Ryan
Court Jester
http://www.petroleumnews.com/pntruncate/322217539.shtml
Interesting article that does a good job of covering most of the issues. Don't have to to write a lengthy analysis, but it's a thought provoking read. Doesn't seem like a situation with an obvious right answer.
Interesting article that does a good job of covering most of the issues. Don't have to to write a lengthy analysis, but it's a thought provoking read. Doesn't seem like a situation with an obvious right answer.
Canadian Pacific Railway has disclosed that its directors are reluctant to continue transporting crude oil - an idea that was swiftly quashed by the Canadian government, but was reignited by two more derailments of crude trains.
CP Rail Chief Executive Officer Hunter Harrison divulged for the first time on March 2 that his board is giving careful consideration to whether it can get out of (the crude-by-rail) business. That element of its business has increasingly burdened the company with risks and regulations that have offset a rapid growth in related revenues over recent years and involved the company in spending millions of dollars on new facilities in North Dakota and Canada.
...
However, he conceded railways are required to service all customers, provided their goods are legal and carried in approved containers, under so-called federal common carrier obligations.
We dont get to choose what we haul, Harrison said. Whatever is tendered to us, we by law have to haul. Do I want to haul to some of the places I have to? No.
...
Harrison picked up on one of his favorite themes, telling reporters after his speech that terrorism poses a greater threat to railways and the communities they pass through than derailments, regardless of the frequent accidents involving trains carrying crude and other dangerous goods.