Posted on 07/10/2013 10:47:48 AM PDT by thackney
As the smoke clears (literally) in Lac-Megantic, Quebec, after a runaway train packed with crude oil tankers crashed July 6, the oil industry is coming to terms with a business that has perhaps grown too far too fast. The Lac-Megantic accident is shining an unwelcome spotlight on the lack of regulatory oversight on oil by rail in both the US and Canada. The fact that the rail cars (belonging to the Maine, Montreal & Atlantic rail company) that crashed and exploded were considered unfit to carry hazardous materials sharpens that focus.
Getting landlocked crude out of newer fields in North Dakota, Canada and other far flung parts of North America has become an obsession with producers, traders and refiners, the latter group looking lustfully at the cheaper feedstock.
The oil rush has changed the face of rail in North America. In a country where passenger and cargo-bearing rail was largely replaced by the car and large 18-wheel trucks half a century ago, the speed with which new railroad lines, railcars and loading facilities are being built is simply astonishing.
Today around one million barrels per day of crude oil is moved via rail across the US and Canada. To put that into perspective, it equates to more than the total daily output of the UK North Sea, which fell below 1.0m b/d last year. Or to roughly four VLCC’s worth of crude oil every week. In other words, it is a lot of oil.
And this is set to grow. In the US alone, crude by rail shipments are expected to reach to near 1.10 million b/d at the end of 2014, up from about 718,000 b/d this month and about 156,000 b/d in January of 2012, according to Bentek Energy, a unit of Platts.
The Railway Association of Canada estimated that as many as 140,000 carloads of crude, totaling about 91 million barrels, will be shipped on Canadian tracks this year, compared with 500 carloads, or about 325,000 barrels, in 2009.
But the headlong dive into crude by rail may have just been stopped short by the Lac-Megantic incident. And, just as the Exxon Valdez oil spill in Alaska in 1989 spelled the end of single-hull oil tankers coming to the US (and banned them worldwide in 2010), the Lac-Megantic crash would spell the end of using DOT-111A railcars. And it could herald a new rash of regulation for the rail industry.
A US National Transportation Safety Board study in 2012 said that 69% of tank cars are DOT-111A. In Canada, these are known as CTX-111A, and comprise 80% of the fleet, according to Canada Transportation Safety Board’s chief investigator Donald Ross.
Ross said that changes as a result of the MM&A investigation could include thicker steel or shields for the tank cars. The American NTSB had already changed the specifications of DOT-111 from October 2011 to include thicker shells and a ½ inch thick head shield. But there is no rule on retrofitting existing cars, which have a long service life.
Like the single-hull tanker post-Exxon Valdez, DOT-111As could be the next casualty of the oil rush in North America.
But there are other issues raising their ugly heads, including the state of some of the railroad tracks around both countries. While the oil industry is spending billions on railcars and loading/unloading facilities, who is spending the money to maintain and upgrade the railroads?
As Avrom Shtern, a rail-transport policy representative with Montreal-based Green Coalition, said in Platts Oilgram News July 9, Canadian government’s budget cuts have left the rail industry to police itself. “That’s unacceptable. You can’t just write rules and expect the railways to police themselves,” he said.
Also, questions are rife over the capital adequacy of smaller gathering and distribution companies such as World Fuel, which owned the oil on board the MM&A train. Will they have the financial stability to survive a lawsuit?
The crash was only a few days ago, so most of these questions will be answered over time. Crude by rail has come a long way in a short time. But the Quebec accident could slow the pace and the way in which the industry grows going forward, in both Canada and the US.
No, the solution is not the pipe, and why would the greens cause this since they hate the XL Pipeline even more than they hate trains carrying oil. Lest we think the pipelines are harmless, consider the most recent pipline disaster. The Qingdao Pipeline Explosion in China 4 days ago. There are at least 55 dead, 150 injured, a number still missing. Below are two links. The first the story, the second the pictures which are every bit as bad as those from Lac Megantic. I have not seen anything about this on the MSM. Are they hiding this?? SC: Is this catastrophism??
https://www.google.com/#q=qingdao+pipeline+explosion
Yes, it is.
Moving large volumes hazardous material thousands of mile near population centers is always going to have hazards. But to claim because China had a really bad experience combining poor designs with negligence does not negate the requirements and experience in the US.
Over 90% of the crude oil moved in the US is moved by pipeline. To try and claim that the Keystone XL is somehow a higher risk than the hundreds of thousands of petroleum pipeline already in service for decades is disingenuous.
I have not seen anything about this on the MSM.
http://www.cnn.com/2013/11/22/world/asia/china-deadly-explosion/index.html?iref=allsearch
http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/detained-oil-pipeline-blasts-china-21012326
http://www.washingtonpost.com/newssearch/search.html?st=+Qingdao+Pipeline+Explosion+&submit=Submit
http://query.nytimes.com/search/sitesearch/#/+Qingdao+Pipeline+Explosion+
Thank you for the links I will read them. I was talking about MSM TV. Please Google Kalamazoo River oil spill (Enbridge), and learn about our own $1 billion plus oil spill cleanup of the Canadian Tar sands. Lots of human error there too. I read there was a recent explosion in Alabama, but have not researched that one yet. I believe it was from very hazardous ND Bakken oil which is also implicated in the Lac Megantic explosion. Regs have been passed for shipping highly hazardous types of oil which are being ignored. More research needed. Enbridge has asked to be excused from transporting certain kinds of oil.
You are talking then about entertainment, not a real news source.
Please Google Kalamazoo River oil spill (Enbridge), and learn
I don't have to google, I am quite familiar with it. Again, moving large volumes of hazardous material thousands of miles is not going to be without hazards.
We move ~1% of the nations crude oil by rail and 89% by pipeline.
Refinery receipts of crude oil by rail, truck, and barge continue to increase
http://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.cfm?id=12131
If you are going to compare them, compare them fairly by multiplying the rail events by 89 times. That is what would at least happen if you moved the pipeline movements to rail.
I read there was a recent explosion in Alabama, but have not researched that one yet.
This one?
Alabama rail line reopens after derailment, oil spill
http://www.tuscaloosanews.com/article/20131119/NEWS/131119672/1291?Title=Alabama-rail-line-reopens-after-derailment-oil-spill-&tc=ar
very hazardous ND Bakken oil
In what way do you think the light sweet crude oil coming out of the Bakken is more hazardous than average crude oil?
Regs have been passed for shipping highly hazardous types of oil which are being ignored.
Please back that claim with a link please.
Enbridge has asked to be excused from transporting certain kinds of oil.
Are you talking about moving an oil out of specification for which the pipeline was designed, or contracts made for delivery? All pipelines set limits on all product to be shipped. They cannot contaminate a delivery of sweet with a bunch of sulfur; that is normal business.
I suggest a bit more information on the topic:
Pipelines Are Safest For Transportation of Oil and Gas
http://www.manhattan-institute.org/html/ib_23.htm#.UpZiUsRDt8E
Compare by the tons per mile moved. Then compare the personal injuries as well as the spills.
No, it’s not catastrophism, it’s a Communist disaster, just like HuffPo is. The MSM doesn’t cover Communist disasters (or Fast and Furious, or the Zero administration’s lies about Benghazi, or the Knockout Game...).
I have read all the articles posted at your Comment 64. Although several were in MSM print media like WaPo or NY Times, they used AP feeds. At any rate, the oil spilled, burned and exploded, killing at least 55, with more missing and over 150 injured. Still have not seen it at MSM TV stations. Saw several stories on the collapsed roof in Estonia that has killed 44. Below is a paragraph taken from one of your links links.
“Chevron crews were working Friday to plug the liquefied petroleum gas, or LPG, pipeline near Milford, 40 miles south of Dallas. A drilling crew punctured the line Thursday, triggering an explosion and a large fire that could be seen for miles. No injuries were reported.”
Regarding hazards with Bakken oil and Enbridge refusal rights, I found them in the article below. This may not be the place I saw that earlier. Apparently the lack or presence of dangerous volatiles varies in the Bakken.
http://daily.sightline.org/2013/09/18/what-caused-the-lac-megantic-oil-train-to-explode/
This link discusses the unique problems of a dilbit cleanup. First the light portions poison the air, then the heavy portions sink and cannot be skimmed or boomed.
http://thetyee.ca/News/2012/03/05/Diluted-Bitumen/
You started this last conversation claiming the pipeline is not the answer. What are you suggesting instead?
I still see the Keystone XL as a very good choice to supply the energy needs of the US transportation. It will displace oil imported from OPEC nation traveling farther distances in ocean tankers that consume more energy to bring it hear.
Since most of the oil is planned to be exported to China or other countries anyway, then let Canada build it to the Pacific and not endanger our territory. Have you checked out the $1 billion cleanup of the dilbit that Enbridge spilled into the Kalamazoo River system? Note that here too human error was a significant magnifier of the problem as it was in Qingdao. Let’s keep as many possibilities of costly/deadly human error out of US as we can. The Bakken and other shale plays are significantly increasing our fuel supplies. But there are dangers there which we must monitor carefully also. Meanwhile we can increase our use of wind and solar. I have just converted 3 properties to utility supplied wind and reduced my costs 7% for the next 2 years.
I live in an area in which a lot of solar could be installed, but the permitting process is so ponderous that it adds 6 months and a lot to the cost of roof installations. In Germany they do it in two weeks by certifying the installers rather than requiring that each homeowner/building owner get their own permits. Too much government, anyone? Do some research on how much more use has been made of this kind of energy in European countries. Of course with Kennedys complaining that they might be able to see the blue/gray windmiles several miles out to sea off Mass. political opposition can be a problem.
Superinsulation of buildings is also a large energy saver. I am putting 3 inches of foam insulation in my attic ceiling, with an R-18 rating. This is in addition to the 6 inches of fiberglass bats under my attic floor and will give me a hobby/work space I can use most of the year. I put double paned, argon filled windows on a property and cut the heating/cooling costs by 40%. Fifteen or 20 years ago I put cfl bulbs everywhere in a 4 story row house. The monthly bill dropped for $28.00 $17.00. So I have probably saved $2,000 on electricity plus the savings on bulb replacement. I went to an energy saving architecture event, and saw one place insulated with shredded blue genes, spoke with a group that had done a cost benefits analysis of various kinds of insulation for a rural housing project. They said that the use of straw bale construction was the most cost effective, and there is a lot about that on the internet. There is lots of rice straw in China, its a shame they don’t use if for that.
Vehicle fuel efficiency probably can be increased faster than the oil companies prefer. Lets face it any large organization whether it be business or government will try to block efforts that gore their own ox.
Here is another link on the Qingdao disaster. This is from a netizen site of mostly Chinese people. Reading the comments is fascinating. For example you may have read about the recent furor over China’s overflight rules regarding some disputed off shore islands currently occupied by Japanese residents. The US, Japan, South Korea, and commercial airlines of ignored these new rules and the Chinese government has helped whip some citizens into an anti Japanese frenzy over it. The comments suggest the government is doing this to take people’s minds off government failures regarding the Qingdao disaster. Interesing reading at any rate. Cheers and Happy Thanksgiving.
And what could possibly go wrong with leaving 70+ explosive tank cares unguarded in our age of terrorism? And as the article points out the railroads are now being relied upon to police themselves, and we all know how well that worked out on Wall Street. Of course, the same probably holds true for the pipeline owners. That was certainly a problem with Enbridge’s Kalamazoo River oil spill which has cost over $1 billion to clean up.
BS. We are not going to export 700k BPD while importing 8~10 times as much ourselves. What you suggest is just transporting more oil farther distance exposing more risk of spills.
(imho) the divide has been crossed. There are many wild cards and the wild cards are filled with hate. Not simply hate for oil but rather hate for society. Staying Safe has never been more difficult because the wild cards carry not only hate but carry plans and planning. Avoiding plans and the planning, of the wild cards, is next to nearly impossible thus nothing which causes havoc is safe from an attack. Till people desiring to be safe decide to be safe by removing the wild cards, nobody will be safe nor necessary elements for survival will be safe. War is a terrible thing and there have been too many coincidences for there not be wild cards in the mix. Is difficult to Win a War when some of the wild cards hold power. Makes it easy for the wild cards to hide and carry out attacks.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.