Posted on 01/02/2014 5:28:26 AM PST by thackney
A third major explosion involving Bakken shale oil, in North Dakota on Monday night, is eliciting calls for improved safety regulations in both Canada and the U.S.
The safe transport of oil by rail has been highlighted as important to B.C. by municipalities and environmentalists because an increasing amount of oil is being delivered by rail here already. There is also the prospect of a major increase in oil-by-rail shipments through B.C. if controversial pipeline projects proposed to carry bitumen to the west coast don’t materialize or are delayed.
In North Dakota, most of the 2,300 residents of the town of Casselton fled after a train carrying oil collided with another train, setting off a series of explosions engulfing up to 10 cars. Nobody was believed to be hurt, but residents were evacuated because of the possibly of harm from toxic fumes from the fire.
The crash on Monday follows the deadly Lac Megantic, Que. incident in July in which an unattended, runaway train exploded and killed 47. A derailment and explosion of an oil train in rural Alabama in November left 11 cars burning.
A fourth, smaller incident took place west of Edmonton in October when a CN train carrying oil and liquefied petroleum gas derailed and caught fire. That train was destined for British Columbia.
The significant increase in the transport of oil by rail, and the growing evidence that Bakken shale oil is proving itself to be a very explosive commodity, shows that regulations on both sides of the border are not adequate, said Mark Winfield, an associate professor at York University who researches public safety regulation.
Transport Canada officials said the government took “immediate action” to improve rail safety and the transportation of dangerous goods across Canada following the Lac Megantic explosion.
“The department remains committed to working with our stakeholders to examine all means of improving rail safety and the safe transportation of dangerous goods,” Transport Canada spokeswoman Andrea Moritz said in an email.
Among the steps Canada took after the Lac Megantic disaster were a requirement for an increase in staffing on trains transporting tank cars with hazardous goods. Ottawa also introduced tightened rules around unattended trains, and a requirement for rail companies to provide hazardous goods information to municipalities on an annual basis.
But that is not enough, said Winfield, calling Ottawa’s measures incremental at best.
“There needs to be some very, very serious thinking about the adequacy of the regulatory regime, indeed the extent to which this product can be moved safely,” he said.
“This (crash in North Dakota), save for a bit of luck, could have been another Lac Megantic. It was good fortune the derailment happened out of a settlement area, as opposed to the middle of the town.
While Bakken shale oil is at issue in the three major explosions, bitumen from the Alberta oilsands is not off the hook, added Winfield.
Canadian producers have been trying for years to deliver oil to the B.C. coast to open up new markets in Asia for bitumen from the Alberta oilsands.
Winfield noted that one of the concerns with transporting oil by rail is that the oil separates, with the most volatile liquids rising to the top. That is the case with Bakken shale oil, and also could be a problem with Alberta oilsands bitumen that is thinned with condensate, said Winfield.
“We don’t know — we need to investigate more,” he said.
The railway industry has cited its 99.9977-per-cent safety record in transporting hazardous goods by tanker car.
But Greenpeace climate and energy coordinator Keith Stewart said the industry is not taking into account the massive increase in oil-by-railcar traffic to 400,000 this year, from 10,000 in 2008.
And while oil-cars used to be spaced in trains, now there are large 70-or-more unit trains made up entirely of oil-cars, which increases the safety risk, said Stewart.
“The regulation hasn’t kept up with the changes in movement of oil by rail, and I think it would irresponsible of governments not to have a major revamp of those regulations,” said Stewart.
While Greenpeace is neither in favour of increased oil-by-rail transport or pipelines, the trains that carry the oil need to be upgraded, said Stewart.
While railways such as CN say they are using beefed-up railcars (that include puncture shielding) built after 2011, there is no regulatory requirement in Canada to do so.
Stewart noted the Association of American Railroads last November urged the U.S. Department of Transportation to press for improved federal tank-car regulations by requiring all tank-cars used to transport flammable liquids to be retrofitted or phased out, and new cars built to more stringent standards.
Oil carried by rail is on the increase in B.C.
Transport Canada estimates almost 1,200 carloads of crude oil and petroleum products were sent to B.C. in 2012, up from fewer than 50 in 2011.
Both CN and CP deliver oil by rail for Chevron’s refinery in Burnaby.
Up to 14 cars a day are delivered by CP directly to the refinery, following the West Coast Express route that runs through built-up urban communities from Mission to Port Moody.
“CP takes safety extremely seriously and our railway meets or exceeds regulations and rules, which includes a multi-faceted track inspection and maintenance program,” company spokesman Ed Greenberg said in an email.
CN delivers oil by rail to a transloading facility in Langley, where trucks then take the oil to the Burnaby refinery. CN also delivers oil to New Westminster, where it is interchanged with U.S. railroads.
CN has adopted new U.S. rules for its Canadian operations that require reduced speeds for hazardous goods such as oil. It is also assessing risks in urban areas, and is involved in the review of oil-tanker design with the Association of American Railroads.
“The reality is very clear: CN does far more than what the regulatory standard calls for, but we remain committed to look for what more we can do to continue to further improve safety,” CN spokesman Mark Hallman said in an email.
A Buffet railroad? He’s got immunity granted by his large contributions to Obama.
What about Pipelines?
Too simple for these idiots.
What is the question?
Does this help?
Pipelines Are Safest For Transportation of Oil and Gas
http://www.manhattan-institute.org/html/ib_23.htm#.UsVqtfRDt8E
A review of safety and accident statistics provided by the U.S. Department of Transportation for the extensive network of existing U.S. pipelines—including many linked to Canada—clearly show that, in addition to enjoying a substantial cost advantage, pipelines result in fewer spillage incidents and personal injuries than road and rail. Americans are more likely to get struck by lightning than to be killed in a pipeline accident.
Seems to me the problem was with a GRAIN train derailing, causing the collision. NOT an oil problem.
“Seems to me the problem was with a GRAIN train derailing, causing the collision. NOT an oil problem.”
They are just jumping on the opportunity this incident creates to make transportation of the crude more difficult. They can’t shut production down since it’s occurring on private land, so they ll try to choke off the supply by other means at their disposal.
There is some legitimate concern of the DOT-111 model tank car because of its tendency to split open during derailments. This isn’t a new concern, but the higher traffic rates of oil trains may push the recommendation to replace into a requirement to replace.
Industry fights safety retrofit of older rail cars
http://fuelfix.com/blog/2013/07/30/industry-fights-safety-retrofit-of-older-rail-cars/
They can’t shut production down since it’s occurring on private land, so they ll try to choke off the supply by other means at their disposal.
You nailed it!
Buffett owns the railroads that transport the oil. That is why Obummer won’t build a pipeline. Where are the Commies protesting the greed of Buffett?
The problem is parallel tracks with minimal clearance and passing in opposite directions at speed (though the speeds in the No. Dak. were likely not that high).
“Buffett owns the railroads that transport the oil. That is why Obummer won’t build a pipeline.”
Yes, I totally agree that is the reason why the pipeline hasn’t been built. Buffett has managed to influence Obama’s decisions in this realm. I wonder if the situation is more to the tune that Obama realized he had little ability to cut off oil production in ND, so the next best thing was to allow one of his influential donors to reap some huge profits.
Who knows? Maybe there were promises for campaign donations in exchange for impeding the pipeline?
Translation: Just stop oil transport.
Time for the Keystone Pipeline.
Maybe Hollyweird can make a movie starring Matt Damon as an evil railroad owner.
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.