Uintah Basin Railway

They've been fighting for this rail line for years, it's been very controversial with plenty of environmental hoops to address. It'll open up important local energy sources to market.

It's far from a done deal, as it would be running thru the national forest. They'll be moving oil from remote Eastern UT and moving it by train is the best option. It sounds like 5-10 oil trains per day, which is quite a lot when added to other rail traffic.

If this rail line construction does get shot down, they have talked about taking it East to Craig, CO making a big loop, eventually taking it West to the mainline on UP's territory. This would be very interesting running oil trains over that challenging territory, as it's very steep.

Greg said:

it's been very controversial with plenty of environmental hoops to address

Click to expand...

I'm a greenie. I want us all as far off of fossil fuels as we can get, as soon as we can. But the tech to do that is still developing and in the meantime we still need coal and oil. And heavens knows the eastern part of the state could use something vaguely resembling an economy. I think this rail will be a good thing.

Kevin B. said:

I'm a greenie. I want us all as far off of fossil fuels as we can get, as soon as we can. But the tech to do that is still developing and in the meantime we still need coal and oil. And heavens knows the eastern part of the state could use something vaguely resembling an economy. I think this rail will be a good thing.

Click to expand...

I'm a 'drill here, drill now' realist... I have no issue with renewable energy, electric cars, etc but it will be many years before the infrastructure and grid can handle that demand.

With the current gas prices, any oil we can source in our backyard *should* help lower energy prices, long as the big oil companies don't keep needlessly inflating prices.

Greg said:

I'm a 'drill here, drill now' realist... I have no issue with renewable energy, electric cars, etc but it will be many years before the infrastructure and grid can handle that demand.

With the current gas prices, any oil we can source in our backyard *should* help lower energy prices, long as the big oil companies don't keep needlessly inflating prices.

Click to expand...

That's how I feel about energy. The most important issue regarding energy are the lies we're being told every day about both sides (fossil fuels vs "green")

Kevin B. said:

I'm a greenie.

Click to expand...

I see - so you drive the biggest excursion on the road ironically. Hipster to the max!

I am aware of my hypocrisy. 🤣

I bike to the grocery store sometimes, so it cancels out you see.

Kevin B. said:

I am aware of my hypocrisy. 🤣

Click to expand...

I realized long ago that hippie is just short for hypocrite. 😂

As a resident of the Uinta Basin, I’m torn. I realize the petroleum industry is the main employer here whether directly or indirectly. In the 80s my dads business went from hvac/electrical to selling computers. Eventually the oilfield grew and dad has done hvac/electrical and next to nothing with computers.

I personally would rather the trains go to Craig. From what was presented this would have been a route with zero tribal land. If you know anything about UTERO and it’s requirements you’d know where I’m coming from. I’m glad they chose not to go through wells draw. That’s my playground. Second Nature has already pushed elk out of their normal winter range and a railway would decimate them.

I just hope that the wool isn’t being pulled over everyone’s eyes and that it becomes a big flop. The pessimist in me sees this as a failure. I don’t see it helping the common man.

I would think the elites in Heber and Park City would be 100% behind this, as it would greatly diminish the trucking traffic between the Uinta Basin to Salt Lake. Those oil tanker drivers are absolute DICKS.

Hickey said:

I would think the elites in Heber and Park City would be 100% behind this, as it would greatly diminish the trucking traffic between the Uinta Basin to Salt Lake. Those oil tanker drivers are absolute DICKS.

Click to expand...

Especially when they’re headed back empty. Yikes

I've been following this a little bit. I'm curious if anyone knows a rough $/mile of truck transport versus train. Train obviously has to be significantly less but that train route is significantly longer too. Just curious if it's a 25% savings or a 100% savings.

I actually heard about it from some rural cabin owners in one of the proposed routes, obviously they were/are not excited about the proposition.

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.

jeeper said:

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.

Click to expand...

Man. You’re such a capitalist.

RockChucker said:

Man. You’re such a capitalist.

Click to expand...

I was just thinking he needs to read the solar panels thread and stop being such a caveman 🤣

xj_nate said:

I was just thinking he needs to read the solar panels thread and stop being such a caveman 🤣

Click to expand...

I think I have spoken my peace in the solar thread.

However, what I haven’t shared is that I in fact got a quote for solar panels recently.
With a self install system I was still more than 10 years before I broke even. I may not even be here that long… So it was not worth it. As I said above, I’m all for clean energy if it’s a viable solution. Until then, fire up the coal plant.

cruiseroutfit said:

I've been following this a little bit. I'm curious if anyone knows a rough $/mile of truck transport versus train. Train obviously has to be significantly less but that train route is significantly longer too. Just curious if it's a 25% savings or a 100% savings.

I actually heard about it from some rural cabin owners in one of the proposed routes, obviously they were/are not excited about the proposition.

Click to expand...

There is more to this than $/mile when it comes to the oil extracted out of the Basin. The oil is very high in paraffin and the tankers have to be heated….especially in the winter to offload. As I understand it, it will save a couple of steps and a lot of money in transport by going directly to rail cars.

A good friend of mines wife works as a government liaison for the company who is behind the railway and it has been interesting to see this work through all the red tape the last 4 years. Also the amount of production will need to triple to supply the railroad with the required/contracted amount of oil when it is done.

I am like others who have posted here…..drill here, drill now….especially in the basin since I will see direct and indirect benefit from it.

anderson750 said:

There is more to this than $/mile when it comes to the oil extracted out of the Basin. The oil is very high in paraffin and the tankers have to be heated….especially in the winter to offload. As I understand it, it will save a couple of steps and a lot of money in transport by going directly to rail cars.

A good friend of mines wife works as a government liaison for the company who is behind the railway and it has been interesting to see this work through all the red tape the last 4 years. Also the amount of production will need to triple to supply the railroad with the required/contracted amount of oil when it is done.

I am like others who have posted here…..drill here, drill now….especially in the basin since I will see direct and indirect benefit from it.

Click to expand...

I recall @moab_cj5 giving me the 411 on heated tankers. So does the train not need to be heated? Certainly it's going to take much longer to transport via rail vs truck. Is it significantly cheaper to heat the rail cars?

stimmie said:

As a resident of the Uinta Basin, I’m torn. I realize the petroleum industry is the main employer here whether directly or indirectly. In the 80s my dads business went from hvac/electrical to selling computers. Eventually the oilfield grew and dad has done hvac/electrical and next to nothing with computers.

I personally would rather the trains go to Craig. From what was presented this would have been a route with zero tribal land. If you know anything about UTERO and it’s requirements you’d know where I’m coming from. I’m glad they chose not to go through wells draw. That’s my playground. Second Nature has already pushed elk out of their normal winter range and a railway would decimate them.

I just hope that the wool isn’t being pulled over everyone’s eyes and that it becomes a big flop. The pessimist in me sees this as a failure. I don’t see it helping the common man.

Click to expand...

I understand where you're coming from, you're right in that the common man won't see any benefit up front... but the field work will bring money back to places that need it. I doubt this will be a local solution, just more supply for the large oil companies.

I hope this would help drive down gas and diesel prices in the long run. I'd much rather see the States producing our own energy, as much as we can, than continue buying from OPEC and Russia.

Personally, I think its an interesting subject as building new freight lines is quite rare these days. With the location this line would be traveling thru, it would be a massive project.

Hickey said:

I would think the elites in Heber and Park City would be 100% behind this, as it would greatly diminish the trucking traffic between the Uinta Basin to Salt Lake. Those oil tanker drivers are absolute DICKS.

Click to expand...

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.

cruiseroutfit said:

I've been following this a little bit. I'm curious if anyone knows a rough $/mile of truck transport versus train. Train obviously has to be significantly less but that train route is significantly longer too. Just curious if it's a 25% savings or a 100% savings.

I actually heard about it from some rural cabin owners in one of the proposed routes, obviously they were/are not excited about the proposition.

Click to expand...

If you are looking at it from a fuel cost perspective, you can move one ton of freight 480 miles on a single gallon of diesel fuel by train, which is about three to four times more fuel efficient than trucks. I'm not sure what pricing looks like between the two at the end of the day, but when you're moving that much more product with one train versus one truck, I'd think rail would be cheaper there, too.

cruiseroutfit said:

I recall @moab_cj5 giving me the 411 on heated tankers. So does the train not need to be heated? Certainly it's going to take much longer to transport via rail vs truck. Is it significantly cheaper to heat the rail cars?

Click to expand...

The cars are heated up for unloading at the plant, once they arrive. Usually heated tank cars have coils built into the body, they'll run pressurized steam thru the cars to get the thick oil flowing again.

cruiseroutfit said:

I recall @moab_cj5 giving me the 411 on heated tankers. So does the train not need to be heated? Certainly it's going to take much longer to transport via rail vs truck. Is it significantly cheaper to heat the rail cars?

Click to expand...

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