Other Manitoba and Saskatchewan Developments

[Jack1983]

My 2 cents on oil through Churchill...

The government of Canada and Manitoba should push hard to get oil moving through the port. If that means spending some money to help upgrade the rail line so be it. This port and line are a major aspect of the centreport plans.

The town itself has been dying since the military pulled out in the 80's(?approx?) Bringing Oil through the terminal will add jobs and provide further market for Western Crude... helping all of Western Canada.

[rrskylar]

Originally Posted by 1ajs

do u have anyclue how unstable that rail line is? theres streches of it that u can get off the front of the train and pic bearies in the bush and climb back on at the back and do it all over again for hrs

I've heard that to, the train has to slow to snails pace in places, part of the rail line is built on muskeg, so yeah lets ship things like oil on a rotten rail line. Sorry Jack, bad idea!

[kent_eh]

Originally Posted by rrskylar

part of the rail line is built on muskeg

Yup, it is.

I can't imagine how much material it would take to stabilize it.

It wouldn't be quite on the scale of building the base for Narita airport, or those islands off the coast in Dubai, but it would be ridiculously expensive.

[bomberjet]

Putting aside the fact that oil leaks are bad for the environment. What's the difference in shipping tank cars with oil as opposed to shipping grain cars or potash or whatever else gets shipped? The answer, there is no difference.

I support shipping oil through the north. I agree there's risk involved. It must be managed properly. There's all this talk about it will destroy the environment. It's muskeg, the environment already destroyed itself.... If the simple answer is "well there's muskeg, that's a no go", that's not good enough in my eyes. If the train takes 3 days to get there, that's pretty good. It'll take that long to get to the west coast anyways. East coast is longer yet.

It would be interesting to know how many derailments take place each year on that line. How many cars go off, how bad is it, type of thing.

If it's really not that feasible, than fine. But I think the muskeg excuse is over played. There are many many rail lines built on muskeg and unstable ground here in the south.

[Cyro]

Just for context, as this is a combined Sask./Manitoba thread for some strange reason?

I think posters should do a few searches reg: transport and railines in the province of Sask. and the severity and scope of derailments through out the province and more so in northern areas? The landscape is similiar in both provinces and thier have been some terrible derailments in scope and size.

Just look at both sides of the story, before one particular rail line is subjected to the scrutiny this one is?

[headhorse]

it won't happen anyways, it's just a ploy to gain support for Keystone/Northern Gateway.

[Cyro]

Originally Posted by headhorse

it won't happen anyways, it's just a ploy to gain support for Keystone/Northern Gateway.

I can't totally disagree with this statement Headhorse.IMO it will happen on a limited basis, is it leverage for the proposed pipelines mentioned? Most definitely. But even if they were approved today, it would be year(s) before they were actually in service.Untill then, the oil industry will look at all thier options.

[rrskylar]

Originally Posted by bomberjet

Putting aside the fact that oil leaks are bad for the environment. What's the difference in shipping tank cars with oil as opposed to shipping grain cars or potash or whatever else gets shipped? The answer, there is no difference.

I support shipping oil through the north. I agree there's risk involved. It must be managed properly. There's all this talk about it will destroy the environment. It's muskeg, the environment already destroyed itself.... If the simple answer is "well there's muskeg, that's a no go", that's not good enough in my eyes. If the train takes 3 days to get there, that's pretty good. It'll take that long to get to the west coast anyways. East coast is longer yet.

It would be interesting to know how many derailments take place each year on that line. How many cars go off, how bad is it, type of thing.

If it's really not that feasible, than fine. But I think the muskeg excuse is over played. There are many many rail lines built on muskeg and unstable ground here in the south.

I see your point, a rail car full of grain spilling on muskeg would be just as bad as a tanker car full of crude, makes a lot of sense now!

[rypinion]

Originally Posted by bomberjet

It would be interesting to know how many derailments take place each year on that line. How many cars go off, how bad is it, type of thing.

Part of the answer:

Originally Posted by Stormer

53 derailments over 10 years.

[bomberjet]

Oil spill is worse or course. I mean it makes no difference to the track itself if there is grain or oil being shipped on it. The track is currently handling the grain, etc with its muskeg bed. No, it's not as solid as a track bed on good ground.

So if oil gets shipped, the ground will know that its oil and suddenly give way? Is what I'm was trying to get at. The muskeg excuse sounds like a cop out to me. Sure if the frequency of trains increase, some.work will need to be done. Whatever happened to the $60M transport Canada has approved for upgrades?

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manito...ments-1.655636

[Cyro]

I do understand the concern over transporting oil/crude over this rail line to Churchill.

That said let's discuss Sask. record for a moment?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

RCMP said 17 rail cars -- some carrying flammable petroleum, ethanol and chemicals -- came off the tracks after 4 a.m. within 500 to 700 metres of the village of Landis, west of Saskatoon
http://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/cn-trai...leak-1.1469993

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

• Video Link
Published on Mar 18, 2012
were stuck or 5 hours waiting for this derailment to be clean up in Melville, Saskatchewan it was 25 cars fell off the tracks and the lead of the derailed train was a BC rail !

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Five families evacuated after Saskatchewan train derailment

By The Canadian Press Published: December 05, 2009 7:36 PM SPY HILL, Sask. - A Canadian National train carrying propane tanks derailed and exploded near the Saskatchewan-Manitoba boundary Saturday, prompting the small community of Spy Hill, Sask., to declare a state of emergency.
http://www.topix.com/forum/ca/regina...LREC0H0OT27K0O
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Anyway that took me aprx: 4 minutes to post,10 min. would have filled the page with derailments in Sask. Is Sask. going to forgo thier shipments by rail? What are the stats for Sask's. derailments which make headline news? Is it poor rail lines on Muskeg? Or windy conditions? They're not going to stop shipping thier chemicals,oil/crude,diesel, etc.

Anyway, improvements and safe guards should be in place if bitumen based fuel is shipped through Churchill. I won't deny this.If posters want to quote #'s on one particular rail line do so with other rail lines that are similar in comparison and shipping these products.

[Riverman]

Originally Posted by Cyrodill

Anyway, improvements and safe guards should be in place if bitumen based fuel is shipped through Churchill. I won't deny this.If posters want to quote #'s on one particular rail line do so with other rail lines that are similar in comparison and shipping these products.

I don't know what "bitumen based fuel" is but whatever it is, that is not what will be shipped to Churchill. What will most likely be shipped is diluted bitumen which is know in the oil industry as DILBIT. It is bitumen diluted with natural gas condensate.

Presently all of the fuel used for pretty well everything in Churchill is shipped in tank cars up this line already. I just don't see the practicality of it given how slow this single line is.

[Cyro]

Originally Posted by Riverman

I don't know what "bitumen based fuel" is but whatever it is, that is not what will be shipped to Churchill. What will most likely be shipped is diluted bitumen which is know in the oil industry as DILBIT. It is bitumen diluted with natural gas condensate.

Presently all of the fuel used for pretty well everything in Churchill is shipped in tank cars up this line already. I just don't see the practicality of it given how slow this single line is.

You basically answered your own question. It's just a general way of saying Diluted bitumen which you went on to explain. It still originates from bitumen does it not? and is eventually used as a source of fuel.

anyway.......the line as you say is slow and as others have posted prone to problems.
Even if this is the case why would the oil industry want to pursue it? We might not see it as practical but the decision makers seem to think it is viable? If they've examined it and want to have a go at it, it must work in some way from a financial standpoint for them wouldn't you think?

[bomberjet]

I'm not talking about spilling. I'm talking about the train rolling down the tracks. A grain car travelling at X mph is no different than an oil car rolling an X mph.

If it's working right now for grain, why would it be any different for oil? And the track is working right now. Even if it only goes walking speed at some points.

[Cyro]

Originally Posted by bomberjet

I'm not talking about spilling. I'm talking about the train rolling down the tracks. A grain car travelling at X mph is no different than an oil car rolling an X mph.

If it's working right now for grain, why would it be any different for oil? And the track is working right now. Even if it only goes walking speed at some points.

Hey BJ who are you replying too?

[bomberjet]

In general for clarity. I think everyone is way too quick to just say, "Oh won't someone please think of the environment!!!" The first thing is the muskeg wont let it happen. Nope, it can't happen. There are going to be a million oil spills that will ruin Manitoba. Really?

Probably not. If anything, it will improve the railway as they will have more revenue, which will lead to better maintenance. Better maintenance will lead to more efficiency. That can lead to more revenue. And the cycle goes on. Getting safer as time goes on.

But it can't happen because of muskeg. Don't get me wrong, if it's not going to be done properly it shouldn't be done. I think everyone's too quick to just disregard because of the environment.

PS, turn on your sarcasm detectors.

[Cyro]

Originally Posted by bomberjet

In general for clarity. I think everyone is way too quick to just say, "Oh won't someone please think of the environment!!!" The first thing is the muskeg wont let it happen. Nope, it can't happen. There are going to be a million oil spills that will ruin Manitoba. Really?

Probably not. If anything, it will improve the railway as they will have more revenue, which will lead to better maintenance. Better maintenance will lead to more efficiency. That can lead to more revenue. And the cycle goes on. Getting safer as time goes on.

But it can't happen because of muskeg. Don't get me wrong, if it's not going to be done properly it shouldn't be done. I think everyone's too quick to just disregard because of the environment.

PS, turn on your sarcasm detectors.

I here you, I've been for the proposal from the get go.

[Stormer]

Big new resort development for the Fort Qu'appelle Indian Hospital site. The marina is very intriguing but as usual the LP has scant details, not even an interview with the developer. http://www.leaderpost.com/Hotel+mari...856/story.html.

[Cyro]

Working steadily on sustainable paper mill
By: Martin Cash

THERE has not been a new paper mill built in North America for close to 40 years and the last one built has been decommissioned.

But that doesn't scare Jeff Golfman away from his dream of building a paper mill in Manitoba that will make 100 per cent tree-free, chlorine-free, sulphur-free wheat-straw paper.

http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/bus...228294311.html

Woody Harrelson, I loved this guy on Cheers, a face you can trust..Hope this comes to fruition.

[kent_eh]

Originally Posted by bomberjet

A grain car travelling at X mph is no different than an oil car rolling an X mph.

Assuming the loaded weight is the same...

Grain is less dense than liquid commodities, and the grain "tank" cars are made of aluminum, where the oil tanks are steel.

And *that* definitely makes a difference to the tracks.

If they have to run the oil tanks half full, I wonder how the economics work out?