Repost from Post Carbon Institute [Editor: Significant quote: “Tight oil (shale oil) and shale gas production is found to be unsustainable in the medium- and longer-term at the rates forecast by the EIA, which are extremely optimistic.” – RS]
DRILLING DEEPER: A Reality Check On U.S. Government Forecasts for A Lasting Tight Oil & Shale Gas Boom
By David Hughes, October 27, 2014
Drilling Deeper reviews the twelve shale plays that account for 82% of the tight oil production and 88% of the shale gas production in the U.S. Department of Energy’s Energy Information Administration (EIA) reference case forecasts through 2040. It utilizes all available production data for the plays analyzed, and assesses historical production, well- and field-decline rates, available drilling locations, and well-quality trends for each play, as well as counties within plays. Projections of future production rates are then made based on forecast drilling rates (and, by implication, capital expenditures). Tight oil (shale oil) and shale gas production is found to be unsustainable in the medium- and longer-term at the rates forecast by the EIA, which are extremely optimistic.
This report finds that tight oil production from major plays will peak before 2020. Barring major new discoveries on the scale of the Bakken or Eagle Ford, production will be far below the EIA’s forecast by 2040. Tight oil production from the two top plays, the Bakken and Eagle Ford, will underperform the EIA’s reference case oil recovery by 28% from 2013 to 2040, and more of this production will be front-loaded than the EIA estimates. By 2040, production rates from the Bakken and Eagle Ford will be less than a tenth of that projected by the EIA. Tight oil production forecast by the EIA from plays other than the Bakken and Eagle Ford is in most cases highly optimistic and unlikely to be realized at the medium- and long-term rates projected.
Shale gas production from the top seven plays will also likely peak before 2020. Barring major new discoveries on the scale of the Marcellus, production will be far below the EIA’s forecast by 2040. Shale gas production from the top seven plays will underperform the EIA’s reference case forecast by 39% from 2014 to 2040, and more of this production will be front-loaded than the EIA estimates. By 2040, production rates from these plays will be about one-third that of the EIA forecast. Production from shale gas plays other than the top seven will need to be four times that estimated by the EIA in order to meet its reference case forecast.
Over the short term, U.S. production of both shale gas and tight oil is projected to be robust-but a thorough review of production data from the major plays indicates that this will not be sustainable in the long term. These findings have clear implications for medium and long term supply, and hence current domestic and foreign policy discussions, which generally assume decades of U.S. oil and gas abundance.
More trains carrying crude oil to East Coast refineries mean a greater risk of accidents. Derailments in Pennsylvania and throughout the country are a signal to some that an accident could be disastrous.
Why is more crude oil moving through Pennsylvania?
North America is now the biggest producer of crude oil in the world, partly as a result of fracking in North Dakota and other Western states. Without pipelines to move the oil, much of it has been pushed onto the rails. In 2013, U.S. railroads carried more than 40 times what they carried in 2008. Refineries processing much of the crude from the Bakken formation in the West are in the Philadelphia area.
Are these trains dangerous?
As crude-by-rail traffic increased, so did its accidents. Some lawmakers and public safety groups are concerned that as production surges, people near railroad tracks are exposed to more danger. And some believe the crude boom has outpaced the necessary regulations to ensure safety.
There have been at least 12 significant derailments involving crude since May 2013 in North America. Some involved explosions, evacuations, environmental damage and injuries. The most devastating was in Lac-Mégantic, Quebec, in July 2013, when 47 people died after a train carrying crude exploded. Since January, Pennsylvania has had derailments involving crude in Philadelphia, Vandergrift and McKeesport. There were no injuries in any of the accidents.
How much crude oil do these trains carry?
Right now Norfolk Southern and CSX, the major railroads in the state, move as many as eight trains of crude oil a day combined through the state.
Dubbed “virtual pipelines,” these trains can have more than 100 tank cars and can carry millions of gallons of crude.
Is Bakken crude more volatile than other types of oil?
North Dakota Bakken crude is potentially more volatile, corrosive and flammable than other kinds of crude oil. Investigations found that the Bakken crude that exploded in Quebec was classified as a less dangerous type of oil. In February, the U.S. Department of Transportation issued an emergency order requiring testing of all Bakken crude to determine its explosive nature.
Are other types of crude oil dangerous?
Other types of crude from the U.S. and Canada also could pose a threat. All crude oil is flammable and can cause environmental damage, Christopher Hart, acting National Transportation Safety Board Chairman, told the Associated Press in June.
What’s wrong with the rail cars?
Sometimes referred to as the “Ford Pinto of railcars,” the DOT-111 tank cars used to ship crude have been known to be a safety hazard for decades, according to federal safety investigators. Designed in the 1960s, they are prone to puncture and “catastrophic loss of hazardous materials” when trains derail, according to the NTSB.
The derailments have caused an outcry by state and federal officials and safety groups demanding that the cars be taken off the tracks. Canada has already ordered railroads to stop using them by 2017, but U.S. regulators have been slow to act. The U.S. DOT did advise railroads in May to stop using the cars to carry crude oil. The White House is reviewing new standards for tank cars, but it could take months before rules are in place.
How are trains carrying crude oil regulated?
Two federal entities regulate railroads carrying crude: The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) and the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA). The FRA has about 400 inspectors who sometimes work with state inspectors. In Pennsylvania, the state’s Public Utility Commission does spot inspections of tracks and rail equipment.
Emergency planning is largely left up to counties. A state agency oversees 67 Local Emergency Planning Committees, which can request general information from railroads about hazardous materials coming through their counties. That information is not public.
Can you find out when crude oil trains come through your neighborhood?
Officially, no. Railroads are not required to share information about hazardous materials under federal law. Norfolk Southern and CSX, for example, said they don’t give out that information, citing possible security incidents and competition.
In May, the DOT said it no longer viewed information on crude oil from the Bakken as security sensitive. The agency told railroads with trains carrying more than 1 million barrels of Bakken crude to give the information to states. At least six states, including Washington, California and Virginia, made the information available. Pennsylvania didn’t. The Pennsylvania Emergency Management Agency refused to release the information to PublicSource. The agency denied our Right-to-Know request, calling the information “confidential” and “proprietary.”
Bakken and other crude oils are believed to be shipped through Pittsburgh and other Pennsylvania cities on a regular basis on their way to Philadelphia refineries. A spokeswoman for the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission told PublicSource that Bakken crude is shipped through Pittsburgh.
What has been done to improve safety?
U.S. regulators asked railroads to comply with a number of voluntary actions. The railroads agreed to slow crude trains to no more than 40 mph in high-risk urban areas. (However, a train that derailed in Lynchburg, Va., in April was traveling at just 24 mph.)
Recent proposed rules for crude oil, including new standards for tank cars, drew comments from the public representing more than 100,000 people.
In March, CSX agreed to give PEMA access to its real-time monitoring system that tracks crude’s movement through the state. Cory Angell, the agency’s spokesman, said it is working with Norfolk Southern on a similar agreement.
Are first responders prepared for a significant derailment in Pennsylvania?
Daniel Boyles, the emergency services coordinator for Blair County, told PublicSource he thinks railroads are doing everything in their power to prevent accidents. However, he said, first responders need more training. Trains carrying Bakken crude roll through his county twice a week, he said.
Emergency officials in Beaver, Allegheny and Dauphin counties said that awareness has increased and railroads have given emergency responders more training.
A PEMA spokesman said the state is prepared in the case of a major derailment. He added that Pennsylvania will soon use a DOT grant to train county hazmat teams and first responders.
Who doesn’t think first responders are prepared?
“No community is prepared for a worst-case event,” Deborah Hersman, former chairwoman of the National Transportation Safety Board, told a Senate subcommittee in April.
Under voluntary safety measures effective July 1, railroads will contribute $5 million for training for emergency responders. And they will develop a list of emergency-response resources in case of a derailment.
But federal safety officials have questioned whether voluntary actions are enough. Currently, railroads don’t have to provide comprehensive emergency plans for the crude oil being transported. That’s what’s needed, Hersman said.
In a Jan. 23 letter to federal regulators, she said that without comprehensive crude oil response plans “(rail) carriers have effectively placed the burden of remediating the environmental consequences of an accident on local communities along their routes.”
Which officials are talking about this in Pennsylvania?
Sen. Bob Casey, D-Pa., endorsed a bill he said would boost safety. The bill would include $3 million for track inspections and hire 20 new inspectors.
Philadelphia Mayor Michael Nutter backed a proposal to charge a federal freight fee to crude-oil producers and industrial consumers. The money would be used to improve tracks.
Christina Simeone, director of PennFuture’s energy center, said other states have shown leadership on the issue — but not Pennsylvania.
New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo commissioned a safety report for his state. The report laid out actions the state should take. Minnesota lawmakers allocated $6.4 million for more inspectors, specialized training for first responders and fixes for highway-rail grade crossings along crude routes.
Republican Gov. Tom Corbett has been silent about the safety issue, said Simeone, who commented that there is interest in “minimizing the issue” because of concerns about the refinery business in Philadelphia and gasoline prices in the region.
Pittsburgh Mayor Bill Peduto has not been part of the conversation. In a recent meeting with PublicSource, Peduto said that he is “aware of the reality of what is coming through.” In the case of an accident, Pittsburgh could call on the PA Region 13 Task Force, he said. The task force is an initiative that allows counties to pull resources from the entire region in case of an emergency.
Benicia OKs Sacramento request for more time to review crude oil rail shipment plans
By Tony Bizjak, Saturday, Jul. 12, 2014
Benicia has granted a request by Sacramento officials and others for extra time to review a plan by Valero Refining Co. to run two trains daily carrying crude oil through downtown Sacramento, Roseville, West Sacramento and Davis to its Bay Area refinery. The Sacramento Area Council of Governments, which represents local cities and counties, had requested extra time, saying they are concerned about the project’s safety risks. The new response deadline is Sept. 15, officials said.
Valero is asking the city of Benicia for an OK to begin receiving daily crude-by-rail shipments, including possibly the more volatile oil from the North Dakota Bakken fields. Federal officials issued a warning this year about that fuel after several train explosions, including one that killed 47 people in Canada.
The Valero plan, involving two 50-car trains a day through Sacramento, is among the first of what California officials say is an expected boom in crude-by-rail shipments through the state, prompted by the lower cost of North Dakota and Canadian crude.
The draft environmental report, issued last month by Benicia, included an analysis that says a derailment and spill might happen only once every 111 years. That analysis was authored by a University of Illinoisprofessor, Christopher Barkan, who formerly worked for the American Association of Railroads and does research supported by the association. Barkan, an expert on hazardous rail transport, said in an email that his work for Benicia was not influenced by his association with the railroad association.
Local officials say they plan to issue written responses to that assessment this summer. City of Davis official Mike Webb has challenged the report risk assessment, saying, “It only needs to happen once to be a real problem.”
Also on Friday, a coalition of activists who oppose rail shipments of crude oil called on the state Legislature or the governor to ban or place a moratorium on construction of any more crude rail terminals similar to the one Valero is proposing.
The state Office of Spill Prevention and Response announced it will conduct a series of public workshops later this month soliciting opinions on how it should expand its work to inland areas, including alongrail lines.The new state budget includes funding, from oil refinery fees, for the spill office to deal with the expected increase in crude oil shipments by rail. The agency will release information on its “legal and regulations” Web page on Friday.
Repost from Bloomberg BNA [Editor: This 7-page PDF report is already a bit dated – March, 2014 – but it is an excellent overview of still-current debate over tank car adequacy and redesign standards. The article quotes officials of the National Transportation Safety Board AND the Association of American Railroads to the effect that even the upgraded DOT-111 cars are not safe, and will require improvements. – RS]
Tank Car Design Debate Split Over Safety of Voluntary Industry Standard
By Patrick Ambrosio, March 18, 2014
Industry groups, members of Congress and the National Transportation Safety Board are pushing the Transportation Department to quickly establish new safety design standards for rail tank cars used to carry crude oil, but there is disagreement over how stringent the new safety requirements should be.
There is now a consensus that a new federal design standard is needed to provide certainty to the industry and improve the safety of transporting flammable liquids by rail, but groups are split over whether the new standards should go beyond the Association of American Railroads’ CPC-1232 standard, a voluntary industry standard adopted for all new tank cars ordered after Oct. 1, 2011.
The Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, in conjunction with the Federal Railroad Administration, is working on a proposed rule that would update federal design standards for tank cars, commonly known as DOT-111 cars, that are used to carry crude oil, ethanol and other flammable liquids. The rulemaking is partially in response to a 2011 petition filed by the AAR, which represents major U.S. railroad companies such as CSX Transportation Inc. and BNSF Railway Co., requesting that the DOT adopt the CPC-1232 standard as a federal design standard for new cars.
The safety features included in CPC-1232-compliant cars include thicker shells for non-jacketed tank cars, enhanced top fittings protection, reclosing pressure relief devices and half-height head shields on both ends of the tank car.
“Their continued use to ship flammable liquids poses an unacceptable risk to the public.”
Christopher Hart, NTSB
Legacy Cars Called Unsafe
The safety of DOT-111 rail tank cars has been called into question after a series of recent derailments involving trains carrying crude oil, including a July 2013 derailment in Lac-Mégantic, Quebec, that resulted in 47 fatalities. DOT-111 rail tank cars also were involved in a December 2013 derailment near Casselton, N.D., which resulted in the release of more than 400,000 gallons of crude oil, a significant fire and the evacuation of nearby residents.
The AAR estimates that there are about 92,000 DOT-111 rail tank cars in service carrying crude oil, ethanol and other flammable liquids. Of those, about 78,000 are “legacy” cars that do not meet the CPC-1232 standard.
Following the Lac-Mégantic incident, the National Transportation Safety Board reiterated a series of recommendations made to PHMSA after a 2009 derailment involving DOT-111 tank cars in Cherry Valley, Ill. Those recommendations included requirements that all new and existing tank cars used to transport crude oil and ethanol be equipped with enhanced tank head and shell puncture resistance systems, top fittings protection that exceed current requirements and bottom outlet valves designed to remain closed during accidents (37 CRR 1409, 12/16/13).
Christopher Hart, vice chairman of the NTSB, told the Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Subcommittee on Surface Transportation and Merchant Marine Infrastructure March 6 that the NTSB has warned the DOT since 1991 that older DOT-111 rail tank cars are too easily damaged, even when involved in low-speed crashes and derailments.
“Their continued use to ship flammable liquids poses an unacceptable risk to the public,” Hart said.
Hart said the NTSB thinks the CPC-1232 design standard needs additional changes to improve the “crash worthiness” of tank cars used to carry crude oil and flammable liquids. He cited enhanced head shields and tank jackets and increased tank shell thickness as features that the NTSB recommends.
Rail Industry Reverses Course
Edward Hamberger, president and chief executive officer of the AAR, said at the same Senate subcommittee hearing that since filing its 2011 petition the association has changed its position and now recommends that the DOT require new tank cars to be built to meet specifications exceeding the CPC-1232 standard.
Hamberger said that although the AAR thinks that the CPC-1232 standard is a “big step above” the legacy DOT-111 cars, the railroads now think safety needs to “go beyond” the voluntary industry standard.
The AAR is recommending that the federal tank car standards adopt the following safety design features that exceed those found in the CPC-1232 standard:
a high-capacity pressure relief valve to protect the tank car from an increase in internal pressure resulting from a fire;
a minimum 9/16-inch-thick steel tank;
a 1/2-inch-thick full-height head shield on both ends of the tank car;
a bottom outlet handle that will not inadvertently open the bottom outlet in the event of a derailment; and
an 1/8-inch-thick steel jacket around the tank car, with thermal protection.
The AAR recommendations also are supported by the American Short Line and Regional Railroad Association, which represents the interests of about 450 short line and regional railroad companies in the U.S.
$7 Billion Already Invested
The AAR estimates that its proposal would require the phase-out or retrofit of about 78,000 legacy cars and the retrofit of about 14,000 cars built since 2011 that meet the CPC-1232 standard.
The Railway Supply Institute, which represents manufacturers, distributors and service providers for the freight and passenger rail industries, estimates that as of December 2013, the crude oil and ethanol sector has invested more than $7 billion to build new tank cars to meet the CPC-1232 standard since the standard was adopted in 2011. Thomas Simpson, president of the RSI, told Bloomberg BNA that an estimated 55,000 new tank cars built to meet the CPC-1232 standard will be in crude oil and ethanol service by the end of 2015.
Prentiss Searles, marketing issues manager at the American Petroleum Institute, told the Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Subcommittee on Surface Transportation and Merchant Marine Infrastructure that the petroleum industry believes that CPC-1232-compliant tank cars will be sufficient to safely move crude oil and other hazardous liquids.
Searles said a multi-industry committee reviewed available data for three years to determine whether the CPC-1232 standard would be sufficient to carry crude oil.
“Those are safe cars,” Searles said.
Brigham McCown, managing director of the consulting group Nouveau Inc., told Bloomberg BNA that the government and industry should be looking at the improved DOT-111 rail tank cars manufactured after 2011 to improve rail car safety. McCown formerly served as the first acting administrator and interim CEO of PHMSA.
McCown said the CPC-1232 standard addresses the three major vulnerabilities of the legacy DOT-111 rail tank cars.
He said rail tank cars commonly “flip over” on their sides during derailments, and older DOT-111 tank cars have a propensity to break open during such accidents. He also said that bulkheads on the end of older DOT-111 cars can easily be dented and either break or rupture, and that the valves on older DOT-111 cars can break off if they are not adequately protected, resulting in a release of flammable liquid.
Searles said the API has requested that PHMSA and the FRA lead a task force to review the challenges associated with retrofitting existing DOT-111 cars to include additional safety features.
API, when asked for additional information on the challenge of retrofitting existing DOT-111 rail cars, directed Bloomberg BNA to comments filed with PHMSA in December 2013 on the rail tank car design issue.
The comments raised several concerns associated with a retrofit program, including the difficulty of applying 1/2-inch-thick head shields to non-jacketed tank cars. API said the additional weight could compromise the structure of the car because it would be impossible to measure the existing fatigue on tank cars that have already been in service.
Installing a head shield onto a non-jacketed car also could require existing equipment, including brake wheels and end platforms, to be rearranged on the car before the head shield is welded to the tank for support, which could potentially affect the interior coating of the tank, API said.
Simpson of the RSI told Bloomberg BNA that there are feasible modifications that can be made to legacy DOT-111 cars to get them “close” to the CPC-1232 standard, including removing the handle on the bottom outlet valve to prevent it from opening during a crash and installing a half-height head shield. Simpson noted that adding a 1/8-inch-thick steel jacket to a legacy car is “more problematic,” and said companies are looking at whether that is feasible.
Evolution of Rail Industry Tank Car Standards for Crude Oil
Limited Repair Capacity
API also said the nation’s repair shop network is incapable of handling the large number of existing tank cars that would need to be upgraded if retrofits were required.
“The repair shop network that exists today, even if it were to be increased by a third, could not handle all of the work in a reasonably timely manner,” API said.
API added that most repair facilities are not even capable of completing major retrofits to older tank cars, such as adding jackets to legacy cars or installing top fittings protection.
Simpson said the RSI has suggested that PHMSA give the industry a 10-year timeframe to modify the legacy fleet to meet any upgraded safety design standards.
Simpson said the RSI does support expanding design requirements for all new tank cars intended for crude oil and ethanol service to include full-height head shields and thermal protection and would support the prioritization of retrofitting legacy tank cars over cars that comply with the CPC-1232 industry design standard.
The RSI suggested that PHMSA freeze the current fleet of DOT-111 rail tank cars and not allow any additional legacy tank cars to be assigned to crude oil or ethanol service. Simpson said that under that
proposal, any tank car needed to handle an increase in crude traffic or to replace a non-operational car would at least have to be compliant with the CPC-1232 standard.
Manufacturer Offers Retrofit Packages
The Greenbrier Companies, an Oregon-based supplier of equipment and services to the rail industry, announced in February that it will begin offering retrofits for both legacy DOT-111 tank cars and newer tank cars that were built to meet the current CPC-1232 standard.
The company will retrofit legacy tank cars with high-flow pressure relief valves, head shields, top fittings protection and thermal protection. Greenbrier also will install high-flow pressure relief valves and improved bottom outlet valve handles on any CPC-1232 cars that were not originally built with those features.
Greenbrier announced that it will design a next-generation tank car for use in transporting crude oil and ethanol that will be designed to “better withstand” the demands of carrying flammable liquids on a unit train. The company did not offer specifications for the new tank car, but said the car will address safety concerns about the older DOT-111 tank cars.
A Greenbrier representative said the company anticipates that the design of the retrofitted DOT-111 tank cars and the next-generation tank car will comply with all pending regulatory standards.
Proposal Expected in 2014
PHMSA Administrator Cynthia Quarterman said in March that she is “hopeful” that a proposed rule on rail tank car design standards will be released for public comment by the end of 2014.
Quarterman said PHMSA and FRA staffs are “moving as fast as we possibly can” to draft the rule, but noted the importance of a rulemaking that would establish a standard that could be in effect for decades.
“We really need to get this right,” Quarterman said.
Sen. John Hoeven (R-N.D.) told Bloomberg BNA in early March that he has been informed that the proposed rule will be submitted to the White House Office of Management and Budget “soon,” possibly sometime in early April. That would allow the proposed rule to be released to the public in 2014, probably in November, according to Hoeven.
Hoeven said the estimated time frame from DOT would allow for the publication of a final rule establishing tank car design standards sometime after January 1, 2015.
Push for Faster Action
Although the industry is split on whether the DOT should go beyond the CPC-1232 standard and whether legacy tank cars should be retrofitted or phased out, there is consensus that a resolution of the issue is needed to provide certainty for the industry.
Hoeven said upgrading the nation’s rail tank car fleet represents a “big investment” for the petroleum industry, which needs to make sure that it is meeting federal standards so it can transition from the legacy cars to upgraded cars.
Searles of the API said PHMSA could move forward immediately with an interim final rule on new tank car design that would provide the industry with consistency and certainty, though he added that more study is needed on retrofitting before PHMSA can issue any regulations requiring existing cars to meet more stringent design requirements.
Hamberger of the AAR suggested that PHMSA could speed up the process by splitting its tank car rulemaking in half by addressing the design standard for new tank cars first. He noted that there is currently a two-year backlog of new cars that have been ordered to meet the CPC-1232 standard, which could be deemed inadequate by the time the cars are built.
Hamberger said that there is “not a great deal of difference” between the AAR proposal and the design standards for new cars supported by other groups. The retrofit issue is more complicated because there are different kinds of DOT-111 rail tank cars, including some tank cars that are jacketed and some that are not, according to Hamberger.
Advances in Materials
Ken Grantham, executive vice president at Crompion International, said he is trying to make the crude oil tank car industry aware of advances in materials that could be used in the construction of safer tank cars. Crompion is a Louisiana-based manufacturer and distributor of specialty steel products.
Grantham said the discussion on tank car safety has only focused on design enhancements, even though much stronger metals are available than the metals currently used to construct DOT-111 rail tank cars. The NTSB recommendations and the AAR proposal for a new tank car design standard do not address the issue of using enhanced raw materials to construct rail tank cars.
The stainless steel types used to construct DOT-111 rail tank cars are older varieties of steel that have been around for 100 years or more, according to Grantham. He said there have been a “multitude of advances” in the past 20 years that have resulted in new metals that are much stronger than traditional metals and are comparable or superior in corrosion resistance.
Grantham said he would like to see newer stainless steel added to any design standard as additional materials that could be used to construct tank cars that meet DOT specifications, which would give companies the option of considering the stronger materials. He said combining the proposed enhanced safety features with the use of stronger metals would “optimize” the effort to make tank cars safer.
“We really feel that materials should be as much a part of the conversation as design improvements,” he said.
Grantham noted that Crompion is already supplying large volumes of enhanced stainless steel varieties for use in constructing rail cars used to transport coal. He said that in addition to the safety benefits of using stronger metals, the use of corrosion and abrasion resistant steel allowed for the use of thinner plates to construct those rail cars, which makes the rail car lighter and capable of transporting additional volumes of coal.
Newer generation varieties of steel also are already being used to construct static storage tanks for crude oil and other flammable liquids, according to Grantham.
BNSF Seeks Enhanced Cars
Some companies have decided to move ahead with new car orders without federal design standards.
A spokeswoman with BNSF Railway told Bloomberg BNA that the company issued a request for proposals to major railcar manufacturers seeking bids for the construction of 5,000 new rail tank cars that would be used to transport crude oil.
The design specifications described by BNSF for the new tank cars would meet the standards proposed by the AAR, including thicker tank body shells, full-height head shields, a bottom outlet valve handle that can be disengaged and a thermal protection system incorporating ceramic thermal blanketing and a pressure relief device capable of surviving an ethanol-based pool fire.
The company spokeswoman said the RFP is a “significant voluntary commitment” that will provide tank car manufacturers with a “head start” on tank car design and production while the Transportation Department continues with the formal rulemaking process.
Tesoro Corp., an independent refiner and marketer of petroleum products, has pledged that the company’s entire fleet of tank cars that are used to carry crude oil will meet the CPC-1232 design standard by the middle of 2014 (38 CRR 182, 2/10/14).
Keith Casey, senior vice president of strategy and business development at Tesoro, said in February that the company decided to be proactive in upgrading its rail tank car fleet in advance of expected regulatory changes because “it’s the right thing to do.”
You must be logged in to post a comment.