my beliefs. Must do it. 1 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob_Zepp Posted January 19, 2019 Share Posted January 19, 2019 Thread title should not be Kinder Morgan. Kinder Morgan has nothing to do with Canada's pipeline. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ForsbergTheGreat Posted January 19, 2019 Share Posted January 19, 2019 1 hour ago, Jimmy McGill said: actually they're not when compared to the canapuck technology in terms of safety. Maybe environmentally, I haven't seen that comparison, just the ones on the pure economics of moving pucks by rail vs pipelines, its essentially equivalent and one study I posted a few pages back shows it might be cheaper, for 2 reasons: standard boxcars are cheap, and you're not shipping diluent. It’s not even close when considering CO2 emissions. The economics of the pucks aren’t too once you actually start to put the numbers together. You can only ship so much through rail. essiantly you’d need to increase rail traffic by 400% to match “current” pipeline measures. Add in that only a few of the bigger oil compaines are able to store enough oil to fill the amount of rail cars needed. So you’d ethier delay shipments until you can fill the rail or you’d be sending trains with only 50% -70% of the cars full (again terrible for CO2). It cost as much energy into turning the oil into pucks as it does to ship is through pipelines. That completely ignores the energy of the rail. Which is terrible Another negative is that not only the cost and the capacity to turn the oil into pucks. You’d essientally need your buyers to have the ability to transform the pucks back into usuable oil. Which is a huge investment for buyers where there is little to no incentive for them to do so. One of the biggest issues that people don’t even consider is the trickle down effect this has on all other industry’s that rely on rail to get there product to market. Today farmers are already in battle (and loosing) with oil companies for rail cars The ONLY benefit of pucks is the reduction of risk of oil spill. So that only protects local environment. Yet it’s far far worse for the global environment. But hey as long as those clueless protestors are finally ok with oil moving to market it’s a win in my book. I just find it hilarious that they don’t have the slightest idea of what they are fighting for. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shift-4 Posted January 19, 2019 Share Posted January 19, 2019 18 minutes ago, ForsbergTheGreat said: The ONLY benefit of pucks is the reduction of risk of oil spill. So that only protects local environment. Yet it’s far far worse for the global environment. But hey as long as those clueless protestors are finally ok with oil moving to market it’s a win in my book. I just find it hilarious that they don’t have the slightest idea of what they are fighting for. I have no doubt the new target will be all the environmental impacts of making and transporting the pucks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ryan Strome Posted January 20, 2019 Share Posted January 20, 2019 6 hours ago, ForsbergTheGreat said: It’s not even close when considering CO2 emissions. The economics of the pucks aren’t too once you actually start to put the numbers together. You can only ship so much through rail. essiantly you’d need to increase rail traffic by 400% to match “current” pipeline measures. Add in that only a few of the bigger oil compaines are able to store enough oil to fill the amount of rail cars needed. So you’d ethier delay shipments until you can fill the rail or you’d be sending trains with only 50% -70% of the cars full (again terrible for CO2). It cost as much energy into turning the oil into pucks as it does to ship is through pipelines. That completely ignores the energy of the rail. Which is terrible Another negative is that not only the cost and the capacity to turn the oil into pucks. You’d essientally need your buyers to have the ability to transform the pucks back into usuable oil. Which is a huge investment for buyers where there is little to no incentive for them to do so. One of the biggest issues that people don’t even consider is the trickle down effect this has on all other industry’s that rely on rail to get there product to market. Today farmers are already in battle (and loosing) with oil companies for rail cars The ONLY benefit of pucks is the reduction of risk of oil spill. So that only protects local environment. Yet it’s far far worse for the global environment. But hey as long as those clueless protestors are finally ok with oil moving to market it’s a win in my book. I just find it hilarious that they don’t have the slightest idea of what they are fighting for. And conveniently we see no response to this post. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mackcanuck Posted January 20, 2019 Share Posted January 20, 2019 (edited) Quote You can only ship so much through rail. essiantly you’d need to increase rail traffic by 400% to match “current” pipeline measures. . The Canapux technology won't eliminate pipelines (yet). so the 400% is not exactly accurate If this new technology combined with the fact that hopefully LNG will replace coal overseas that is also shipped by rail, it could open lots of rail traffic to ship pucks. Canapux is actually owned by the Rail Company CN Canapux don't need supertankers to transport them overseas like dilbit does, any ships that carry coal overseas right now could carry canapux and since oil carrying supertankers have been banned on the West Coast of BC from the Northern tip of Vancouver Island to the Southern tip of Alaska (Bill C-48), it could be shipped from any point on Canadian west coast tidewater ports like Rupert and Kitimat overseas instead of through our busiest port in the nation in Vancouver which could also open less used rail lines to the north Coal = 1900's technology dilbit = 1950's technology Canapucks = 2020 technology Edited January 20, 2019 by Mackcanuck Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JM_ Posted January 20, 2019 Share Posted January 20, 2019 12 hours ago, Ryan Strome said: And conveniently we see no response to this post. You know i have buddy on ignore due to his raging case of anus ex loqui. If you want to ask me something just ask it, I'm not waiting with baited breath on the next post in this thread particularly from people I have on ignore. The pucks make safety, economic and new capacity sense. There's nothing preventing new rail capacity investment. As usual your pal is blowing smoke. https://www.cninnovation.ca https://altex-energy.com/economics-of-rail-versus-pipeline/#1501828266955-2913a69d-c276 https://business.financialpost.com/transportation/cn-rail-tackling-capacity-issues-with-a-great-sense-of-urgency Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alflives Posted January 20, 2019 Share Posted January 20, 2019 19 hours ago, ForsbergTheGreat said: It’s not even close when considering CO2 emissions. The economics of the pucks aren’t too once you actually start to put the numbers together. You can only ship so much through rail. essiantly you’d need to increase rail traffic by 400% to match “current” pipeline measures. Add in that only a few of the bigger oil compaines are able to store enough oil to fill the amount of rail cars needed. So you’d ethier delay shipments until you can fill the rail or you’d be sending trains with only 50% -70% of the cars full (again terrible for CO2). It cost as much energy into turning the oil into pucks as it does to ship is through pipelines. That completely ignores the energy of the rail. Which is terrible Another negative is that not only the cost and the capacity to turn the oil into pucks. You’d essientally need your buyers to have the ability to transform the pucks back into usuable oil. Which is a huge investment for buyers where there is little to no incentive for them to do so. One of the biggest issues that people don’t even consider is the trickle down effect this has on all other industry’s that rely on rail to get there product to market. Today farmers are already in battle (and loosing) with oil companies for rail cars The ONLY benefit of pucks is the reduction of risk of oil spill. So that only protects local environment. Yet it’s far far worse for the global environment. But hey as long as those clueless protestors are finally ok with oil moving to market it’s a win in my book. I just find it hilarious that they don’t have the slightest idea of what they are fighting for. Is there a way to pump these “oil pucks” through pipelines? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ForsbergTheGreat Posted January 20, 2019 Share Posted January 20, 2019 1 hour ago, Mackcanuck said: . The Canapux technology won't eliminate pipelines (yet). so the 400% is not exactly accurate If this new technology combined with the fact that hopefully LNG will replace coal overseas that is also shipped by rail, it could open lots of rail traffic to ship pucks. Canapux is actually owned by the Rail Company CN Canapux don't need supertankers to transport them overseas like dilbit does, any ships that carry coal overseas right now could carry canapux and since oil carrying supertankers have been banned on the West Coast of BC from the Northern tip of Vancouver Island to the Southern tip of Alaska (Bill C-48), it could be shipped from any point on Canadian west coast tidewater ports like Rupert and Kitimat overseas instead of through our busiest port in the nation in Vancouver which could also open less used rail lines to the north Coal = 1900's technology dilbit = 1950's technology Canapucks = 2020 technology Rail today is already over crowded, Our rail can only move so many cars per day, I've seen it first hand as I've been involved with the fight amongst trying to get grain moved to the ocean and already it's a loosing battle. Again, this only solves the "local" environment in prevention of a spill, why do people keep glossing over the fact that adding more reliability on rail significantly adds hurts the global environment. coal by rail today adds in over a million TONNEs of C02 emissions, If we were to replace pipelines by rail, you'd be shipping over 1.4 "trillion" Mt each year, now considered the amount of C02 you just increased into the environment So it really comes down to it, are you an environmentalist that cares about reducing green house gasses or is that all a take a back seat in return for personal gain. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ForsbergTheGreat Posted January 20, 2019 Share Posted January 20, 2019 50 minutes ago, Jimmy McGill said: You know i have buddy on ignore due to his raging case of anus ex loqui. If you want to ask me something just ask it, I'm not waiting with baited breath on the next post in this thread particularly from people I have on ignore. The pucks make safety, economic and new capacity sense. There's nothing preventing new rail capacity investment. As usual your pal is blowing smoke. https://www.cninnovation.ca https://altex-energy.com/economics-of-rail-versus-pipeline/#1501828266955-2913a69d-c276 https://business.financialpost.com/transportation/cn-rail-tackling-capacity-issues-with-a-great-sense-of-urgency AKA you don't like to talk to anyone that knows far more than you and has the ability to debunk everything you say. Glad you posted links on the cost of shipment too bad that involves one of many steps in cost., this really shows how little you know about the process. Post some more links you didn't read/understand any thing on. It's also funny that you continue to gloss the global emission impact.....Don't want to touch that one hey......haha. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts