Other Manitoba and Saskatchewan Developments - Page 33

Cyro · #**641** Posted **Apr 14, 2013, 7:20 PM**

As the thread topic gets down to fine points and details, reg: feasability and rail line integrity, load amounts on crude carrying tanker cars,(About 30-32 thousand gallons, yes I still do things the old way), speed of tanker cars on the lines involved in the proposal, rail transport of crude is "Booming", Tanker car Production is Booming", there is too much of a back log in bitumen,crude, the prices for the product will dictate if they ship it to churchill, even if it's a wonky railine, as poster here are saying.

But the details are in the Dollars. If the large oil corporations believe they can make even 5$ a barrel more to ship it by rail to Hudson Bay, even with a short shipping season, they will. Will they (possibly upgrade the port if needed, even though It "Already ships some oil north" they will.

It's an oppurtunity for Churchill to become relevent for manitoba and it's economy. That's a good thing,especially with the loss of the CWB(won't go thier in this thread). I believe. If we want to start an enviormental impact thread, about shipping in the artic I will. Tht's a whole different ball of wax.

khabibulin · #**642** Posted **Apr 14, 2013, 8:18 PM**

Congratulations to the grade 8 students at Caronport school who won this Canada wide contest. Their prize will be a week long trip to the Fortress of Louisbourg National Historic Site, who are celebraing their 300th anniversary this year.

http://contest.myparkspass.ca/

casper · #**643** Posted **Apr 14, 2013, 9:34 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Riverman

The rail line to Churchill is in very poor condition with speed limits down to 10 mph for long stretches. I don't know what petroleum tank cars weigh but the 100 ton grain cars are only filled 1/3-1/2 full due to weight restrictions on the line.

Does the speed matter all that much? It is a rail line that is not over utilised, so if it takes an extra day or two for a train to get up there and back it’s probably a minor issue. Someone would need to build holding tanks in Churchill and a suitable transfer station onto the ships.

Riverman · #**644** Posted **Apr 15, 2013, 12:05 AM**

I give up.

Spocket · #**645** Posted **Apr 16, 2013, 4:58 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by casper

Does the speed matter all that much? It is a rail line that is not over utilised, so if it takes an extra day or two for a train to get up there and back it’s probably a minor issue. Someone would need to build holding tanks in Churchill and a suitable transfer station onto the ships.

The speed matters because the faster the train is going , if there's a derailment there's going to be a lot more damage done.

As for delays , they cost money. In business , delays are one of the biggest worries any company may have to deal with. Even if it doesn't really affect your company , if it affects your customer's bottom line then that will eventually affect yours.

Cyro · #**646** Posted **Apr 17, 2013, 6:34 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spocket

The speed matters because the faster the train is going , if there's a derailment there's going to be a lot more damage done.

As for delays , they cost money. In business , delays are one of the biggest worries any company may have to deal with. Even if it doesn't really affect your company , if it affects your customer's bottom line then that will eventually affect yours.

I understand ur post although , I'm finding that the 2 paragraphs contradict each other in some ways.
~~~~~~~~~~~
"The speed matters because the faster the train is going , if there's a derailment there's going to be a lot more damage done."

--- So higher speed on the BNR line,and a deraliment/cleanup is very costly? $$ and eviromentally costly to the eco system.
~~~~~~~~~~~~
But:
"As for delays , they cost money. In business , delays are one of the biggest worries any company may have to deal with."

So as for the speed of a crude carrying tanker car (lower even 10mph as some posters have quoted), be more profitable or benificial rather than a derailment/spill? I understand the logic of the post but I'ts all about, which u mention the profilt margin for the oil company. The speed issue is relevent, but I'm sure this is part of the process involved in all the negotiatians going on. If 10 mph makes money for company "A", we'll go that speed and profit.

micheal · #**647** Posted **Apr 17, 2013, 9:18 PM**

Saskatchewan surpasses B.C. in exports for first time. Sask. ranked 4th in country for exports.

http://www.leaderpost.com/business/Saska...Canada+fourth+largest/8256192/story.html

Riverman · #**648** Posted **Apr 17, 2013, 10:34 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by micheal

Saskatchewan surpasses B.C. in exports for first time. Sask. ranked 4th in country for exports.

http://www.leaderpost.com/business/Saska...Canada+fourth+largest/8256192/story.html

Congrats! Sask. has nowhere to go but up.

Stormer · #**649** Posted **Apr 17, 2013, 10:38 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by casper

Does the speed matter all that much? It is a rail line that is not over utilised, so if it takes an extra day or two for a train to get up there and back it’s probably a minor issue. Someone would need to build holding tanks in Churchill and a suitable transfer station onto the ships.

Speed is not that important for short hauls in the railway biz, but is a huge deal for long hauls. Railways do not like their crews, power and rolling stock tied up anylonger than it need to be as it costs big bucks.

Churchill is a long haul.

Riverman · #**650** Posted **Apr 17, 2013, 10:49 PM**

To get oil on ships there is already a pipeline to Superior, WI and another is being proposed. Churchill is a complete non-starter.

Shinook · #**651** Posted **Apr 17, 2013, 11:13 PM**

The downplaying of anything Manitoba and the blatant boosterism of Saskatchewan in this and other threads is nauseating.

rrskylar · #**652** Posted **Apr 18, 2013, 3:50 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shinook

The downplaying of anything Manitoba and the blatant boosterism of Saskatchewan in this and other threads is nauseating.

Saskatchewan residents saw the light and booted the NDP to the curb, Saskatchewan is now humming along nicely while in Manitoba the govt. can only come with new ways to nickel and dime and over tax it's citizens.

DowntownRiderFan · #**653** Posted **Apr 18, 2013, 4:54 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Riverman

Yes, but this line is over muskeg and melting permafrost for a great deal of its length. And it is for the most part privately owned. $60M will do very little I'm afraid.

If this is a serious consideration, I wonder how feasible it would be to move (or build new) the line a few miles to the west to the series of beach ridges (sand and gravel, no muskeg and no permafrost) for the first ~130 km north of Limestone. It would be very challenging to get the appropriate grades and curves here, but foundation conditions would be a MASSIVE upgrade and maintenance costs significantly reduced for at least half of the distance for this stretch. You would still need to traverse ~130 km of probably the worst kind of terrain to build and maintain anything on to get to Churchill though. Load it with cryo-anchors perhaps?

Cyro · #**654** Posted **Apr 18, 2013, 1:52 PM**

THE global economy may be running out of gas, but it's still pedal to the metal for Manitoba's engineering companies.

"The industry is still going strong," Ken Drysdale, president of the Association of Consulting Engineering Companies -- Manitoba (ACEC-MB), said Wednesday.

A total of 28 projects were vying for awards in six categories: environmental, industrial, building engineering, infrastructure/transportation, energy resource development, and municipal and water technology.

Fourteen projects involving 10 engineering firms received awards, along with three individuals.

Read more:
By: Murray McNeill Posted: 1:00 AM
http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/busines...dustry-still-going-strong-203544211.html

Quite Impressive

micheal · #**655** Posted **Apr 18, 2013, 2:02 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shinook

The downplaying of anything Manitoba and the blatant boosterism of Saskatchewan in this and other threads is nauseating.

Oh well

Cyro · #**656** Posted **Apr 18, 2013, 2:16 PM**

HA HA great ..It some how does feel like the week before a Bomber/Rider game in some of these "Combined Forums, Don't It ?" I'm sorry I put Bombers 1st ..Riders/Bomber game, didn't mean to offend

Kinda like ur stick is bigger than mine?

Anyway I understand the traffic issues and the reason for combining "SOME" threads, But thier seems to be a few "Catch All's"..that shouldn't be catch All's for 2 very different provinces,resource wise,mining wise,economically etc..

Just a thought

Cyro · #**657** Posted **Apr 18, 2013, 2:38 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by micheal

Oh well

Thx for this comment. Brings us all together.

Cyro · #**658** Posted **Apr 18, 2013, 6:20 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by djforsberg

Its not blatant, its the sign of the times. Manitoba's economy is not doing nearly as well as Sask's, much like most other provinces.

Thanks for pointing that out again,and agian and again. Got any extra oil,potash or uranium to spare? Ok u guys are better, u win.

Stormer · #**659** Posted **May 1, 2013, 5:37 PM**

don't know if anyone realised this , but this is the line to Churchilll diiscussed as being in poor condition below.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/saskatchewan/story/2013/04/29/sk-derailment-togo-1305.html

Cyro · #**660** Posted **May 1, 2013, 5:51 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stormer

don't know if anyone realised this , but this is the line to Churchilll diiscussed as being in poor condition below.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/saskatchewan/story/2013/04/29/sk-derailment-togo-1305.html

Thanks for the update but wasn't this the part of the rail line in question in Togo Sask...?