Why there will be no XL pipeline: Warren Buffett

Page 5 of 8  
snipped-for-privacy@aol.com wrote:

Plenty of whites enjoy unions and welfare and other aspects of socialism.
Detroit was destroyed by blacks and their habbit of forming fatherless families, which led to "white-flight".
By the way, Canadian tar-sands oil is being pumped to a Marathon refinery in Detroit. The refinery for the first time is processing heavy Canadian crude oil brought in by pipeline from the Alberta oilsands.
Marathon Oil refinery completed a $2-billion facility upgrade to process Alberta oilsands crude oil last fall.
There is presently several piles of petroleum coke (the byproduct of processing the oil) accumulating on the Detroit side of the river, apparently waiting to be taken by ship to China.
http://blogs.windsorstar.com/2013/03/09/petcoke-along-the-u-s-shores-sparks-protest/
Lots of people are apparently not happy about the mountains of this stuff accumulating on the waterfront.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 3/10/13 12:10 PM, harry wrote:

We had passenger rail service in the central U.S. long ago. It wasn't high speed. I remember dropping my grandma off at one small town in Nebraska. She rode the train to the next town which was about 8 miles away. Amtrak does still run here. I checked out of curiosity to see about going from the nearest station in Lincoln, NE to St. Louis, MO. It would cost me $156 and take almost 16 hours. I can drive there in about 9 hours with plenty of rest stops. I think the IRS allows 50¢ per mile for business tax purposes. That would be about $250 using that figure. So it's about $100 extra at most to drive but I save at least 7 hours of my time. I'd actually save at least 8 hours since I would have to drive to the Lincoln depot. That $100 saving would be less since I would need to pay for long term parking. There used to be freight service to many small towns. It was mainly to the grain elevators. Many of those tracks have been pulled up. It just didn't pay to keep the tracks maintained to the smaller towns and facilities. The railroads won't load anything less the a 55 car unit train if I understand things correctly. Coal trains are common though. They run loaded from Wyoming east. There is still bus service running along I-80. One would have to get to the depots, of course. There used to be Greyhound and Continental Trailways running in various places here in Nebraska. Those days are long gone. Cattle here get moved by truck to the nearest packing plants. They're processed then shipped out. Processed cattle don't require water and feed, and don't create waste products like the live ones do.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sun, 10 Mar 2013 10:10:28 -0700 (PDT), harry

It comes down to money. You can buy planes and build airports a lot cheaper than buying land and laying track. The environmental impact studies would sink you before you ever cut down the fist tree or filled the first wet land. Somewhere in that thousand mile route there would be some endangered bird or fish. When you were finished you would serve a dozen cities and leave a thousand too far from the station to make the railroad useful.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Mar 11, 12:18 am, snipped-for-privacy@aol.com wrote:

The railway lasts for centuries. Airports are obsolete in a few years.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

# # The railway lasts for centuries. Airports are obsolete in a few years.
#
BULLSHIT
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

ve

f

f

an

se

ide quoted text -

You really are the village idiot harry. Why do you persist in making such a fool of yourself? I can take you to vast sections of railroads that are either closed for good or in such sad shape that they can only support freight traffic at 10 MPH. I can take you to JFK which features brand new terminals, eg #8, and supportes flights of the Concorde and now the A380. I can show you trains from Paris to Milan that take a day and a plane that gets you there in 2 hours. You really don't travel much, do you?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

move

of

o

of

pean

hose

e

Hide quoted text -

We're not talking clapped out decrepit US rail. http://www.seat61.com/Paris-to-Milan-by-TGV-train.htm#.UT4EEdbviSo
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Mon, 11 Mar 2013 00:26:28 -0700 (PDT), harry

A 100 year old railway will not handle trains today. Track requires constant maintenance and as trains go faster, the older track will not handle it. That is one reason why the US does not have bullet trains. They can't afford to take the older track out of service to upgrade it and getting the right of way to build new track is very expensive. If an area is unpopulated enough to be politically viable, it is probably a protected wildlife area. I suppose the Europeans are more used to the government coming in and taking their land, since you have had a war every 30 or 40 years where they redraw all of the maps and everyone loses their land.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Mar 11, 11:32 am, snipped-for-privacy@aol.com wrote:

Maybe it's time for a closer look at what the UK actually has. You've probably noticed harry referencing the Chinese. This is why:
"The fastest trains in the UK operating domestic services are the Intercity 225 trains operated by National Express East Coast. These trains run at a maximum speed of 125mph and average 112mph between London and York. "
Amtrak's Acela has a top speed of 150mph.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
trader4 @ optonline.net used improper usenet message composition style by unnecessarily full-quoting:

===========Acela Express trains are the only true high-speed trainsets in North America; the highest speed they attain is 150 mph (240 km/h), though their average is less than half that speed.
The Acela has become popular with business travelers, and by some reckoning has captured over half of the market share of air or train travelers between Washington and New York. Between New York and Boston the Acela Express has up to a 54% share of the combined train and air market. ============ The Acela Express train sets comprise two power cars and six passenger cars each. The current fleet started service between 1999 and 2000.
The trains were made by a consortium between Bombardier (75%) and GEC Alsthom (now Alstom) 25%. Bombardier is a Canadian company, and Alstom is French.
Amtrack announced (in Dec last year) plans to replace it's fleet of Acela trains, with the first of the new trains to enter service in 5 to 7 years. This story doesn't mention who is going to be making the new trains:
http://money.cnn.com/2012/12/13/news/economy/amtrak-acela/index.html
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

The real advantage to the Acela is on the New York end. People go to New York to get to Manhattan and that is where the train stops. (Penn Plaza) The airports are an ugly cab ride from downtown and they routinely get overloaded so you can circle for an hour or more. The DC end is not so great. If you are not going to Capitol Hill.the downtown station is not that handy. Most of the actual business is moving outside the beltway. There is a beltway station but it is 2 o'clock on the Beltway and the business cluster is in the 270 corridor at 10 o'clock, 30 miles or more away,so you still need a car.
It is still the best example in the US of where the train makes sense (if you live near DC and you are going to Manhattan). I assume that is similar on the Boston leg. They are talking about a high speed train here in Florida from Tampa to Orlando but I am not sure who would ride it. It might make better sense to build a commuter light rail line at both ends
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 3/11/13 5:02 PM, snipped-for-privacy@aol.com wrote:

There is a possibility of high speed rail in California. A bit here: http://tinyurl.com/buqpa3u (Yahoo news)
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

gosh, I wonder who funded the original Transcontinental Railroad?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

bit

I hard they were going to China for the trains for that one.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

# # The USA is ideal for passenger trains, especially across the mid # West. High speed passenger trains. You could have the fastest rains # in the world. # But nothing has been done. # People in the USA are stuck in the past. And the politicians.
LOL If there are NO PASSENGERS to use it, there is NO MONEY to pay for it. And unless you can get a train to go 600 mph, you're not competing with a transcontinental plane.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

r it.

I'm beginning to wonder if harry was involved with the Concorde. That program came out of some of the same thinking, courtesy of the UK. The US govt even had a program to build a SST at the time and Boeing was working on it. After some development work was done and we figured out the cost versus economics of it, the US pulled the funding plug. Boeing decided it didn't make sense either and put their $$$ on the 747. That plane first flew in 1969 and the world's airlines are still buying them, Boeing is still building them. The airlines are making money, Boeing is making money. The Concorde lost huge amounts of money every year it was in service. That despite the fact that a ticket cost $12,000. A huge percentage of those flying paid nothing at all because they had empty seats and passengers used airline frequent flyer points for tickets to ride the technological marvel.
What harry is proposing is similarly divorced from reality.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

e

n

e

s

for it.

a

The economics of Concorde fell through when the price of oil rose. The price of oil will rise again will rise again and the economics of all air travel will fall down. If you don't have a substitute, the USA will fall down.
Buffet has all this figured out. But you're so thick, you can't see it.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 3/11/2013 10:26 AM, harry wrote:

Cousin Harry, The U.S. Air Force is developing jet fuel derived from biomass. At the present time it's too expensive to replace dinosaur juice but if petroleum ever becomes unavailable bio-fuels could take the place of those derived from petroleum. ^_^
http://www.af.mil/news/story.asp?id 3197415
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/06/19/usa-defense-energy-idUSL1E8HIH6M20120619
http://tinyurl.com/awopmf7
TDD
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Mar 11, 5:57 pm, The Daring Dufas <the-daring-du...@stinky- finger.net> wrote:

ve

f

f

an

se

ins

pay for it.

th a

e

Heh heh. I though you were gonna say it ran on wood chippings. There was experimental commercial jets running on bio fuel over here years ago. I seem to remember there were viscosity problems when it got very cold. Dunno if they were resolved. Bio fuel is not the answer anyway, it takes up agricultural space and needs fuel (for agricultural tractors & other stuff ) to make it.
http://www.virgin.com/people-and-planet/blog/richard-branson-on-biofuels
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.