Hauling pellets by truck

Discussion board focusing on Great Lakes Shipping Question & Answer. From beginner to expert all posts are welcome.
garbear

Re: Hauling pellets by truck

Unread post by garbear »

ed wrote:So when will these 100 truck loads of pellets per day start ? Or is this just a bunch of 'bilge gas' from the mines ?
It's already being done.
ed

Re: Hauling pellets by truck

Unread post by ed »

So when will these 100 truck loads of pellets per day start ? Or is this just a bunch of 'bilge gas' from the mines ?
Guest

Re: Hauling pellets by truck

Unread post by Guest »

Keep in mind that pipeline expansion already is under way and has been for many years. Most people just aren't hearing about it. Enbridge, which runs pipelines from Canada through the United States has been adding pipelines and enlarging existing pipelines for years and continues to do so.

Railroads also have been adding capacity in recent years but for many years they were tearing up track (lower maintenance costs, good for stockholders!) and reducing their workforces (fewer dadburn employees just sitting around, good for stockholders!). That eliminated a lot of capacity and the ability to recover from bad weather and other problems. I call it the Summer Day Strategy. Some smart people devise a business plan that enables the railroad to run at peak efficiency on a perfect summer day. Throw in long-term problems like a horrendous winter or an unexpected surge in traffic (from oil, for instance) and all of a sudden the plan don't work so good anymore because the system doesn't have any flexibility or redundancy. Still good for stockholders but bad for the rest of us.

The thing is, even if someone builds a pipeline out of North Dakota starting right now, it's still a couple of years away (at best) from starting to operate. And you've still got to somehow get all the oil from all the individual drilling pads and collection centers to the head of the pipeline. North Dakota is a pretty long state, so the best way to get that oil to the pipeline is still going to be by rail. So MN Rail Guy is right. Railroads have the flexibility to take that oil where it's needed, which right now are East Coast refineries that are screaming for products to refine. BNSF has a real problem up north and it needs to get more employees and more locomotives in place to get that part of its system more fluid. It remains to be seen whether the railroad will do that or try to just get by (good for stockholders!).
MN Rail Guy

Re: Hauling pellets by truck

Unread post by MN Rail Guy »

Because shipping oil by rail is far more flexible than shipping by pipeline. Say you build a pipeline between North Dakota and the Texas Gulf. Once that pipeline is in place, that's the only place that oil can go. But if you ship it by rail, you can send it to the Texas Gulf, or the Pacific Northwest, or New England, or just about anywhere you want to.

Contrary to what a lot of people are saying, railroads are not favoring oil companies. The fact of the matter is traffic is up across the board, and it flat out caught the railroads off guard.
Patrick

Re: Hauling pellets by truck

Unread post by Patrick »

Seems rather simple to me. If we build pipelines to ship resources that can be shipped by pipelines like oil and gas. Wouldn't it free up the railroads to haul resources that can't be shipped by pipeline like coal, wood, iron ore, grains, etc. through Chicago. How about we start by getting rid of ethanol trains?

Guess that's why I'm not a politician.
Guest

Re: Hauling pellets by truck

Unread post by Guest »

According to one of these posts it looks like there is a bottle neck with the railroads around the southern end of Lake Michigan. I thought that problem was resolved back in the late 70's and early 80's thus allowing the abandonment process to proceed to lay up and finally end all cross lake rail shipping on the car ferrys. To bad all of the rails have been pulled and only Badger survived and is sailing today as a passenger ship. I know this is only wishfull thinking but just think of the jobs that would be createrd if some enterprising corporation would step up and put down new rails, build state of the art ferrys and start shipping across the lake from Manitowoc Wi. to Ludington Mi. again. This isn't going to solve the immediate problem of shipping ore by rail, but by moving freight and especially tank cars more efficiently, this would free up other engines and crews to haul other comodities such as ore and coal.
Middle rouge

Re: Hauling pellets by truck

Unread post by Middle rouge »

Guest wrote:
Brian Ferguson wrote:
old sailer wrote:Why not ship this crude by pipeline. Then there would be lots of track and locomotives available for other commodities. Plus in my mine its much safer by pipe over transporting petroleum products by Rail,Truck or ship.1AFWB
They thought about that- It was going to be called the "Keystone XL Pipeline"
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe the Keystone pipeline is to carry oil from the tar sands area in Canada.
Guest is correct. keystone is intended to go south from tar sands area. I also think it was meant to go all the way to the refineries in Texas
garbear

Re: Hauling pellets by truck

Unread post by garbear »

Here's a story from last night's WDIO-TV news here in Duluth:
http://www.wdio.com/article/stories/s3590138.shtml
mn brett
Posts: 283
Joined: March 20, 2011, 5:29 pm

Re: Hauling pellets by truck

Unread post by mn brett »

I want to let You know Guest 1,I drive Truck and My Truck and Trailer weigh 30.000 pounds,so I can haul 50.000 pounds or 25 ton's,construction will be winding down for the winter and there are trucks from brokers to be shuffled over to make up 100 trucks no problem. allot of these gravel company's have numerous owner operators pulling there trailers and the drivers would love winter work.
There is a shortage of petroleum products and Our Governor signed a relief to allow Us to drive all we want,So of course that is what the company's are expecting,I finally got today off but it's set up to be no rules, You must stop for a half hour break every 8 hours,and if You stop to sleep it must be 10 hours.
I tried to get into the rail road this spring,I passed the 90 minute mental test,have a clean work and driving record,went for a lecture and gave a hair sample and than a short interview, I got a notice in 2 days they didn't want me. I made a small mistake on My resume showing I had a gap in My employment.I heard from another Guy who did get hired and He said the Train only moves about 3 hours on there work shift up in Duluth. It's go a ways and waits.get's the right of way for a bit and than waits,He said He felt guilty calling it a work day.It's hard to get in,and if You know someone it does not make a difference.
clarkjol

Re: Hauling pellets by truck

Unread post by clarkjol »

I believe you meant mind and not "mine".

The north/south rail shipments is not the problem, BNSF is hauling to the southern refineries about what was expected. Its the west/east trains that caught the BNSF and CSX, NS off-guard. This business was not projected at the level they are currently moving. Getting the oil trains through Chicago has been a nightmare as moving freight through Chicago has been a headache for decades and the current west/east traffic has the Chicago area bottled up. BNSF, CSX and NS don't have enough employees to meet the demand and equipment (engines mostly)
shortages are also part of the mix. The demand for oil at the east coast refineries (read Philadelphia) is staggering.

I am an engineer for CSX and by the way, the oil trains run 90 cars each.
garbear

Re: Hauling pellets by truck

Unread post by garbear »

Guest wrote:
Brian Ferguson wrote:
old sailer wrote:Why not ship this crude by pipeline. Then there would be lots of track and locomotives available for other commodities. Plus in my mine its much safer by pipe over transporting petroleum products by Rail,Truck or ship.1AFWB
They thought about that- It was going to be called the "Keystone XL Pipeline"
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe the Keystone pipeline is to carry oil from the tar sands area in Canada.
Also from the Bakken fields in North Dakota/Montana.
Guest

Re: Hauling pellets by truck

Unread post by Guest »

Brian Ferguson wrote:
old sailer wrote:Why not ship this crude by pipeline. Then there would be lots of track and locomotives available for other commodities. Plus in my mine its much safer by pipe over transporting petroleum products by Rail,Truck or ship.1AFWB
They thought about that- It was going to be called the "Keystone XL Pipeline"
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe the Keystone pipeline is to carry oil from the tar sands area in Canada.
Brian Ferguson

Re: Hauling pellets by truck

Unread post by Brian Ferguson »

old sailer wrote:Why not ship this crude by pipeline. Then there would be lots of track and locomotives available for other commodities. Plus in my mine its much safer by pipe over transporting petroleum products by Rail,Truck or ship.1AFWB
They thought about that- It was going to be called the "Keystone XL Pipeline"
Guest

Re: Hauling pellets by truck

Unread post by Guest »

Customers who have problems with rail service would go to the Surface Transportation Board ( STB).
Guest2

Re: Hauling pellets by truck

Unread post by Guest2 »

If the railroad is short of equipment and taking care of the new oil business instead their long time customer, it makes me wonder how many truckers are going to leave their old customers to take care of a new customer in the iron ore business. The railroads know that they will "always" be needed to haul ore to the steel mills in the winter. There might be a few truckers who have made a long term living from iron ore mines, but there seems to be no guarantee for 100 truckers to shift their alliance away from their long term customers to take care of a short term need.

In a lot of the country, there always seems to be shortages of drivers with a CDL. Will they be able to find rigs with rear dump capacity and drivers for them to take much of this business?
Guest 1

Re: Hauling pellets by truck

Unread post by Guest 1 »

Guest wrote:I couldn't imagine reading a contract of affreightment between taconite mills and the railroads, but would they not have in place a stipulation in their contract to move X amount of product in Y amount of time? Similar to contracts between shipping companies and cargo purchasers? Sure, most contracts have clauses for force majeure, etc., but I have a hard time understanding how it's legal for the railways to not meet contractual requirements.

Whose jurisdiction does this fall under, the FRA or FTC? While lack of equipment availability may be the cause, can the railways play it off as lack of trackage availability? If so, doesn't the rail lines from the Dakotas pass through Minneapolis/St Paul, not Duluth-Superior?

I'm sure BNSF is paying penalties. That is in the contracts. It's not the tracks on the range that are the problem it's the shortage of crews and locomotives as well. There is talk of some power plants possibly shutting down because the railroads can't get coal to them. The oil boom has caused a lot of trouble for everyone else who depends on rail service.
Guest 1

Re: Hauling pellets by truck

Unread post by Guest 1 »

I know they won't and never said it was all going by truck. Just trying to do a comparison between the two. I think Allouez normally gets two trains a day from hibbing. I wonder how far behind the shipments are? My thoughts where that it must be substantial because I would imagine pellets by truck will be expensive.
old sailer

Re: Hauling pellets by truck

Unread post by old sailer »

Why not ship this crude by pipeline. Then there would be lots of track and locomotives available for other commodities. Plus in my mine its much safer by pipe over transporting petroleum products by Rail,Truck or ship.1AFWB
Guest 2

Re: Hauling pellets by truck

Unread post by Guest 2 »

Im sure that the 100 truckloads is being hauled to make up the shortfall that the railroads cant haul. The railroads will still be hauling too. Cant see trucks hauling it all.
Guest

Re: Hauling pellets by truck

Unread post by Guest »

I feel that they are not looking for the trucks to completely replace the train capacity - but to just augment it. My thoughts are that they are really using the trucks to bring home to the public - and thus to the politicians - just how bad the problem is. How would you like to be the politician who's district has that kind of additional truck traffic (which by the way is going to take two different routes through different areas of town). I think this will make the news very well and hopefully the powers will use this to pressure the RR to get the train traffic moving.

And yes - if the mines had any type of legal help doing their contracts with the RR they had a delivery clause there that drops the rates if the capacity drops. Obviously, the OIL traffic must be paying very good if they are ready to get their other customers poorer service.

Frank
Post Reply