Uintah Basin Railway

Hickey

Burn-barrel enthusiast
Supporting Member
What @Greg said above. It is eliminating the tanker truck heating to off load.

As a side comment to this. I am sure another factor to weigh into the cost truck vs train is wages. Right now they are advertising g for truck drivers to haul oil from Roosevelt to Price with a starting pay of up to 106k
I'm surprised it's that low right now. Driver wages have skyrocketed over the last two years, and I know those tanker drivers have always made good money.

The biggest advantage trains have over trucks are in bulk transport to a single delivery point. This rail line is exactly that kind of advantage. It does take a train longer to make the journey, but once the first train arrives at the refinery you'll have far more product to offload. If you figure it in gallons per hour for transport time, the train will easily beat the truck.
 

nnnnnate

Well-Known Member
Supporting Member
Location
WVC, UT
One train can carry as much product as approximately 300 trucks. If they do reach full production and are running 10 oil trains per day as they claim, that's 3000 trucks, not on the road... per day.

Isn't this calculation flawed since if the track wasn't laid production wouldn't be increased to fill those ten train loads? I'd be interested to know what the current load is via truck.

What happens to the oil that gets trucked out of Roosevelt right now? Is it a type that can be refined here or is it getting sent off shore. I thought I read that most of what is produced here (stateside) isn't the right "type" and the refineries aren't set up to deal with it so they ship it elsewhere and that is why we rely on OPEC and the Ruskies. If this production increase is something that could be processed and used locally then I'd support the rail line. If its going to just get shipped offshore then I'd be less inclined. Energy independence would be ideal but it seems a lot more complicated in the business world where profits are king.
 

Greg

I run a tight ship... wreck
Admin
Isn't this calculation flawed since if the track wasn't laid production wouldn't be increased to fill those ten train loads? I'd be interested to know what the current load is via truck.

What happens to the oil that gets trucked out of Roosevelt right now? Is it a type that can be refined here or is it getting sent off shore. I thought I read that most of what is produced here (stateside) isn't the right "type" and the refineries aren't set up to deal with it so they ship it elsewhere and that is why we rely on OPEC and the Ruskies. If this production increase is something that could be processed and used locally then I'd support the rail line. If its going to just get shipped offshore then I'd be less inclined. Energy independence would be ideal but it seems a lot more complicated in the business world where profits are king.

I'm speaking in general, there's plenty of oil moving by rail these days. Yeah, construction of the rail line and its cost is a whole different subject.

I don't know if this oil will be used domestically, I'm hoping thats the case.
 

anderson750

I'm working on it Rose
Location
Price, Utah
The oil that is trucked to Price goes on to rail cars and goes to refineries around the country. I don’t believe any/or many of the rail cars go to the refineries in Salt Lake since the trucks that drive to the refineries fill the processing capacity.

The biggest refining challenge to the Basin oil is the high paraffin content and if I understand correctly, not all refineries can handle that.
 

TRD270

Emptying Pockets Again
Supporting Member
Location
SaSaSandy
The biggest refining challenge to the Basin oil is the high paraffin content and if I understand correctly, not all refineries can handle that.

True story, doesn’t have nearly the yield either. I’d be surprised if the capacity at the refineries really could support more than the trucks bring. I hauled gas and oil for a while. I hauled “sweet crude” from the Richfield area though. Think a lot of that basin oil goes to Flying J and Silver Eagle, think the asphalt plants take a lot as well. I hauled to Holly “Phillips 66”. Exxon comes into Utah processed on railcar, Conoco and Sinclair comes by processed by pipeline from Wyoming. Think chevron brings a lot in by rail. Not sure on Tesoro
 

Houndoc

Registered User
Location
Grantsville
Maybe I’m a little simplistic in my thinking.. but if green energy was successful and profitable, we wouldn’t need government mandates to force its use. If it were a reliable and reasonable source of energy, it would naturally make its way into use. Until that point is possible through advancement, drill baby drill.
Green energy is incentive based, not mandates, at least when it comes to EVs.
And the oil and gas industries received plenty of federal support- it jus isn't direct to the consumer like a tax credit on an EV purchase.
 

TRD270

Emptying Pockets Again
Supporting Member
Location
SaSaSandy
Green energy is incentive based, not mandates, at least when it comes to EVs.
And the oil and gas industries received plenty of federal support- it jus isn't direct to the consumer like a tax credit on an EV purchase.

While not law yet it’s on the ballot that ALL cars (100%) sold in California must be EV by 2035 and a stepping percentage of them each year until then. I’d call that a mandate.

Also Brandon wants to invoke Californias ludicrous emissions nationwide.

Also I’m not allowed to fly an airplane in large amounts of California that run on 100LL (probably 90% of general aviation aircraft). I’d also call that a mandate in the realm of “green”
 

Houndoc

Registered User
Location
Grantsville
While not law yet it’s on the ballot that ALL cars (100%) sold in California must be EV by 2035 and a stepping percentage of them each year until then. I’d call that a mandate.
IF passes, yes that would be a mandate.
At the same time, much of what is on cars now (seat belts, turn signals etc) are here my mandate.
 

anderson750

I'm working on it Rose
Location
Price, Utah
Green energy is incentive based, not mandates, at least when it comes to EVs.
And the oil and gas industries received plenty of federal support- it jus isn't direct to the consumer like a tax credit on an EV purchase.
Unlike the oil and gas industry, the green energy business is very heavily subsidized by the government to not only the end consumer but to the people who are putting in solar and wind projects.
 

Hickey

Burn-barrel enthusiast
Supporting Member
Unlike the oil and gas industry, the green energy business is very heavily subsidized by the government to not only the end consumer but to the people who are putting in solar and wind projects.
You mean those guys advertising solar and backup battery installs on EVERY SINGLE YouTube video are not being honest???!!

SHOCKER!
 

moab_cj5

Well-Known Member
Supporting Member
The Uinta Basin Black and Yellow Wax crudes are hard to refine in larger % of feed if the refinery doesn't have a dewaxing unit and other ways to handle that type of crude. There are 3 refineries I know of on the Wasatch Front that can handle large quantities of the Uinta Crudes: Marathon (formally Tesoro), HF Sinclair (formerly Holly Frontier), and Silver Eagle. Silver Eagle is primarily a wax refinery that gets diesel as a byproduct, then sends components to Evanston WY for further refining and blending into gasoline.

Big West does take some of the waxy crude, but I am not 100% certain how much. I believe Chevron can take some too, but I haven't heard much about their crude slate and haven't seen if they have an offload facility for trucks.

Most of the crude that comes into the valley is by pipeline. Some comes by rail, but not much. Trucks make up the rest.

If setup to handle the Uinta Crude, the yields are fine, but none of the refineries are setup to run 100% waxy crude, at most 40%. But, the refineries in SLC are small in the grand scheme of things. Getting the waxy crude to larger refineries would benefit those markets if they can integrate it without major refinery work, especially in warmer climates.

The trailers hauling local are heated to reduce the time needed to offload without having to steam off the trailer. A rail car offloading facility would have more infrastructure to heat the car with steam (as @Greg mentioned) and thus keeping it hot in transit isn't as big a concern as a truck.

I will try to respond later to more of the questions raised here about the crude, but I think the rail line is a great way to get crude out, but am not optimistic it will be a reality. I can't see any company fitting the bill under this administration's, and our allies all out war on fossil fuels. When people finally wake up to current "Green Energy" being worse for the environment and woefully unsustainable compared to fossil fuels, maybe that changes, but that is a ways off I'm afraid.
 

Greg

I run a tight ship... wreck
Admin
The Uinta Basin Black and Yellow Wax crudes are hard to refine in larger % of feed if the refinery doesn't have a dewaxing unit and other ways to handle that type of crude. There are 3 refineries I know of on the Wasatch Front that can handle large quantities of the Uinta Crudes: Marathon (formally Tesoro), HF Sinclair (formerly Holly Frontier), and Silver Eagle. Silver Eagle is primarily a wax refinery that gets diesel as a byproduct, then sends components to Evanston WY for further refining and blending into gasoline.

Big West does take some of the waxy crude, but I am not 100% certain how much. I believe Chevron can take some too, but I haven't heard much about their crude slate and haven't seen if they have an offload facility for trucks.

Most of the crude that comes into the valley is by pipeline. Some comes by rail, but not much. Trucks make up the rest.

If setup to handle the Uinta Crude, the yields are fine, but none of the refineries are setup to run 100% waxy crude, at most 40%. But, the refineries in SLC are small in the grand scheme of things. Getting the waxy crude to larger refineries would benefit those markets if they can integrate it without major refinery work, especially in warmer climates.

The trailers hauling local are heated to reduce the time needed to offload without having to steam off the trailer. A rail car offloading facility would have more infrastructure to heat the car with steam (as @Greg mentioned) and thus keeping it hot in transit isn't as big a concern as a truck.

I will try to respond later to more of the questions raised here about the crude, but I think the rail line is a great way to get crude out, but am not optimistic it will be a reality. I can't see any company fitting the bill under this administration's, and our allies all out war on fossil fuels. When people finally wake up to current "Green Energy" being worse for the environment and woefully unsustainable compared to fossil fuels, maybe that changes, but that is a ways off I'm afraid.

Thanks for the insight, I know little about crude oil... more familiar with railroading. 😁
 

moab_cj5

Well-Known Member
Supporting Member
Here is an interesting read (not entirely related to this railway) regarding solar: https://www.latimes.com/business/st...v-panels-recycling-danger?consumer=googlenews

If you haven't had a chance, give "Planet of the Humans" a watch on Youtube. I don't agree with all of the conclusions, but eye opening considering it came from very left leaning folks:

Also, a great read with some excellent links describing the impacts and affects of "Green Energy."https://www.facebook.com/TheRealMik...WL9qD9m7exv3tx9EyiR4U4DtGe22PvdB3RoSeZE774Zfl

For those without FB, give this a watch:

Here is Mike's full post:
Off the Wall

Mike - I took my family to see Top Gun the other night in Oklahoma City, and I was VERY disappointed to see you in an ad for the fossil fuel industry. I love Dirty Jobs and appreciate your scholarship program, but you should do your homework before associating yourself with organizations like the OERB. Our planet is in peril, and fossil fuels are the problem. America needs to get off oil and gas NOW!!! The UN said we have less than 12 years to avert an irreversible climate catastrophe – and that was three years ago! Please use your influence to help deliver that message before it’s too late.

Janice Calloway

Hi Janice

First, I’m delighted to hear that I shared the big screen with Tom Cruise! The Scientology stuff gives me the creeps, but Top Gun 2 was a terrific movie, and a great way to spend a few hours out of the summer heat. I sure hope I didn’t wreck it for you by espousing the virtues of energy independence.

Second, you’ll be pleased to know that I have in fact done my homework on climate change. I’ve also considered the UN’s doomsday prediction, looked at their evidence, listened to experts on both sides of the debate, and concluded that the earth is probably not going to end in 2031. https://bit.ly/3O9oF24. Obviously, I could be wrong. I don’t have a crystal ball, but I do like this response from The Scientific American. https://bit.ly/3O9oF24. From the article:

“Doomsday scenarios may generate clicks and sell advertisements, but they always fail to convey that science is nuanced. Arbitrary "time left to apocalypse" predictions are not evidence-based, and the real story of climate change doesn't fit neatly into brief bullet points competing for your attention in today's saturated media environment. Stoking panic and fear offers a false narrative that can overwhelm readers, leading to inaction and hopelessness. Earth isn't ending in 12 years. It didn't end at Y2K or when the Mayan calendar predicted the collapse of civilization in 2012. Earth, as a whole, will be okay—for at least another few billion years.”

The Scientific American isn’t saying there’s nothing to worry about, and neither am I. We both believe the planet is warming, that the seas are rising, and that human activity is a contributing factor. For that reason, The Scientific American and I, along with everyone I know in the energy industry, is very supportive of the ongoing quest to find alternative ways to power America. Unfortunately, no alternative - except for nuclear - has so far demonstrated the potential to eventually replace fossil fuels, and right now, there’s more resistance to nuclear than there is to coal, oil, and gas. That’s tragic, in my view. For more on that, please watch this excellent Ted Talk by an environmentalist named Michael Shellenberger. https://bit.ly/3Oz68vV Here’s the short version.

After years of championing wind and solar, Shellenberger came to believe that both were fundamentally unreliable. Seventy percent of the time, the sun doesn’t shine, and the wind doesn’t blow. He then concluded that we’d need to cover millions of acres of land with billions of solar panels and windmills to generate the energy America needs. In his words, “we’d have to destroy the environment to save the climate.” Shellenberger also determined that wind and solar were a disaster for wildlife. Wind turbines kill millions of birds and bats every year, many of which are either protected or endangered. Solar farms are also terrible for birds, many of which catch on fire when they fly over the panels and plummet to earth like flaming planes shot from the sky. In California, we call them “streamers.” The desert tortoise has been decimated as well, and now, the disposal of countless toxic solar panels is becoming hugely problematic.

Shellenberger then goes on to make a very persuasive case for nuclear energy, which he argues is much cleaner, much safer, and far more reliable than any other alternative. France gets 90% of its electricity from nuclear power. We could, too. The question is, why don’t we? What’s stopping us from vigorously pursuing the only viable alternative to fossil fuel? The answer I think, is fear. Ironically, the same kind of fear that’s got many people convinced the planet will end in nine years. The same kind of fear that leads to false narratives, inaction and hopelessness. The same kind of fear that makes people forget that the earth is still spinning, and we all share the same atmosphere. Consider this:
Right now, there are three billion people on this planet who burn millions of tons of wood and dung, every single day. That’s how they cook their food and stay warm. Obviously, three billion people burning millions of tons of wood and dung puts an enormous amount of CO2 into the atmosphere. With respect, Janice, do you have a message for them? Have you told them to get off wood and dung “NOW!!!” If not, how come? If so, what did you tell them to burn instead of wood and dung?

I’d also love your thoughts on China and India. Those two countries alone burn over 14 million tons of coal every single day. They’ve announced plans to build thousands of new coal-fired plants over the next thirty years - and not the clean-burning kind of coal we’ve developed over here. https://bloom.bg/3OhiWr1 Have you advised them to get off coal “NOW!!!” If not, how come? If so, what did you tell them to burn instead of coal?

It seems to me that CO2 levels around the world could be dramatically reduced if the billions of people currently relying on wood, dung, and coal were able to transition to natural gas. But that’s not what you’re proposing, Janice. In fact, you’re proposing the opposite. You want America to abandon oil and natural gas before we put a viable alternative in place, even as billions of people the world over double down on much dirtier sources of energy. With respect, how does that make sense? I understand you’re worried about the future – I am, too. The future is uncertain. But I don’t need a crystal ball to tell you what will happen today, if America takes your advice. In short, our entire economy will collapse, along with our military, our healthcare system, our transportation grid, and our food supply. Millions will freeze to death. Millions more will die in the heat. Many more will starve.

That’s not a doomsday prediction, that’s just a fact. Every single aspect of modern life depends on easy access to affordable, abundant energy, and wind and solar are not ready for primetime. https://bit.ly/3N3e33j Likewise, most of the products we rely on today are made from the petroleum you despise – the device you’re using right now, the clothes you’re wearing, the tires on your car, and the roads you drive it on. Including the road that brought you to that that (air-conditioned) theater where you sat in comfort, and looked on as Tom Cruise saved the world, (with a little help from jet fuel.)

Point is, Janice, we can’t just flip a switch. It doesn’t matter how many caps and exclamation points you employ, or how many doomsday predictions you quote. Abandoning oil and gas today won’t save the planet; it will merely return us to the Stone Age. In the same way we can’t sacrifice the environment to save the climate, we can’t destroy the present to save the future. We must adapt, as we always have, and I believe there’s reason for hope. I’ve seen some incredible production breakthroughs in the last few years that aren’t getting the attention they deserve. Things like carbon recapture technology, which has the potential to bring energy companies to net zero carbon emissions in just a few years. https://exxonmobil.co/3A0Znio

Long-term, I still think the best hope for the most people is nuclear, and I hope we follow France’s example. But in the short-term, I see no better alternative than natural gas. What I don’t see, is one good reason to purchase the energy we need from a foreign county. There’s something fundamentally immoral about applauding the cancellation of pipelines, buying the fuel we need from places like Saudi Arabia, Venezuela, and Russia, and then paying to have it shipped across the ocean. We have all the energy we need right under our feet – along with a much better, much safer, much cleaner way to extract it. Which is a long way of saying, that’s why you saw me sharing the big screen with Tom Cruise.

The Oklahoma Energy Resource Board is a nonprofit, educational foundation founded thirty years ago by royalty holders in the Oklahoma oil and natural gas industry. Their primary goal is to help Oklahomans understand their state’s unique contribution to our nation’s energy security. Initially, I was attracted to their workforce development message. In Oklahoma, the energy industry employs over 85,000 people, with an average salary over $136,000 a year. That’s over twice the state average, and right now, the industry is hiring in a big, big way. I wanted to help draw attention to those jobs. But the more we talked, the more I came to appreciate their advocacy around the topic of energy independence.

Today, the OERB is pushing back against the common but misguided belief that oil and natural gas are our enemy, and they’re doing so in a way that I find respectful, courteous, educational, and most of all, persuasive. The message you saw was one of several that feature unscripted conversations between me and dozens of Oklahomans about the many ways oil and natural gas have positively impacted their lives. You can see more at OERB.com. Or, you can return to another (air-conditioned) theater next summer, where I'm liable to pop up during the previews of Mission Impossible, just before Tom Cruise saves the world again. (With a little help from oil and natural gas.)

Either way, Janice, I’ll see you around!
Mike
 

TRD270

Emptying Pockets Again
Supporting Member
Location
SaSaSandy
There’s something fundamentally immoral about applauding the cancellation of pipelines, buying the fuel we need from places like Saudi Arabia, Venezuela, and Russia, and then paying to have it shipped across the ocean. We have all the energy we need right under our feet


This right here is my biggest issue with these energy Karen’s
 
There’s something fundamentally immoral about applauding the cancellation of pipelines, buying the fuel we need from places like Saudi Arabia, Venezuela, and Russia, and then paying to have it shipped across the ocean. We have all the energy we need right under our feet


This right here is my biggest issue with these energy Karen’s
That, and most of the people advocating that the rest of us give up our use of oil, live in a la-la land where they live in a mansion, jet-set around, and feel like they are saving the world because they drive a Tesla and criticize everyone else's behavior. I don't deny that as a world of human beings, we have a problem on our hands. I just think the responses have to clear the hurdle of common sense.
 

Coco

Well-Known Member
Location
Lehi, UT
What @Greg said above. It is eliminating the tanker truck heating to off load.

As a side comment to this. I am sure another factor to weigh into the cost truck vs train is wages. Right now they are advertising g for truck drivers to haul oil from Roosevelt to Price with a starting pay of up to 106k
All I see when I read these comments are: I need to get my CDL and certs....
I'm surprised it's that low right now. Driver wages have skyrocketed over the last two years, and I know those tanker drivers have always made good money.

The biggest advantage trains have over trucks are in bulk transport to a single delivery point. This rail line is exactly that kind of advantage. It does take a train longer to make the journey, but once the first train arrives at the refinery you'll have far more product to offload. If you figure it in gallons per hour for transport time, the train will easily beat the truck.
 

mesha

By endurance we conquer
Location
A.F.
I don’t think we should drill here yet. Use the oil in other places and then drill here and take over the world!!!! 😆
 
Top