Tag Archives: Blast zone

Bakken Crude, Blast zone, Crude By Rail, DEIR, Derailment, Explosion, Fire, Risk Assessment, Santa Maria Refinery, Tank car design

New crude oil report concludes risks of train spills are real

Repost from The Sacramento Bee
[Editor: Highly significant development – a must read!  – RS]

New crude oil report concludes risks of train spills are real

By Tony Bizjak, 10/23/2014
A train carrying fuel passes through a Bakersfield neighborhood last summer. The dramatic increase in crude oil shipments around the United States and Canada, often on 100-car trains, has led to several major derailments and fires.
A train carrying fuel passes through a Bakersfield neighborhood last summer. The dramatic increase in crude oil shipments around the United States and Canada, often on 100-car trains, has led to several major derailments and fires. Jose Luis Villegas

Mile-long oil trains that are expected to crisscross California daily in the coming years pose significant risks to residents of urban areas, including Sacramento, a new report concludes, contradicting earlier studies that found no major safety concerns.

The report, issued by San Luis Obispo County officials, is based on a plan by Phillips 66 to transport crude oil on 80-car trains, five days a week, to its Santa Maria refinery, some likely through Sacramento. The authors looked at the cumulative impact of all oil trains that could come through California on a daily basis and came to the conclusion that the risk of oil spills and fires is real, and offered suggestions on how those issues should be addressed.

“Up to seven crude oil trains a day could travel on the stretch of track between Roseville and Sacramento,” the report reads. “The cumulative risk would be significant.”

The analysis, called a draft environmental impact report, contrasts with two recent analyses of similar crude-by-rail projects in Benicia and Bakersfield. Valero Refining Co. in Benicia and Alon USA in Bakersfield are proposing to transport crude oil twice a day on trains into their facilities. The Valero trains would come through downtown Sacramento, Roseville, West Sacramento and Davis, likely on the same tracks as the Santa Maria refinery trains. Some of the Bakersfield-bound trains also may come through Sacramento.

Those reports, issued earlier this summer, concluded the risk of spills and oil fires in Sacramento and other areas is not significant and requires no additional safety steps. Those earlier analyses have been challenged. An environmental group, Earthjustice, has sued Kern County over its Bakersfield project review. Two state safety agencies and the state attorney general have sent letters to Benicia challenging the adequacy of its review of the Valero project.

San Luis Obispo County officials said they decided to go beyond what was done in Benicia and Kern County – breaking new ground in California’s evolving crude-by-rail debate – by conducting a qualitative risk assessment, to understand the ramifications of “reasonable” worst-case oil spill scenarios. The new report is an amended version of an earlier report San Luis Obispo issued last year, which also had been challenged as inadequate.

“We have been trying to keep an eye on what is going on around the state, to understand comments coming in on the Valero project and others, and to take a holistic approach,” said San Luis Obispo County project manager Murry Wilson.

That qualitative assessment takes special note of spill risks in urban areas, saying, “The risk is primarily driven by the high-threat urban areas (Los Angeles, Bay Area and Sacramento) since these are the locations where fairly long stretches of track are in close proximity to heavily populated areas.” A series of tables in the report indicate that injuries and deaths could occur up to a third of a mile from a crash site in urban areas, if there was a tank car rupture and explosive fire.

The report points out that derailments of oil trains are rare. The chances of a train spilling more than 100 gallons of oil en route from the California border in the north state to the Santa Maria refinery are anywhere from one-in-19 to one-in-31 in any given year, depending on the route, the county estimated. Similarly, railroad industry officials say their data show that 99.99 percent of freight trains arrive at their destinations safely.

But the dramatic increase in the last few years of crude oil shipments around the United States and Canada, often on 100-car trains, has led to several major derailments and fires, prompting concerns from cities along rail lines, and federal safety officials. Last year in Canada, a runaway crude oil train crashed in a small town and exploded, killing 47 people, many as they slept. Several other crude oil trains have been involved in dramatic explosions around the country in the past year, prompting evacuations of residential areas.

At the moment, two crude oil trains run to or through Sacramento. One carries highly flammable Bakken crude from North Dakota through midtown Sacramento a few times a month to a distribution facility in the East Bay. Another periodically brings oil to a transfer station at McClellan Business Park in North Highlands. The company that runs the transfer station agreed this week to halt those shipments after air-quality officials concluded they had issued the permit in error.

The daily trains to the Santa Maria refinery, if approved, are expected to travel on both southern or northern routes into the state, starting in 2016, depending on where Phillips decides to buy its U.S.-produced oil. The Northern California route is uncertain east of Roseville. West of Roseville, trains are likely to run through downtown Sacramento, West Sacramento, downtown Davis and through East Bay cities, but also could take a route through Sacramento to Stockton, then west into the Bay Area.

San Luis Obispo County officials, in their report, also went considerably further than officials in Benicia and Kern County on the question of “mitigation” or preventive measures that could be put in place to minimize risks of crashes and spills.

Federal law pre-empts cities, counties and states from imposing any safety requirements on the railroads. San Luis Obispo County officials suggest, however, in their report that the county could try using its permitting authority over the proposed Phillips 66 refinery expansion to require Phillips to sign agreements with the railroads ensuring that the railroads use safer tanker cars than those currently in use, and employ better train-control computer technology than is currently in place.

An expert on railroad law told The Sacramento Bee this week that a court likely would have to decide if such a move is legal. “The federal pre-emption of the local regulation of railroads is very strong, about as strong a pre-emption as exists,” said attorney Mike Conneran of the Hanson Bridgett law firm in San Francisco. “It makes sense. You can’t have a different rule every time a rail car pulls into another state or city.”

“I can see there being a (legal) fight on that,” he said. “It is pretty close to the line in telling the railroad what to do. On the other hand, the county is putting the obligation on the refinery, not the railroad. I think the real question may come down to whether such a mitigation measure is feasible if the refinery can’t force the railroad to comply.”

If San Luis Obispo officials determine that they cannot feasibly mitigate for the Phillips 66 project’s potential hazards, the county can still approve the project, in accordance with California law, if county leaders adopt a “statement of overriding considerations,” saying that the project’s benefits outweigh the adverse effects.

Sacramento-area representatives, who have criticized Benicia’s review of its Valero project as inadequate, say they have not yet reviewed the San Luis Obispo analysis.

“We’ll do a similar analysis to what we filed with Benicia,” said Steve Cohn, chair of the Sacramento Area Council of Governments. He said San Luis Obispo’s determination that a train could spill here and cause significant damage is logical, but he wondered what proposed safety measures follow from that conclusion. “We’ll have to take a look,” he said.

It is uncertain at this point whether all of the crude oil train transport projects being proposed in California will actually be built. And, if they are, it’s uncertain still how many of them will route their trains through Sacramento and Northern California. The shipments will come from oil producing areas in North Dakota, Texas, Colorado and other states, as well as Canada.

Benicia officials did not respond to questions from The Bee for comment about their environmental analysis of the Valero project.

Notably, both Benicia and San Luis Obispo based a portion of their reports on analysis by an Illinois professor, Christopher Barkan, who also does work for a major rail industry lobbying group. Barkan’s methods of determining the potential frequency of oil spills have been questioned by state safety officials. Barkan has declined to speak to The Bee.

Barkan estimated that a spill from a Phillips 66 train between Roseville and Santa Maria might happen once in 46 years if the trains use the Altamont Pass and once in 59 years if the trains use the tracks along the Interstate 80 corridor. Those numbers appear to be based on trains using the best available tanker cars.

Bakken Crude, Blast zone, Crude By Rail, Federal Regulation (U.S.), Oil stabilization, State regulation

Safety of Citizens in Bomb Train Blast Zones in Hands of North Dakota Politicians

Repost from Desmogblog

Safety of Citizens in Bomb Train Blast Zones in Hands of North Dakota Politicians

2014-09-05, Justin Mikulka
Lac Megantic train explosion
Lac Megantic train explosion

When North Dakota Congressman Kevin Cramer was asked recently if it was scientifically possible to make Bakken crude oil safer by stripping out the explosive natural gas liquids with a process like oil stabilization, his response was quite telling.

“So scientifically can you do it? Sure, but you have to look at it holistically and consider all of the other elements including economics, and is the benefit of doing something like that does that trump other things like speed of trains, and what kind of cars,” he said.

This is very similar to the comments made by Lynn Helms of the North Dakota Department of Mineral Resources according to the July 29 meeting minutes provided to DeSmogBlog by the Industrial Commission of North Dakota.

“In response to a question regarding other mechanisms besides oil conditioning in the field, Mr. Helms stated there are other mechanisms — none of them without a significant downside….It makes sense to do the conditioning in the field. There are other options to do it downstream somewhere in a very large and very expensive operation.”

In a June 24 e-mail obtained by DeSmogBlog through a freedom of information request, Helms identified himself as “the primary contact for Governor Dalrymple’s team on the crude safety issue” in response to an inquiry from the Department of Energy about who would be working on the issue of Bakken crude oil safety.

As the point person on this issue for North Dakota, Helms’ opinions carry significant weight. And just like Congressman Cramer, Helms is pointing out the “significant downside” of stabilization, which is that it is an expensive operation.

It is well established that stabilization works and would make oil trains much safer. Not even North Dakota politicians are arguing that point anymore. But the industry doesn’t want to pay for it. And right now, the only ones who could mandate them to stabilize the oil via new regulations are the three members of the Industrial Commission of North Dakota.

What About The Feds’ Oil-By-Rail Regulations?

The reason North Dakota politicians are discussing this issue at all is because the federal government has essentially punted the question.

In the 200 pages of new proposed oil-by-rail regulations released in July, there is not a single line about requiring the oil or rail companies to stabilize the oil prior to shipping.

Stabilization is a process that removes the explosive natural gas liquids from the oil and is required by pipeline companies. This process would turn the current Bakken “bomb trains” into simple oil trains. They would still pose a threat of oil spills, but would no longer threaten to kill people in massive explosions like the one in Lac-Megantic, Quebec, or be a target for terrorism.

While the proposed regulations don’t require stabiliazation, they do include three questions that indicate lawmakers are aware that stabilizing or “degassifying” the crude makes it safer and that producers have the ability to reduce the volatility of crude oil prior to shipping it by rail.

Is the current exception for combustible liquids sufficient to incentivize producers to reduce the volatility of crude oil for continued use of existing tank cars?

Would an exception for all PG III flammable liquids further incentivize producers to reduce the volatility of crude oil prior to transportation?

What are the impacts on the costs and safety benefits of degasifying to these levels?

As previously reported by DeSmogBlog, the regulators in charge of finalizing the new proposed oil-by-rail regulations are big believers in cost-benefit analysis. And looking at their questions, it is clear they know the oil can be made less volatile. But they want to hear more from the industry about the costs of doing this before doing anything. And instead of requiring stabilization, they are looking for ways to “incentivize” the producers to do it.

Oil Conditioning vs. Oil Stabilization

The North Dakota Industrial Commission is holding a hearing on September 23rd during which it is requesting input on how to make the Bakken crude oil safer for transport. The headline of its press release, “Hearing set on oil conditioning practices,” almost ensures that oil stabilization will never be required in North Dakota.

Oil conditioning is not the same as oil stabilization. Oil conditioning can be done with all of the existing equipment already in the field in North Dakota and thus the cost is minimal. However, in situations where the industry needs to ensure it strips out all the volatile natural gas liquids from the oil, as in the Eagle Ford formation in Texas, they use a different process called stabilization.

Helms and the members of the Industrial Commission like to cite the North Dakota Petroleum Council Study on Bakken Crude Properties when claiming that Bakken crude is no different than other crude oils and thus doesn’t require stabilization. However, that very report makes it clear that conditioning, done with the equipment currently available, is insufficient and was never designed to achieve the type of results expected from stabilization.

From the report, prepared by industry consultant Turner and Mason:

The data consistency [sic] indicates that field equipment is limited in its ability to significantly impact vapor pressure and light ends content.

This is consistent with the expected capabilities of the equipment.

The field equipment is designed to separate gas, remove water and break emulsions to prepare crude for transport, and not remove significant levels of dissolved light ends from the crude.

Meanwhile, at the August 26 meeting of the North Dakota Industrial Commission, Helms once again acknowledged the effectiveness of stabilization, as reported by Petroleum News: “This is very routinely done with high gravity condensate — oil that condenses out of a gas well as it is produced,” Helms said. “That has to be stabilized before it can move through the system.”

Helms word choice is telling. Oil that “has to be stabilized before it can move through the system.” Oil that is moved by pipeline has to be stabilized before it can be moved because pipeline companies require it. The rail companies do not.

Despite his acknowledgement of how stabilization is routine in the pipeline business, at the August meeting, Helms was also sure to point out that in North Dakota they expected to choose conditioning as their solution, as reported by Petroleum News.

Helms agreed, saying conditioning is likely more suitable for North Dakota since the equipment is already in place on well sites but he’d like to hear from others at the upcoming hearing.

“We haven’t closed the door to (stabilization),” Helms said. “We want to hear what people have to say.”

However, if the North Dakota Industrial Commission actually wanted to hear what people have to say about stabilization, the press release about the September 23rd hearing probably should have actually mentioned stabilization. It doesn’t.

The North Dakota Industrial Commission

If there is going to be any regulation requiring stabilization of the Bakken crude it will require the three members of the North Dakota Industrial Commission to make it happen.

Governor Jack Dalrymple is one member of the commission. And his point man on this issue, Helms, has already made it clear he supports conditioning over stabilization.

North Dakota Attorney General Wayne Stenehjem is another member. When a report by the Pipeline and Hazardous Safety Materials Administration recently concluded that Bakken oil was more flammable than most other crude oils, Stenehjem responded to the science by saying, “It seems like they are picking on us.”

The third member of the commission is Agricultural Commissioner Doug Goehring. At the August 26th meeting of the commission, Petroleum News reported that Goehring opposed stabilization for an unlikely reason for someone who helped oversee the massive expansion of the Bakken oil production.

Agriculture Commissioner Doug Goehring voiced his concern with dotting the landscape with stabilizer units.

“We’ve been trying hard to shrink that footprint out there on the landscape, and that’s going to make that awfully difficult.”

So in all likelihood, stabilization is off the table and conditioning will be the new regulation. Helms and others often say conditioning is already being done because the equipment is already in the field. Yet, according to the minutes from the July meeting of the Industrial Commission, Governor Dalrymple said: “Right now we are assuming producers are doing conditioning but we do not have a mechanism to verify that.”

So, let’s get this straight. It is more than a year after the explosion of a Bakken crude train in Lac-Megantic that killed 47 people. And it’s been more than eight months since a train of Bakken crude exploded in Casselton, ND. And the best the regulators can do is hold a hearing to talk about how to do regulate a practice that’s inadequate and they already assume is being done?

Bakken Crude, Blast zone, Crude By Rail, Fracking, Hazmat notification, Massive increase in crude-by-rail, Rail routing, Tank car design, Traffic, Train braking systems, Train speed

Bill Moyers & Company: America’s Exploding Oil Train Problem

Repost from Bill Moyers & Company

America’s Exploding Oil Train Problem

by John Light, September 2, 2014
FILE - In this July 16, 2013, file photo, railroad oil tankers are lined up at the Port of Albany, in Albany, N.Y. While the federal government has ordered railroads to give states details about shipments of volatile crude oil from North Dakota's Bakken shale region, New York officials haven't decided whether to share that information with the public. (AP Photo/Mike Groll, File)
In this July 16, 2013, photo, railroad oil tankers are lined up at the Port of Albany, in Albany, NY. (AP Photo/Mike Groll, File)

If you reside in the US, there’s around an eight percent chance that you live in an oil train’s blast zone. And there’s a fight going on at the state and federal levels, between monied interests and regulatory agencies, over efforts to ensure that these trains — which have shown a tendency to burst into flames — will be relatively safe.

The increased use of hydraulic fracturing — fracking — has made oil that was previously inaccessible available to drillers. The crude then has to make its way to refineries, and while the boom in pipeline projects has received quite a bit of attention, roughly 60 percent of it travels by rail.

On Friday, California legislators passed a bill that would require railroads to tell emergency officials when oil trains filled with explosive Bakken crude — oil from a particularly productive region in western North Dakota — would pass through the state. The law reflects growing concern, across America, about the dangers of these trains moving through dense communities, including Sacramento, California’s capital.

Oil tanker cars move along a web of routes that crisscross the United States. In 2013, about 400,000 cars made the journey, a 4,000 percent increase over the previous five years. The boost in oil cars has been so great that less lucrative industries are having trouble finding rail transport for their products. In March, General Mills announced that it had lost 62 days of production on such favorites as Cheerios because the trains that had shipped agricultural products were being leased by the fossil fuel industry.

Most oil reaches its destination without any problems, but as production has skyrocketed, the railroads have become increasingly taxed. Those who live near railways have noticed the uptick, with trains rumbling through towns much more frequently, and at much higher speeds.

Last July, a tanker train filled with North Dakota crude derailed in the middle of the night in Lac-Mégantic, a small Canadian town near the border with Maine; the resulting inferno killed 47 people. Since then, derailments in Casselton, North Dakota, and Lynchburg, Virginia, have led to evacuations. The Lac-Mégantic disaster spurred protests from fire chiefs and town officials who said that they were ill-equipped to deal with a possible derailment.

In the year since, officials have moved to formalize several safety measures. This July, the Obama administration proposed a plan that involves banning certain older tank cars, using better breaks on car, restricting speeds and possibly rerouting trains.

That first point, phasing out old tank cars, is a key area of contention. For the most part, the opposition isn’t coming from the railroads; it’s the oil companies that lease the tank cars that are fighting the new regulations. As Bloomberg Businessweek’s Matthew Philips explained earlier this summer:

It’s helpful to understand the three industries with something at stake here: railroads, energy companies, and tank-car manufacturers. The railroads own the tracks but not the tank cars or the oil that’s inside. The oil often belongs to big energy companies such as refiners or even trading firms that profit from buying it near the source—say, in North Dakota—and selling it elsewhere. These energy companies tend to lease the tank cars from large manufacturing companies or big lenders such as General Electric (GE) and CIT Group (CIT).

Although it is never their oil on board, the railroads usually end up in the headlines when something goes wrong. That’s why they have been eager for a rule to make energy companies use stronger tank cars. Meanwhile, the oil industry has been busy issuing studies trying to prove that the oil coming out of North Dakota is safe enough to travel in the existing tank cars. The energy lobby also thinks railroads need to do a better job of keeping the trains on the tracks. Tank-car manufacturers, meanwhile, simply want some clarity around what kind of cars they need to build.

Canada, following the Lac-Mégantic disaster, announced plans to phase out one older tank car that has been linked to several accidents over the next three years; the Obama administration proposal would do it in two.

But the oil industry doesn’t want that. Leading the charge is the American Petroleum Institute, an organization that, so far in 2014, has spent $4 million lobbying regulators and Congress. They’ve pushed back against labeling Bakken crude as more hazardous than other crude oil, even though many studies have found that it is.

Environmental groups blame this lobbying effort for several weaknesses in the proposed rules. For one, they would only apply to trains that have 20 or more carloads of Bakken crude. “If the rule is approved as drafted, it would still be legal to transport around 570,000 gallons (the equivalent of the fuel carried by seven Boeing 747s) of volatile Bakken crude in a train composed of 19 unsafe, [aging] tank cars—and none of the other aspects of the new rules, including routing, notification, train speed, and more would apply,” wrote Eric de Place of the sustainability think-tank Sightline Institute, who also criticized the proposal for not immediately banning older tankers.

And even if the regulations were to be put in place despite the API’s attempts to weaken them, there’s the distinct possibility that regulators will fall short. The government has often taken a hands-off approach in determining what gets shipped, and how — and in enforcing existing rules requiring that officials in the cities it passes through be informed that potentially hazardous shipments are coming. In These Times reported that government inspections to make sure railroads are properly labeling the product they are shipping (the Bakken crude was improperly labeled in the Lac-Mégantic disaster) are supposed to be unannounced, but are sometimes pre-arranged. Meanwhile, railroads are cutting back on the number of crew members manning trains, a move that some workers feel will lead to less safe travel.

“No one would permit an airliner to fly with just one pilot, even though they can fly themselves,” wrote John Previsich, the president of the Sheet Metal, Air, Rail and Transportation union’s transportation devision. “Trains, which cannot operate themselves, should be no different.”

John Light blogs and works on multimedia projects for Moyers & Company. Before joining the Moyers team, he was a public radio producer. His work has been supported by grants from The Nation Institute Investigative Fund and the Alfred I. duPont-Columbia Awards, among others. A New Jersey native, John studied history and film at Oberlin College and holds a master’s degree in journalism from Columbia University