Economic Action Dud: Canada loses 46,000 jobs, unemployment rate climbs to 7.2%

[taxslave]

The best way for railroads to make money off of oil is to run the pipes right under the rails. Greenies should go for it since there will be no more corridors cut through the shrubs and there will be constant observation of the pipeline for damage. Don't have to make expensive payments to native bands either since the corridor is already in.

 

[petros]

This concept is pretty simple. If rail was really so much cheaper than pipelines, and people who own railways are the kind of people who like making money, then oil companies have room to offer more money to the rail companies, and the rail companies will happily replace their lower paying customers with the higher paying oil companies.

Make sense?

Who the f-ck said it was cheaper?

The best way for railroads to make money off of oil is to run the pipes right under the rails. Greenies should go for it since there will be no more corridors cut through the shrubs and there will be constant observation of the pipeline for damage. Don't have to make expensive payments to native bands either since the corridor is already in.

Too much vibration.

 

[BornRuff]

Who the f-ck said it was cheaper?

You. If pipelines require more manpower, as you claim, then they will undoubtedly cost more to operate.

 

[petros]

Quote me with a post number.

 

[BornRuff]

quote me with a post number.

19, 24, 26, 32, 34

 

[petros]

Far less jobs than a pipeline. oil isn't being moved by truck to port or refineries.

Nope. Not in 19

No oil is moved to port or refineries by truck.

Rail oil filling stations aren't fed by truck and are mainly automated with one man doing what 10 used to.

Not 24 either.

Pipes because there are no jobs in trucks and rail is automated.

Pipes have more jobs spread all along the line. You see it's not just a pipeline. It's an "energy corridor".

Nope nothing about cheaper here.

 

[BornRuff]

Nope. Not in 19



Not 24 either.



Nothing they say cheaper.

What is the necessary implication of everything you said in all of those posts?

 

[petros]

A crew of three even if the train is 30 cars or 150 with drones in the middle and back.

Pipelines require manned pumping and lift stations, PM crews, daily fly overs and Provincial utilities to run it from one end to the other.

Rail crude minor compared to the grain, intermodal, auto, potash, lumber, coal and chemcials and has to compete for the limited line capacity.

Neither say rail is cheaper.

Pipe is cheapest because of volume as I said before a few times.

 

[BornRuff]

Neither say rail is cheaper.

Pipe is cheapest because of volume as I said before a few times.

Lol, so now you say you agree with my initial point, that you can move more oil with less manpower?

 

[petros]

Now? What the f-ck did you think I was talking about the entire thread?

 

[BornRuff]

Now? What the f-ck did you think I was talking about the entire thread?

Lol, refer to the posts I already numbered.

 

[petros]

Rail can't move the same volume.

Post 39

 

[BornRuff]

Post 39

Which is proven wrong by the fact that oil companies are not using as much rail capacity as they could.

 

[petros]

Rail is already choked by other commodities to the point industry that export are laying people off because they can't get their orders shipped to offshore buyers as I said before.

Potash Corp and Evraz in SK are two of the big ones. Grain is sitting in terminals and bins on farms because rail is f-cked. It's a 150 year old system in a modern growing western Canada with sh-tloads of landlocked commodities.

The Asia Pacific Gateway which was started Over 15 years ago includes energy corridors to the pacific, gulf of mexico and all the way to the Atlantic. Energy corridors means oil and gas pipelines and hydro.

 

[JLM]

To break the "ice jam" here, can we not conclude that in any argument re movement of oil by pipeline vs. rail, that the main concern is safety of life and limb and the environment and that is achieved by use of a pipeline?

 

[petros]

Yes!

 

[BornRuff]

Rail is already choked by other commodities to the point industry that export are laying people off because they can't get their orders shipped to offshore buyers as I said before.

That is a different issue. Why would a rail company care about that above just moving cargo for whoever will pay them the most?

 

[petros]

That is a different issue. Why would a rail company care about that above just moving cargo for whoever will pay them the most?

Where are the railroad terminals at port for oil?

 

[BornRuff]

To break the "ice jam" here, can we not conclude that in any argument re movement of oil by pipeline vs. rail, that the main concern is safety of life and limb and the environment and that is achieved by use of a pipeline?

Meh, that really doesn't have much to do with what Petros was disagreeing with me over.

Where are the railroad terminals at port for oil?

What port in Canada doesn't have a rail link?

 

[petros]

Meh, that really doesn't have much to do with what Petros was disagreeing with me over.



What port in Canada doesn't have a rail link?

What port in Canada has a rail terminal to load tankers?