Tag Archives: Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF)

Dakota Access pipeline to upend oil delivery in U.S. – Losers to include struggling oil-by-rail industry

Repost from Reuters

Big Dakota pipeline to upend oil delivery in U.S.

By Catherine Ngai and Liz Hampton | NEW YORK/HOUSTON, Aug 12, 2016 12:46pm EDT
Dead sunflowers stand in a field near dormant oil drilling rigs which have been stacked in Dickinson, North Dakota January 21, 2016. REUTERS/Andrew Cullen

Dead sunflowers stand in a field near dormant oil drilling rigs which have been stacked in Dickinson, North Dakota January 21, 2016. REUTERS/Andrew Cullen

It may seem odd that the opening of one pipeline crossing through four U.S. Midwest states could upend the movement of oil throughout the country, but the Dakota Access line may do just that.

At the moment, crude oil moving out of North Dakota’s prolific Bakken shale to “refinery row” in the U.S. Gulf must travel a circuitous route through the Rocky Mountains or the Midwest and into Oklahoma, before heading south to the Gulf of Mexico.

The 450,000 barrel-per-day Dakota Access line, when it opens in the fourth quarter, will change that by providing U.S. Gulf refiners another option for crude supply.

Gulf Coast refiners and North Dakota oil producers will reap the benefits. Losers will include the struggling oil-by-rail industry which now brings crude to the coasts.

The pipeline also will create headaches for East and West Coast refiners, which serve the most heavily populated parts of the United States and consume a combined 4.1 million barrels of crude daily. They will have to rely more on foreign imports.

The pipeline, currently under construction, will connect western North Dakota to the Energy Transfer Crude Oil Pipeline Project (ETCOP) in Patoka, Illinois. From there, it will connect to the Nederland and Port Arthur, Texas, area, where refiners including Valero Energy, Total and Motiva Enterprises operate some of the largest U.S. refining facilities.

“That’s a better and cheaper path than going out West and down through the Rockies,” said Bernadette Johnson, managing partner at Ponderosa Advisors LLC, an energy advisory based in Denver.

CHEAPER THAN RAIL

Moving crude by pipeline is generally cheaper than using railcars. The flagging U.S. crude-by-rail industry already is moving only half as much oil as it did two years ago: volumes peaked at 944,000 bpd in October 2014, but were around just 400,000 bpd in May, according to the U.S. Energy Department.

Rail transport has become less economical for East and West Coast refiners when compared with importing Brent crude, the foreign benchmark, because declining supply out of North Dakota made that grade of oil less affordable.

“If you look at the Brent to Bakken arb, it’s tight,” said Afolabi Ogunnaike, a senior refining analyst at Wood Mackenzie in Houston. “If you look at the spot rate, it’s uneconomical to move crude by rail right now.”

Ponderosa Advisors estimated that the start-up of the pipeline could reroute an additional 150,000 to 200,000 bpd currently carried by rail to the U.S. East Coast and Gulf Coast.

Crude imports into the East Coast are now on the rise, averaging 788,000 bpd this year, with nearly 960,000 bpd in July, the highest level in three years, according to Thomson Reuters data.

On the West Coast, refiners like Shell, Tesoro and BP may have to commit to some railed volumes for longer because of shipping constraints, although it will largely depend on rail economics. They also face declining output from California and Alaska.

Tesoro’s top executive Gregory Goff told analysts and investors last week he expects rail costs to drop as much as 40 percent from the current $9-to-$10 barrel cost to compete with pipelines, in order to move Bakken to its Anacortes, Washington, refinery.

CHANGING TIDES

Rail companies have been trying to adapt. CSX Corp, which runs a network of lines in the eastern part of the country, said it was evaluating potential impacts of the pipeline. BNSF Railway declined to discuss future freight movements, but said that at its peak, it transported as many as 12 trains daily filled with crude, primarily from the Bakken. Today, it is moving less than half of that.

In a recent earnings call, midstream player Crestwood Equity Partners said it was working to capitalize on the pipeline and not be dependent on loading crude barrels onto trains. That includes building an interconnection to its 160,000 barrel-per-day COLT crude rail facility in North Dakota.

As refiners bring in more barrels from overseas, Brent’s premium over U.S. crude will eventually widen. On Thursday, December Brent futures settled at a 97-cent premium to U.S. crude, one of its widest premiums this year.

Separately, Bakken crude, a light barrel, could rise further due to the additional competition, especially as production is still falling. Bakken differentials hit a six-month low earlier this week of $2.65 a barrel below WTI, according to Reuters data, but rose to a $1.80 a barrel discount by Thursday.

(Reporting by Catherine Ngai in New York and Liz Hampton in Houston; Editing by David Gregorio)
Please share!

BNSF, Union Pacific lawsuit: claims California’s new rail hazmat fee illegal

Repost from Hazmat Magazine
[Note: The complaint is available at http://src.bna.com/hm1. – RS]

California’s new Rail Hazmat Fee Illegal Claims Railroads

By J Nicholson, August 11, 2016

As reported in Bloomberg BNA, California’s new fee on rail deliveries of crude oil and certain other hazardous materials is illegal, the nation’s two largest railroad companies said in a lawsuit ( BNSF Railway Co. v. California State Board of Equalization, N.D. Cal., No. 16-cv-04311-JCS, 7/29/16 ).

Filed in federal court in San Francisco, the complaint challenges a newly approved regulation requiring railroad companies to collect from their customers $45 for each rail car carrying 25 specified hazardous materials into the state. To be paid to the state’s Board of Equalization, the fee is earmarked to help the state prepare for hazardous material incidents.

The federal ICC Termination Act of 1995, the Hazardous Materials Transportation Act and the Railroad Revitalization and Regulatory Reform Act of 1976 preempt the fee implemented under S.B. 84, a budget bill enacted in 2015, the complaint said.

Plaintiffs want an order blocking the state from collecting the fee.

RAILWAY-TRACK

“This hazmat charge defies federal law and economic logic,” the complaint filed July 29 by BNSF Railway Co. and Union Pacific Railroad Co. said. “If exclusive federal jurisdiction over the economic relationship between railroads and their customers means anything, it means that a State cannot establish the charges to be collected for rail transportation, order a railroad to collect them from its customers, and depress rail revenues and customer demand in the process.”

Chemicals Covered by Fee

California’s Office of Emergency Services adopted the fee regulation in June.  Expected to take effect later this year, the fee applies to rail cars containing acetonitrile, certain alcohols, anhydrous ammonia, ammonium hydroxide and calcium hypochlorite.  It also applies to chlorine, certain corrosive liquids, diesel fuel, environmentally hazardous substances, ethanol, gasoline, hydrogen peroxide, liquefied petroleum gas, liquefied gas, methanol, methyl ethyl ketone, nitric acid, petroleum crude oil, phenol, phosphoric acid, potassium hydroxide, propylene, sodium hydroxide, sulfuric acid, toluene and vinyl acetate.

California’s fee only applies to rail deliveries, no other type of delivery of hazardous materials.  The Interstate Commerce Clause and the federal hazardous materials law forbid states from discriminating against interstate commerce, the complaint said.

Benjamin J. Horwich of Munger, Tolles & Olson LLP is representing BNSF Railway.  Union Pacific’s counsel are from Sidley Austin LLP and include Carol Lynn Thompson and in-house attorney Melissa B. Hagan.

A copy of the complaint is available at http://src.bna.com/hm1.

Please share!

SACRAMENTO BEE: State seeks fee on dangerous chemicals crisscrossing California

Repost from the Sacramento Bee

State seeks fee on dangerous chemicals crisscrossing California

By Tony Bizjak, July 22, 2016 6:00AM

HIGHLIGHTS
• California officials say the state isn’t prepared to handle hazardous materials spills
• A new $45 fee on every rail car carrying dangerous substances will help beef up spill response

Please share!