[Plantagenet]

Huge amounts of oil have been transported by railroad ever since the Bakken oil fields started up in the late 90s. Now, for the first time in the USA, a US railroad has been granted permission from the federal railroad board to transport LNG by train.

Free-to-move-LNG-Alaska-Railroad-gains-FRA-blessing-to-transport-liquefied-gas-to-interior-region

The first LNG trains in North America will move natural gas from the Anchorage area of Alaska, which has abundant NG, to the interior of Alaska which currently relies on coal, oil, wind and wood-fired heat and power systems. Local NG piping systems are already being building in towns in central Alaska to deliver NG directly to homes for heating.

I can see this happening elsewhere in the USA, given the current opposition to building pipelines and other infrastructure in the lower 48.

LNG trains will use existing railroad infrastructure, and so won't encounter the opposition from Indians, environmentalists, farmers, and the Federal government that new oil and NG pipelines are running into.

cheers!


Coming soon----huge LNG trains along with huge oil trains

[ennui2]

The first LNG trains in North America will move natural gas from the Anchorage area of Alaska, which has abundant NG, to the interior of Alaska which currently relies on coal, oil, wind and wood-fired heat and power systems. Local NG piping systems are already being building in towns in central Alaska to deliver NG directly to homes for heating.

Whither your moral indignation of the carbon economy, Planty? Could it be your Alaskan self interest preventing your crocodile tears from flowing?

[Plantagenet]

Whither your moral indignation of the carbon economy, Planty?

Why do you think I started this thread, eenie?

Giant LNG trains are coming to the USA. That means another new and potentially huge FF-related industry is starting up right now.

For heaven's sake, do I have to explain everything to you in simple sentences composed of words no more than one syllable? Can't you figure anything out for yourself?


Cheers!

[Subjectivist]

Huge amounts of oil have been transported by railroad ever since the Bakken oil fields started up in the late 90s. Now, for the first time in the USA, a US railroad has been granted permission from the federal railroad board to transport LNG by train.

Free-to-move-LNG-Alaska-Railroad-gains-FRA-blessing-to-transport-liquefied-gas-to-interior-region

The first LNG trains in North America will move natural gas from the Anchorage area of Alaska, which has abundant NG, to the interior of Alaska which currently relies on coal, oil, wind and wood-fired heat and power systems. Local NG piping systems are already being building in towns in central Alaska to deliver NG directly to homes for heating.

I can see this happening elsewhere in the USA, given the current opposition to building pipelines and other infrastructure in the lower 48.

LNG trains will use existing railroad infrastructure, and so won't encounter the opposition from Indians, environmentalists, farmers, and the Federal government that new oil and NG pipelines are running into.

cheers!


Coming soon----huge LNG trains along with huge oil trains

My area is well served by natural gas pipelines so we won't be receiving LNG, however because of the position of Lake Erie and Lake Michigan both Toledo and Chicago are major rail hubs. That means it is highly likely these LNG trains headed for places like New England where pipelines are scarce will be passing about six blocks from my house. This is not a happy thought.

[Plantagenet]

My area is well served by natural gas pipelines so we won't be receiving LNG, however because of the position of Lake Erie and Lake Michigan both Toledo and Chicago are major rail hubs. That means it is highly likely these LNG trains headed for places like New England where pipelines are scarce will be passing about six blocks from my house. This is not a happy thought.

Yup. That is another aspect of it. The giant oil trains coming from the Bakken turned out to be highly dangerous. They were both incredibly massive leading to derailments an then incredibly explosive after derailing.

I don't think the LNG tank cars are as heavy as the oil tanks, but they are probably even more explosive when derailments occur.

Pennsylvania is turning out to have one heck of a lot of NG----now that the Obama administration has approved shipping LNG by train here in the USA, I wouldn't be surprised to see Pennsylvania LNG going off to East Coast cities by the trainload in the next couple of years. AND you are right that LNG from the Bakken or Texas or Colorado may be passing through Chicago, Toledo and the rest of the midwest as well on their way to connect with local NG pipeline networks.

[ennui2]

Why do you think I started this thread, eenie?

I dunno. You failed to insert any editorial stance at all in the OP, which is so unlike you. I mean, you ALWAYS have a position. Usually you punctuate all your posts with an Obama cartoon.

[Plantagenet]

Why do you think I started this thread, eenie?

I dunno.

Exactly.

Heres a suggestion ---think about the implications of having huge trains consisting of hundreds of LNG tanker cars passing through major US cities. Or think about the implications this has for the expansion of the LNG business model and increased CH4 emissions and increased global warming.

Then, when you have a thought that makes sense and will add something interesting to the thread, try posting that, eenie.

cheers!

[ennui2]

think about the implications of having huge trains consisting of hundreds of LNG tanker cars passing through major US cities

Hmm... Last I checked this was a place to exchange thoughts, not shame people for not effectively mind-reading.

And posting Obama cartoons is hardly adding something interesting to a thread, but that's what you do 90% of the time, so please do not school me on posting etiquette.

[Plantagenet]

think about the implications of having huge trains consisting of hundreds of LNG tanker cars passing through major US cities

Hmm... Last I checked this was a place to .... not shame people for not effectively mind-reading.

Thinking isn't mind-reading. There's your problem right there---you don't know what thinking is.

Look---thinking is something you do with your own brain. It means coming up with your own ideas. It has nothing to do with mind-reading.

Try it sometime. Read an article or a post, then THINK about it until you develop your own ideas about it. Close you eyes if that helps you concentrate. Then, when you have an interesting thought, discuss your ideas with the group. Then, when they respond, think about their responses, and then politely reply with your own thoughts.

Before you know it you'll be having what is called a "conversation."


Are huge trains composed of LNG tanker cars completely safe?


Cheers!

[ennui2]

What's new? Do you think the Alaskan pipeline itself is completely safe? What about tanker spills like the Exxon Valdez? Didn't stop you from crowing about benefiting from Alaska's rainy-day fund, a fund paid in part through ecological damage, either directly through spills or through CO2 emissions after the final products were burned. So if you want to raise the red flag, be consistent and stop bragging about your state's petro-fueled rainy day fund.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0809/p02s01-usgn.html

Cognitive dissonance thy name is "Drill Baby Drill" Planty.

[yellowcanoe]

I don't see anywhere near as much opposition to the construction of natural gas pipelines as there is to dilbit or oil pipelines. Consider Northern British Columbia as an example. There has been a tremendous amount of opposition to the proposed Northern Gateway pipeline, especially from aboriginal groups with land on or near the proposed route. However, there has been significantly less opposition to the construction of natural gas pipelines along a similar route. The difference is that the Northern Gateway pipeline would be carrying dilbit which is extremely difficult to clean up if there was a pipeline rupture.

[Plantagenet]

What's new?

Whats new is that the US federal government has just approved railroad transport of LNG in the USA. Oil and NG are different kinds of fossil fuels, eenie. After posting here for 8 years you should know this kind of stuff.

AND, If you think about it, this suggests we will likely see huge LNG trains on our train systems, just like we now see huge oil trains crossing the USA.

Get it now?

Cheers!

[ennui2]

No, you're making it seem as though it's fundamentally different and I cited historical data (which you just ignored, BTW) for the damage that tankers and pipelines have already inflicted in your own backyard. You're making it seem as though it's "different" in order to conveniently disavow the past and heap fresh outrage on Obama as usual. This is nothing but more of the same sort of BAU that's been going on for decades up in your parts, which you seem to like, by virtue of the blood-money it earns for your state's coffers.

[Plantagenet]

Yes, there is opposition to new NG pipelines in the US.

Another-Major-Natural-Gas-Pipeline-Project-Bites-The-Dust

No doubt that is part of the reason the Obama administration has approved shipping LNG in the USA by rail. Fewer new pipelines means more transport of fossil fuels by railroad and more money for Obama's buddy Warren Buffet the railroad king.

[ROCKMAN]

Plant - " I can see this happening elsewhere in the USA...". Very unlikely IMHO.

In the lower 48:
*More than 210 natural gas pipeline systems.
*305,000 miles of interstate and intrastate transmission pipelines
*More than 1,400 compressor stations
*11,000 delivery points, 5,000 receipt points, 1,400 interconnection points
*24 hubs or market centers that provide additional interconnections

In Alaska where LNG transport planned:
*Zero
*Zero
*Zero
*Zero
*Zero

But I could be wrong. Then again there is not one large NG field tytyhat isn't tied into the national distribution system. The distribution system LNG exporters plan to use.

But I could be wrong. LOL.

[Pablo2079]

I think we could see it elsewhere in the world... where NG is currently being flared off and the regional price would support rail. Hard to see if competing in the lower 48, unless regulations or something else changed the landscape.

[Synapsid]

Plantagenet,

Have you been keeping track of Alaska's own LNG project? If so, what do you think of it?

For all: That project was BP, ConocoPhillips, and ExxonMobil, plus the State of Alaska, planning an 800-mile pipeline from the North Slope to the Kenai Peninsula where LNG trains and an LNG-export facility were to be built. Last I looked land was being acquired on the peninsula and overall half a billion dollars had been spent. A couple of weeks ago the oil companies decided it would be better for Alaska to take over the project and, oh by the way, we won't invest any more in it but you can find the funding; we'll buy the gas when you're done.

Last week either the project director or Alaska's governor (failing memory here) was in Japan talking up the project.

I'd say Alaska deserves better.

[Plantagenet]

Plantagenet,

Have you been keeping track of Alaska's own LNG project? If so, what do you think of it?

For all: That project was BP, ConocoPhillips, and ExxonMobil, plus the State of Alaska, planning an 800-mile pipeline from the North Slope to the Kenai Peninsula where LNG trains and an LNG-export facility were to be built. Last I looked land was being acquired on the peninsula and overall half a billion dollars had been spent. A couple of weeks ago the oil companies decided it would be better for Alaska to take over the project and, oh by the way, we won't invest any more in it but you can find the funding; we'll buy the gas when you're done.

Last week either the project director or Alaska's governor (failing memory here) was in Japan talking up the project.

I'd say Alaska deserves better.

You're exactly right.

Governor Walker has a delusion that Alaska can build another pipeline, this time for NG, and sell the gas on the world market. It might've possible if it had all been done 20 years ago it might've worked out OK, but right now the world NG market is glutted just like the oil market.

Cheers!

[Plantagenet]

Plant - " I can see this happening elsewhere in the USA...". Very unlikely IMHO.

In the lower 48:
*More than 210 natural gas pipeline systems.
*305,000 miles of interstate and intrastate transmission pipelines
*More than 1,400 compressor stations
*11,000 delivery points, 5,000 receipt points, 1,400 interconnection points
*24 hubs or market centers that provide additional interconnections

In Alaska where LNG transport planned:
*Zero
*Zero
*Zero
*Zero
*Zero

But I could be wrong. Then again there is not one large NG field tytyhat isn't tied into the national distribution system. The distribution system LNG exporters plan to use.

But I could be wrong. LOL.

Well, you know far more about this then I do, rockman.

However, I'm struck by the fact that in spite of the exiting NG pipeline network you mention, there is still a need for more. I posted a link above to a story about several recent NG pipeline proposals being rejected by regulators. Why couldn't LNG trains be used to take LNG into New York and New England since the regulators won't allow the constructer of new infrastructure in these areas?

Cheers!

[ROCKMAN]

Plant - I actually don't know more. But I do know how to search the Internet: took about 60 secinds to pull up those stats.

"Why couldn't LNG trains be used to take LNG into New York and New England since the regulators won't allow the constructer of new infrastructure in these areas?" Why would they do that when there are hundreds of $BILLIONS of pipelines already hauling NG into NY? NY is getting all the NG it needs much cheaper from pipelines then anyone could rail LNG to them.

Also consider NY consumes about 1,350 bcf per year. That's 3.7 bcf per day. And first of its kind LNG rail transport in the EU: The cryogenic LNG storage vessel is over 24 m long, has a volume of approximately. 111 m³. Due to the vessel’s outstanding insulation properties it will maintain the LNG at the initial filling temperature of approximately – 161°C for up to 4-6 weeks without product loss through evaporation. Each railcar replaces two trucks on the road.

So 1 cubic meter LNG = 21,000 cubic feet. So 111 cubic m of LNG = 2.3 million cuft of NG. Or = 0.0023 bcf. So they consume on average 3.7 bcf/day. So it would take about 60,000 deliveries per year of those state of the art LNG railcars to supply the state with just 10% of their yearly consumption. Just converting NG to LNG cost around $0.50/MCF. Then add the shipping cost, the significant LNG to NG conversion cost (yes: it is neither simple nor cheap and takes a lot of coolant water), the amortized cost of thousands of newly built rail cars as well as the expensive conversion infrastructure and, of course, the profit margin.

Bottom line: railed LNG can't possibly compete with pipelines with respect to costs. The only way Alaskan railed LNG can compete with pipeline NG is if there is no pipeline. LOL.