Another Race to Watch: Additional Rail Terminals in Washington State or Texas-Lousiana? Who Will Get There First?

RBN Energy: the Nederland terminal in Texas, on the Gulf Coast.

This is the second time I have linked this story today. But I'm linking this story for a different reason this time.

One of the rewards of blogging is putting things in perspective. The other day there was a story about the possibility of a larger oil terminal in Washington State to receive Bakken oil by rail. In that story, there was this data point:

While Gateway Pacific could draw as many as nine loaded [BNSF] trains per day at maximum capacity, Abendhoff said the BP refinery expects one loaded oil train every two days, ...

That's nice, but it doesn't give me a feeling if this is huge (one loaded train every two days), normal, or not a big deal.

Today, a bit of clarity on that point. From the linked RBN Energy story on Nederland:

The current rail capabilities at Nederland can offload 30 cars a day – meaning they can handle a unit train in four days. Sunoco is in the process of upgrading the rail capabilities to handle more rail cars. Crude oil arriving by rail can be offloaded into pipelines or onto barges for redelivery throughout the region.

Two observations: a) for the Gulf Coast, there could be a lot of demand for increased rail capacity; and, b) the Gateway Pacific could be a huge terminal -- one unit train every two days, but could scale up to as many as nine unit trains per day.

I guess it's up to the faux environmentalists and the Washington state government to decide whether they want the jobs in their state, or the jobs in Texas. One knows the unit train terminals will be built in Texas if they make financial sense.