Keystone pipeline vs train vs ship to move oil

[Percher]

Found this very interesting. I’d never thought about ships hauling oil and every other item purchased from around the world.

This was fact checked —if you can count on Google accountability.



KEYSTONE PIPELINE VS TRAIN VS SHIP TO MOVE OIL



A little time was spent putting some numbers together:



1 Train has 100 cars, 2 engines and weighs 27,240,000 LBS.

1 Train carries 3,000,000 gallons of oil.

1 train uses 55.5 gallons of diesel per mile.

It takes 119,000 gallons of diesel to go 2150 miles from Hardidsy, AB to Freeport, TX.



Keystone pipeline was to deliver 34,860,000 gallons of oil per day.

It would take 12 trains and 1,428,000 gallons of diesel to deliver that amount. PER DAY!

521,220,000 gallons of diesel per year.



The oil will still go to market with or without the pipeline. By stopping the pipeline, billions of gallons of diesel will be wasted and pollute needlessly.

Does that make you feel good?



Stop the Tar Sands all together? Then we must ship the oil from the overseas sandbox.



1 large oil tanker can haul 120,000,000 gallons of oil

1 boat takes 15 days to float across the Atlantic.

1 boat uses 63,000 gallons of fuel PER DAY, that is about 1 million gallons of the most polluting type fuel in the world PER TRIP.*(See below)



Or take 3.5 days of Keystone Pipeline to move the same amount of oil with a fraction of the pollution.



*In international waters, ship emissions remain one of the least regulated parts of our global transportation system. The fuel used in ships is waste oil, basically what is left over after the crude oil refining process. It is the same as asphalt and is so thick that when cold it can be walked upon. It's the cheapest and most polluting fuel available and the world's 90,000 ships chew through an astonishing 7.29 million barrels of it each day, or more than 84% of all exported oil production from Saudi Arabia.



Shipping is by far the biggest transport polluter in the world. There are 760 million cars in the world today, emitting approx 78,599 tons of Sulphur Oxides (SOx) annually. The world's 90,000 vessels burn approx 370 million tons of fuel per year, emitting 20 million tons of Sulphur Oxides. That equates to 260 times more Sulphur Oxides being emitted by ships than the worlds entire car fleet. One large ship alone can generate approx 5,200 tonnes of sulphur oxide pollution in a year, meaning that 15 of the largest ships now emit as much SOx as the worlds 760 million cars.



Eliminate all gas consuming cars and diesel vehicles?



Worldwide car gas consumption is 403,583,712,000 gallons a year. That's billion.

Worldwide oil consumption is 1,500,000,000,000 gallons a year. That's trillion.



It takes 2.15 gallons of oil to make 1 gallon of car gas and .6 gal of diesel.

So it takes 867,704,980,800 gallons of oil to run the worlds cars, most diesel vehicles for a year, and some ships.

That leaves 632,295,019,200 gallons of oil for other uses.



Passenger vehicles are only a very small percentage of the problem. If emissions are the problem -- why not just capture them at the exhaust?

Create an industry to clean exhaust, instead of crushing an entire industry and building a complete untested, replacement industry?



So are we willing to dramatically increase mining to get all the minerals necessary to make all these batteries and electric engines?

Mining is way worse for the environment than oil extraction.

Is stopping the Keystone still making you feel good?

[Cement Bench]

saw that as well

too bad the politicians did not take grade 4 math or they would understand the value of the pipeline

[EZM]

There is a cost to the energy used in the pipeline itself, however, there certainly is a significant positive impact to delivery using this vessel.

The ships are irrelevant - as there is no other way to get it off the continent be in in TX/LA or BC.

But yes, the story is the same. Pipelines make sense for the environment.

It should be noted pipelines are safer delivery compared to rail cars for leaks - problem is when they do burst or leak a pipeline puts out a very large amount all at once compared to multiple leaking rail cars.

[Trochu]

I read it a few years ago, so don't know if it's still valid, but the article stated 15 of the highest polluting cargo/container ships polluted more than all the cars in the world combined.

[wannabe]

I train will use 55.5 gal of diesel to go 1 mile??
Maybe 4-6 gal per mile.

[barsik]

none of the facts matter. Warren Buffet and Berkshire Hathaway have invested billions in railway stocks. I also suspect quite a following of Democrat and Republican politicians have followed his stock picking prowess. now you know why the very first thing Biden did was kill the pipeline.

[RandyBoBandy]

There is a cost to the energy used in the pipeline itself, however, there certainly is a significant positive impact to delivery using this vessel.

The ships are irrelevant - as there is no other way to get it off the continent be in in TX/LA or BC.

But yes, the story is the same. Pipelines make sense for the environment.

It should be noted pipelines are safer delivery compared to rail cars for leaks - problem is when they do burst or leak a pipeline puts out a very large amount all at once compared to multiple leaking rail cars.

Dayuum, funny thing to say from a guy that consistently blows smoke up Biden's skirt :sHa_sarcasticlol:

[roper1]

I train will use 55.5 gal of diesel to go 1 mile??
Maybe 4-6 gal per mile.

Oil very heavy, 110 car train take 3-5 1400HP diesel engines with at least 3 working. I could easily see the 55.5. Also don't forget they deadhead back empty, which adds another 40-60% fuel usage & cost.

[lmtada]

Are the ships also hauling smartphones, computers, etc. (Apple, Samsung, etc). Who is doing polluting.

[flyrodfisher]

I read it a few years ago, so don't know if it's still valid, but the article stated 15 of the highest polluting cargo/container ships polluted more than all the cars in the world combined.

From an old thread;

For those that don't think money overrides environmental conscience...a few very simple examples.

1)Bought a truck battery at Costco a few months ago. Where was it made?....SPAIN

2)Replaced some toilets this spring. Where were they made?....MEXICO

3) Take a look at the country of origin of "No Name" pickles....INDIA

4) Check that frozen salmon you may have recently purchased....from CHINA...then sent to Canada's east coast for packaging

I could go on and on...

Why is this done?...because it is cheaper to produce it elsewhere and transport it here.
Does anyone think about the environmental footprint of this stuff at the checkout?


Now just think about transporting this stuff across the globe with cargo ships....

From the link below;

"Every day the clothes, tech and toys that fill the shelves in our shopping centres seem to arrive there by magic. In fact, about nine out of 10 items are shipped halfway around the world on board some of the biggest and dirtiest machines on the planet.
It has been estimated that just one of these container ships, the length of around six football pitches, can produce the same amount of pollution as 50 million cars. The emissions from 15 of these mega-ships match those from all the cars in the world. And if the shipping industry were a country, it would be ranked between Germany and Japan as the sixth-largest contributor to global CO2 emissions."
https://inews.co.uk/news/long-reads/cargo-container-shipping-carbon-pollution-114721


And some cities have an idling bylaw....

[roper1]

Ships use bunker fuel(which is dirty) but they don't even come close to having the HP of 5000 cars, much less 50 million. I'm no expert, just doing the math, can't see how the ships pollute that much. The tonnage they haul is amazing given the prop size & engine size.

[MountainTi]

Ships use bunker fuel(which is dirty) but they don't even come close to having the HP of 5000 cars, much less 50 million. I'm no expert, just doing the math, can't see how the ships pollute that much. The tonnage they haul is amazing given the prop size & engine size.

Bunker fuel is the heavy end of the hydrocarbon chain. Around here light sweet crude has a density of around 800. The bunker fuel we make (RMG 380) has a density of 920 or so. Pour point of 30c and that is using a pour point additive to make it to that. It's gross stuff. Dirty.
As of Jan. 1 2020 they actually put a sulphur limit on bunker fuel. It is now 5000 ppm. Diesel for example is 10 ppm. It burns dirty and no doubt it a huge polluter

[flyrodfisher]

Ships use bunker fuel(which is dirty) but they don't even come close to having the HP of 5000 cars, much less 50 million. I'm no expert, just doing the math, can't see how the ships pollute that much. The tonnage they haul is amazing given the prop size & engine size.

Here is another article with their calculations;

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2009/apr/09/shipping-pollution

[roper1]

Here is another article with their calculations;

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2009/apr/09/shipping-pollution

Fair enough, I stand corrected. It seems like a really high number, 50 million cars are a lot of engines. I realize bunker fuel is really polluting, but even the exhaust stacks on a really big ship vs the exhaust pipes on 50 million cars ?

It takes somewhere around 26 complete trainloads of grain to fill a ship, a few variables on train or ship size but close. To move the grain from a central loading point in say, Saskatoon to Vancouver closer than Vancouver to Tokyo. However the amount of grain moved is the same.

Is there any political or environmental connection with the study authors and the green movement ?

[flyrodfisher]

Is there any political or environmental connection with the study authors and the green movement ?

Good question...I do not know the answer to that.
Keep in mind that the calcs are using ships running 24/7 for 280 days per year vs cars travelling an average of 15,000km per year.

The key factor here is SOX emissions...which tankers running bunker C are notoriously dirty for.

[roper1]

Good question...I do not know the answer to that.
Keep in mind that the calcs are using ships running 24/7 for 280 days per year vs cars travelling an average of 15,000km per year.

The key factor here is SOX emissions...which tankers running bunker C are notoriously dirty for.

Makes a guy look at stuff with new eyes. I always felt(incorrectly) that ships were efficient just based on sheer tonnage. Thanks!

[6.5 shooter]

Two words Warren Buffet ... He makes Million/Billions by shipping it by rail. And yes he is a big Biden supporter, hummmm. :thinking-006:

[HyperMOA]

Makes a guy look at stuff with new eyes. I always felt(incorrectly) that ships were efficient just based on sheer tonnage. Thanks!

Also something to consider is that a ship is at or near full throttle almost its entire trip. How much more pollution would your car make if you sat down and floored it for 12 straight days compared to your commute in the same 12 days. And I mean sit down and drive flat out for 12 days non-stop. Of course you wouldn’t be able to do that as you would need fuel, but not those giant ships.

[Sundog57]

Ship do emit a lot of stuff, no question, however you have to compare apples to apples.
So...
The largest container ships are currently in 18-24,000 TEU range so if we halve that we get something around 7-12,000 tractor trailer loads.
They do not operate "pedal to the metal" they operate at about 75-80% MCR to achieve the most efficient fuel consumption - ship owners aren't stupid - they look at the curve and operate where the engines are most efficient.
The largest container vessels operate with between 90-125,000 horsepower.
The large engines are amongst the most efficient in the world using as low as 98 grams per hp/hr but typically in the 125 grams per hp/hr range.
So now for the arithmetic.
Using a specific vessel for example:
OOCL Indonesia (picked one from the list at random)
Deadweight (how much cargo she can lift, not the weight of the vessel) 191,000 tonnes
Engine power; 83,656 horsepower
Transit speed: 21 knots (abt 38 km/hr)
Consumption: 125g/hp/hr
So assume that she does 19 knots on 62,000 hp (rule of thumb, hull resistance varies as the cube of the speed)
So she can move 191,000 tonnes of cargo at 35 kms/hr using 62,000 hp and 7750 kgs of fuel.
and 191,000t 1 km using 221 kgs of fuel.
Extending this through she move 1 tonne of cargo 1 kilometer using 1.15 grams of fuel.
Now look at a truck.
Let's say a "normal" road tractor has 500hp
I will use a Cat engine because I happen to have the book and picking at random I'm going to use a C18 (guys who know more about trucks can go ahead and pick a different engine)
At MCR, Cat says a C18 burns about 90 litres or about 75 kgs per hour generating 500 hp
So about 150 g/hp/hr.
A max trailer load is about 35 tonnes.
So...
A tractor/trailer combo uses 75,000 grams to move 35 tonnes 100 kms or 750 grams to move 35 tonnes 1 km or 21.4 grams to move one tonne of cargo 1 km. (even if a truck is only using 50% MCR at highway speed, if you cut the tonne/mile amount in half it's still huge compared to ships)
So yes ships generate a lot of pollution, but by real comparison they are, after pipelines the most efficient means of transportation.

PS MCR = Maximum Continuous Rating

[HyperMOA]

They do not operate "pedal to the metal" they operate at about 75-80%

You are correct. Which is why I said near full throttle. Adverse conditions or traffic will effect it too. But for simplicity sake I said at or near full throttle as they are on the FTS and FLS screws the whole time whether half or full throttle which influences fuel consumption almost as much as high rpm. The only way to simulate the load of a ship engine and drag of the sea in a car is what it experiences at very high speed when the wind is a greater drag than anything else and the vehicle must use 80% throttle to just maintain its speed. Or go up an extremely steep grade for days on end.

Also a truck at speed probably is using less than 50% of its rated power. But regardless, you are correct that ships do move lots efficiently.

But what if we manufactured in Kansas, and truck from Kansas to Edmonton; how much fuel is used per ton? Now how much fuel is used transporting from the middle of China to a container ship, across the ocean to Vancouver, then trucking from Vancouver to Edmonton?

[Freedom55]

Interesting reads. However. in the original post there is a blank space. After having all the facts in order and all the dollar values quoted there is a distinct lack of pertinent data regarding the cost of pipeline transmission, referring to "a fraction" of the cost.

After all, 7/8 is a fraction.

Free

[HyperMOA]

Interesting reads. However. in the original post there is a blank space. After having all the facts in order and all the dollar values quoted there is a distinct lack of pertinent data regarding the cost of pipeline transmission, referring to "a fraction" of the cost.

After all, 7/8 is a fraction.

Free

Does a pipeline consume 7/8 the fuel too?

[MountainTi]

*Warning* Fox news story. There may be a few that want to look the other way

https://www.foxnews.com/us/train-texas-18-wheeler-explosion

Another in the "pro" column for pipelines

[colroggal]

Ship do emit a lot of stuff, no question, however you have to compare apples to apples.
So...
The largest container ships are currently in 18-24,000 TEU range so if we halve that we get something around 7-12,000 tractor trailer loads.
They do not operate "pedal to the metal" they operate at about 75-80% MCR to achieve the most efficient fuel consumption - ship owners aren't stupid - they look at the curve and operate where the engines are most efficient.
The largest container vessels operate with between 90-125,000 horsepower.
The large engines are amongst the most efficient in the world using as low as 98 grams per hp/hr but typically in the 125 grams per hp/hr range.
So now for the arithmetic.
Using a specific vessel for example:
OOCL Indonesia (picked one from the list at random)
Deadweight (how much cargo she can lift, not the weight of the vessel) 191,000 tonnes
Engine power; 83,656 horsepower
Transit speed: 21 knots (abt 38 km/hr)
Consumption: 125g/hp/hr
So assume that she does 19 knots on 62,000 hp (rule of thumb, hull resistance varies as the cube of the speed)
So she can move 191,000 tonnes of cargo at 35 kms/hr using 62,000 hp and 7750 kgs of fuel.
and 191,000t 1 km using 221 kgs of fuel.
Extending this through she move 1 tonne of cargo 1 kilometer using 1.15 grams of fuel.
Now look at a truck.
Let's say a "normal" road tractor has 500hp
I will use a Cat engine because I happen to have the book and picking at random I'm going to use a C18 (guys who know more about trucks can go ahead and pick a different engine)
At MCR, Cat says a C18 burns about 90 litres or about 75 kgs per hour generating 500 hp
So about 150 g/hp/hr.
A max trailer load is about 35 tonnes.
So...
A tractor/trailer combo uses 75,000 grams to move 35 tonnes 100 kms or 750 grams to move 35 tonnes 1 km or 21.4 grams to move one tonne of cargo 1 km. (even if a truck is only using 50% MCR at highway speed, if you cut the tonne/mile amount in half it's still huge compared to ships)
So yes ships generate a lot of pollution, but by real comparison they are, after pipelines the most efficient means of transportation.

PS MCR = Maximum Continuous Rating

If any of my trucks averaged 90 liters per hour (about 80km of ground covered on average) they would be parked at the dealership.

With an 80,000lb gross weight (35 tonnes of cargo), a semi will get closer to 7.5-8mpg. A super B, at 140,000lb can comfortably achieve better that 5mpg. That's about 45 liters per hour.

Of course your source is referring to sustained maximum output, but the reality is, the longer the climb, the longer the descent. I could burn 75 liters climbing the Salmo-Creston, but only 5 coming down the other side.

Colin

[Bigwoodsman]

If the world was truly concerned about the environment, they would be serious about reducing the carbon foot print, there would be less reliance on world trade, and more on domestic self sufficiency.

But that will never happen as the amount of money currently changing hands will dictate that the world continue on its current path.

BW

[Sundog57]

If any of my trucks averaged 90 liters per hour (about 80km of ground covered on average) they would be parked at the dealership.

With an 80,000lb gross weight (35 tonnes of cargo), a semi will get closer to 7.5-8mpg. A super B, at 140,000lb can comfortably achieve better that 5mpg. That's about 45 liters per hour.


Colin

I'm a boat guy, not a truck guy which is why I pointed out that even if it's half of the consumption at MCR it's still over 10grams per t/km compared to a ship at about 1 gram. (on the really big engines potentially less)

Although local manufacturing and consumption is a lovely idea, you have to factor in where all of the raw materials are coming from as well.
That's a multi variable equation that has more variables than I can count up on all of my fingers.
As for green house gas emissions - first step, replace all coal thermal plants with natural gas, then we can have a sensible conversation

[HyperMOA]

As for green house gas emissions - first step, replace all coal thermal plants with natural gas, then we can have a sensible conversation

What is wrong with the latest versions of coal plants with CCS technologies? Building cleaner technologies can allow us to better burn dirty fuels. Your natural gas is too dirty for many and they would change your statement to replace dirty gas with solar and we can have a sensible conversation.

A sensible conversation doesn’t exclude anything.

[flyrodfisher]

Ship do emit a lot of stuff, no question, however you have to compare apples to apples.

First...thx for the detailed analysis.
Agreed, you do need to compare apples to apples.
In that case then one also needs to look at the fuel that is being used

WRT to emissions, the article focussed primarily on SOX and NOX..so...
You then need to factor in that the cargo ships burn bunker C which according to MountainTI contains 500 times the sulphur of conventional truck diesel.

Using your numbers of fuel consumption of 1.15 vs 21.4 gms per ton-km, the cargo ship would emit about 27 times more SOX than a conventional rig.


Also...can you confirm that cargo ship engines run continuously even while docked?

[flyrodfisher]

Although local manufacturing and consumption is a lovely idea, you have to factor in where all of the raw materials are coming from as well.
That's a multi variable equation that has more variables than I can count up on all of my fingers.

Agreed...but at the end of the day, it all comes down to $...not environmental impact.

If it did....your "No Name" pickles wouldn't be coming from India....

[HyperMOA]

Also...can you confirm that cargo ship engines run continuously even while docked?

A ship has several different engines. The propulsion engines would be shut down at dock. But engines driving the electrical and living systems would run continually. Unless the docks have heavy enough hook-ups for dock power. I know that’s the case for big cruise ships anyways, I would assume container ships are the same.

[waldedw]

A ship has several different engines. The propulsion engines would be shut down at dock. But engines driving the electrical and living systems would run continually. Unless the docks have heavy enough hook-ups for dock power. I know that’s the case for big cruise ships anyways, I would assume container ships are the same.

Correct you are, I worked for a freight forwarding company as a consultant for about 8 years, 90% of my work was on the docks during vessel discharge, the service engine for the ship is running non stop, for the most part the drive engines are off or in neutral in the harbor and the ship is guided into dock but tugs, they are then shut down.

[Sundog57]

WRT to emissions, the article focussed primarily on SOX and NOX..so...
You then need to factor in that the cargo ships burn bunker C which according to MountainTI contains 500 times the sulphur of conventional truck diesel.

Using your numbers of fuel consumption of 1.15 vs 21.4 gms per ton-km, the cargo ship would emit about 27 times more SOX than a conventional rig.


Also...can you confirm that cargo ship engines run continuously even while docked?

Not to get too pedantic about this but Bunker C is actually a steam fuel typically used in power plants.
In the marine world heavy fuels are referred to as IFOs and HFOs (Intermediate and Heavy Fuel Oils) and are graded by their viscosity
Most large vessels burn IFO180 (180 centistokes) or IFO 360.
The specs on these fuels are very tight because marine engines are pretty particular about what they will burn (particularly with regard to the fuel's Cetane number - because of pre-ignition - pinging in your vehicle,rather more alarming in an engine with a cylinder bore of just under a 900mm and a stroke of 2.5m) and also for things like vanadium, cadmium and chromium, whereas a steam plant can burn just about anything that will ignite.
As of January 1 2020, the entire world switched to low sulphur fuel (0.5%) under an IMO agreement, down from about 5% previously, so SOX emissions are, while not eliminated, dramatically reduced. This move has also caused major refinery headaches as they now need to remove the sulphur from what are known as "residual fuels"

This change has been made at a not insignificant cost to the industry as sulphur offered a degree of lubricity for fuel pumps and injectors and major equipment changes have been required to deal with this. Alternatively some operators have opted to install scrubbers which remove the sulphur from the exhaust stream and typically produce gypsum as a by-product. In all cases though SOX emissions have been dramatically reduced.
As well, all waters within 200 miles of the coasts of North America and Europe are now considered Emissions Control Zones and most vessels operating in those area have switched to using Ultra Low Sulphur Diesel (0.1%) in those areas (same as your truck) or where available ultra low sulphur IFO.
With regard to in-port activities, the main engine is generally shut down as soon as the ship comes along side. Hotel and cargo handling power is either provided by the ship's generators - which depending on the load will be medium sized MG sets running on ULSD or if there is a less significant power draw - so not operating four or five hydraulic cranes or self unloading gear or big pumps, "cold ironing" where ship's power is provided from shore. This can either be accomplished by branching into the mains or as is done in some places by providing a natural gas generation plant on the quay side. cold ironing is frequently used in large container facilities as most of the cargo handling is performed by shore based equipment. Ship board load would be limited to base load to run the accommodations, open and close hatches and things like power to keep reefer containers operating.

Again although the green lobby likes to run around in circles barking about the total emissions from ships, you have to consider the scale of the operation.