Bakken Crude, Climate Change, Crude By Rail, DOT-111, Fossil fuels, Massive increase in crude-by-rail, Train speed

Des Moines, Iowa: Action must be taken to reduce the hazards from railroad shipments of Bakken oil

Repost from The Des Moines Register

Action must be taken to reduce the hazards from railroad shipments of Bakken oil

By Carolyn Heising, November 15, 2014
Train3.jpg
(Photo: CANADIAN PRESS )

Now is the time to ask: Is the growing practice of using trains to carry highly-flammable crude oil from North Dakota’s Bakken shale field through communities in Iowa safe and even necessary?

Is it free of the hazards that led to the railroad accident in Quebec last year that killed 47 people and destroyed half of the town of Lac-Megantic? Or is it adding to the stress on the rail system?

Iowa is one of a number of states that have become a corridor for the shipment of Bakken crude over the past three years. Canadian Pacific Railway ships heavy loads of oil south through five eastern Iowa counties. BNSF Railway ships crude through four western Iowa counties. The oil is transported to refineries on the Gulf Coast or to pipeline connections.

No question about it, U.S. oil production is booming. The shale revolution is the dominant economic and geopolitical event of the past decade. Its effects have been transformative.

The United States is on the verge of becoming the world’s leading oil producer. OPEC is no longer the threat it once was. The growth in the U.S. energy industry has more than doubled in the past 10 years and is now worth about $1.2 trillion in gross product each year, contributing about 30 percent of the job growth for the nation, according to a study by the Perryman Group.

And the oil boom is likely to continue unless a catastrophic event brings it to a halt.

One reason environmental groups seem relatively calm about railroad shipment of crude oil is that they know what a minor event it is amid the chaos of fossil-fuel production and the dangerous and destabilizing chaos of climate change. A big part of the problem is the paradoxically positive economic effect of shale-oil production, which is loading the atmosphere with an enormous amount of global-warming carbon dioxide and methane.

What’s the answer?

Long-term we need to reduce the amount of oil we use in transportation by shifting to electric cars with batteries powered by renewable energy sources and nuclear power. Right now, action must be taken to reduce the hazards from railroad shipments of Bakken oil, which is much more flammable than conventional crude oil.

Freight railroads have gone from being a relic of the past to being a key mode of transport for oil supplies. Currently about two-thirds of North Dakota’s Bakken oil production is transported by rail. And more than 10 percent of the nation’s total oil production travels by rail.

In the last quarter of 2013, more than 71 million barrels of crude oil were shipped by rail, more than 10 times the volume of oil shipped in 2008. Over the past six months, there have been at least 10 large crude oil spills in the United States and Canada because of railroad accidents.

The U.S. Department of Transportation has responded by proposing speed limits along with a system for classifying the oil and new safety design standards for rail tanker cars.

The railroads say there have been relatively few rail accidents and not much loss of oil, considering the huge quantities of oil being shipped around the country. However, oil companies — which own the oil rail cars — are shipping much of the crude in outdated tank cars called DOT-111s that are vulnerable to puncture in a derailment.

The trains have captured the attention of local emergency responders by the amount of oil they carry — 100-plus tanker cars carrying up to 30,000 gallons of highly flammable fuel are not uncommon. In New Jersey, a key rail route, the trains pass within a few feet of homes and schools in highly populated areas.

Those who believe that slower train speeds alone are the answer should think again. A train hauling Bakken crude derailed in downtown Lynchburg, Va., a bustling city of 75,000 people. Three tanker cars tumbled into the James River. One of the tanker cars ruptured, spilling 30,000 gallons of crude.

Fortunately, no one was killed or injured. But local fire officials, who are accustomed to dealing with oil accidents on a much smaller scale, said the train was traveling within the speed limit. After the Quebec disaster, major rail companies agreed to reduce the maximum speed of oil trains to 40 miles per hour when they are within 10 miles of a major city. Lynchburg set its own speed limit of 25 mph. The train was going slower than 25 mph when it derailed.

Because a lot is riding on rail safety, oil companies should consider what other industries that use trains to haul hazardous cargoes have done to prevent accidents. For example, the nuclear industry uses specially-built freight cars to transport used nuclear-fuel assemblies from one nuclear plant to another. Since the 1960s, there have been thousands of trips involving the rail transport of nuclear waste in the United States, without a single serious accident.

That’s a stellar safety record which bodes well for the rail shipment of nuclear waste to a deep-geologic repository — and nuclear power’s increased use for electricity production.

Admittedly, the number of oil trains and the amount of hazardous cargo they carry is far greater than it is for nuclear companies and most other industries. But if oil companies continue to use puncture-prone tanker cars to haul highly-flammable Bakken crude in 100-car trains traveling at dangerous speeds, the ultimate consequences could be dire, and we will wind up asking ourselves why something more wasn’t done to prevent it.

THE AUTHOR:
CAROLYN D. HEISING, Ph.D., is a professor of industrial, mechanical and nuclear engineering at Iowa State University. Contact: cheising@iastate.edu.

 

Crude By Rail, Emergency Readiness & Response, Hazmat notification, Oil stabilization, Parked trains, Phillips 66, Rail Safety, Sacramento Area Council of Governments (SACOG), Santa Maria Refinery

Sacramento Area leaders call for strong safety controls on oil trains headed west and south

Repost from The Sacramento Bee

Sacramento leaders call for more crude-oil train safety

By Tony Bizjak, 11/14/2014
A tanker truck is filled from railway cars containing crude oil at McClellan Park in March.
A tanker truck is filled from railway cars containing crude oil at McClellan Park in March. Randall Benton

Concerned about potential oil spills and fires, Sacramento leaders are calling for stronger safety controls on a Phillips 66 proposal to transport crude oil via trains through Sacramento neighborhoods to the oil company’s refinery in San Luis Obispo County.

In a letter approved Thursday by board members of the Sacramento Area Council of Governments, regional officials are asking San Luis Obispo County to require the oil company to notify local fire officials before any crude oil train comes through the area, limit the parking of crude-oil-laden trains in the urban area, provide funding for training on fighting oil fires, and require trains and tracks to have modern safety features.

SACOG officials said they are not taking a stance against rail shipments of crude oil in general.

“Our intent is not to prohibit any types of shipments, our intent is to ensure that where they are shipped that we impose the most reasonably feasible safety measures for our communities,” the agency’s attorney Kirk Trost said during a board briefing this week.

A boom in domestic oil production in North Dakota, Colorado, Texas and other Western states in recent years has prompted safety concerns after several high-profile oil-train explosions, including one in Canada that killed 47 people last year. The federal government is formulating new safety regulations, including a requirement for sturdier tank cars.

SACOG’s letter comes in response to a Phillips 66 proposal to ship oil via train five days a week to its Santa Maria Refinery in San Luis Obispo County. Many of those trains are likely to come through Northern California, via Roseville, and run through downtown Sacramento, West Sacramento, downtown Davis and East Bay cities. Some could take a route through Sacramento to Stockton, then west into the Bay Area. The route east of Roseville is unknown.

The Sacramento group, in its letter, also joined a growing national chorus of cities and states demanding that particularly flammable crude oil from the Bakken region of North Dakota be stripped of its more volatile elements before being loaded on trains.

In an email to The Sacramento Bee, Phillips 66 spokesman Dennis Nuss said Phillips does not plan to ship Bakken oil to its Santa Maria Refinery. He did not specify which types of crude oil the refinery will receive.

“Phillips 66 is working to ensure the long-term viability of the Santa Maria Refinery and the many jobs it provides,” he wrote. “Our plans for this project reflect our company’s commitment to operational excellence and safety while enhancing the competitiveness of the facility.”

SACOG, a transportation planning agency formed by the region’s six counties and 22 cities, previously called for similar safety measures on another oil company plan to transport oil, likely Bakken, through Sacramento to a Benicia refinery. Valero Refining Co. officials say they hope to start next year shipping two 50-car oil trains a day through Sacramento to that plant.

Railroads have long successfully argued that federal railroad regulations pre-empt states, counties and cities from imposing any rules on their operations. In their letter, Sacramento officials contend that San Luis Obispo County and Benicia can require the oil refineries to write safety measures into their contracts with the rail carrier companies. A rail law expert, Mike Conneran of the Hanson Bridgett law firm in San Francisco, said Sacramento’s argument might have legal merit, but likely will have to be tested in court.

Crude-oil trains have proliferated in recent years around the country as producers use newer fracking technologies to unearth previously trapped oil deposits in the West. California Energy Commission analysts say very little of that oil is being transported on rail into California currently, but they say as much as 22 percent of the state’s oil will arrive by train by 2016.

One such shipment comes through Sacramento, traveling on the rail line that cuts through North Sacramento, midtown, Land Park and Meadowview en route to Richmond in the Bay Area. The BNSF Railway company recently filed papers with state emergency officials indicating they are running up to two trains a week on that route, an increase from one train a week earlier this year.

Another major crude-by-rail facility, outside of Bakersfield, is expected to open before the end of this year and may take shipments of crude oil on rail that will come through Sacramento. A spokesman for Plains All American, owner of the facility, declined comment on the routes the trains will take, saying that will be a decision the railroad companies will make.

Read more here: http://www.sacbee.com/news/local/transportation/article3935260.html#storylink=cpy

 

Bakken Crude, Oil stabilization, Reid vapor pressure levels, State regulation, Volatile gases

North Dakota debating new vapor pressure standards

Repost from The Jamestown Sun, Jamestown, ND
[Editor: The proposed ND vapor pressure standards seem rather lax to my inexpert eyes.  See comparative Reid Vapor Pressure (RVP) levels mentioned in an August 9 posting here on BenIndy: “On June 2nd Quantum Energy met with OIRA and presented a simple three-page presentation. The presentation explains how regular crude oil has a Reid Vapor Pressure (RVP) of 5-7 psi and Bakken crude has an RVP between 8-16 psi. To put that in perspective, gasoline typically has a RVP of 9 psi.”  The proposed new standard in North Dakota according to this article is a “vapor pressure limit of 13.7 pounds per square inch.”  – RS]

Oil industry has ‘significant concerns’ about crude conditioning standards

By STATE/REGION on Nov 14, 2014

BISMARCK — North Dakota oil regulators said Thursday they want more input before approving new standards for removing volatile gases from crude oil before it’s shipped by rail, a proposal an industry representative warned could devalue Bakken crude and contribute to more flaring at well sites.

Department of Mineral Resources Director Lynn Helms presented the state Industrial Commission with the proposed standards, part of a national effort to improve oil-by-rail safety in the wake of several explosive oil train derailments.

Helms said the standards would result in Bakken crude “behaving even better than the unleaded gasoline that you put in your cars.”

Attorney General Wayne Stenehjem, who serves on the commission with Gov. Jack Dalrymple and Agriculture Commissioner Doug Goehring, said the department is “on the right track” with the proposed order. But he wanted more time to sort through it and allow for public comment.

Dalrymple agreed, called it “an excellent working draft” and a “very robust system of verification” for making sure Bakken crude falls within vapor pressure standards before it’s loaded onto the rails.

The commission said it would accept comment on the proposed order until 5 p.m. Wednesday and hold a special meeting by Dec. 11 to consider approving it so the standards can take effect Feb. 1.

Helms said the proposed order strengthens the existing rule by requiring well sites to use a gas-liquid separator and/or a heater-treater to remove so-called “light ends” like butane and propane from crude oil, and mandating the equipment be operated at certain temperatures and pressures.

He estimated 80 percent of existing wells in the Bakken and Three Forks formations would be able to produce oil within the proposed vapor pressure limit of 13.7 pounds per square inch.

National standards recognize oil with a vapor pressure of 14.7 psi or less to be stable, and winter blend gasoline has a vapor pressure of 13.5 psi, he said.

Helms said the average vapor pressure of Bakken crude across several recent studies was 11.8 psi, though “there were significant outliers.”

“We really believe that the vast majority of our Bakken crude oil will already fall well below the standard,” he said.

The roughly 15 percent of wells that operate outside of the temperature and pressure standards would have to hire a third party to test their crude for vapor pressure and submit the results to the state within 15 days. Operators looking to use alternative methods for conditioning or stabilizing their crude would need commission approval after a hearing process.

The proposed order also would ban the practice of blending crude oil with light ends or liquids recovered from gas pipelines before the oil is sold. Dalrymple noted violators can face fines as high as $12,500 per day.

“I think we want to be sure that that’s clear for everybody,” he said.

North Dakota Petroleum Council president Ron Ness cautioned that the standards could devalue Bakken crude by requiring it to be over-treated, at the same time contributing to natural gas flaring by removing more gas at the wellsite.

“I think we have some pretty significant concerns,” he said, adding the Industrial Commission is “getting into the nitty-gritty details of how companies manage their commodities.”

Helms said preliminary figures show 24 percent of the gas produced at North Dakota wells in September was burned off. Flaring reduction standards approved by the commission in July will lower the allowed flaring rate to 23 percent on Jan. 1, 15 percent by 2016 and 10 percent by Oct. 1, 2020.

The proposed oil conditioning standards will make it more challenging for producers to meet those flaring goals, Helms said.

“We’re pushing at both ends of the system, so we’re making life really difficult for these people right now. But it’s got to be safety first,” he said.

A Wall Street Journal article on Wednesday questioned the accuracy of the testing method used in a Petroleum Council-funded study of Bakken crude’s volatility, and Stenehjem asked Thursday whether the Industrial Commission should conduct its own study.

“It has been questioned, simply because it was the industry that conducted it,” he said.

Helms urged the commission to support an ongoing U.S. Department of Energy study that could involve the Energy & Environmental Research Center in Grand Forks.

Ness said it’s concerning that “the focus is all back on the commodity.”

“The root of the issue is the trains and the train tracks and the accidents,” he said.

Bakken Crude, Crude By Rail, Derailment, Emergency Readiness & Response, Explosion, Fire, Union Pacific Railroad, Valero Benicia Refinery

Derailment fireballs too hot to handle

Repost from The Benicia Herald
[Editor: I wrote the following for publication in the Benicia Herald to comment on our local version of a phenomenon taking place at cities across the nation.  I’ve lost track of the number of Google alerts in recent weeks about first-responder-crude-by-rail-training-events sponsored at great expense by the rail and refinery industries.  In nearly every case, the after-training press releases and interviews serve as pacifiers to public concerns, with assurances of adequate equipment and training should anything go wrong.  This is, of course, far from the case.  Our respected and heroic firefighters are caught in a catch-22: of course they want additional training, but their work should not be made into a pawn in the ugly game of industry painting itself as clean and safe.  – RS]

Roger Straw: A straw man

November 14, 2014 by Roger Straw

THE HERALD’S RECENT TWO PART SERIES (click HERE and HERE) on the Union Pacific Railroad emergency training at Valero for a crude-by-rail accident suggested that someone, somewhere has claimed that “crude oil fires can’t be extinguished” and that “foam doesn’t put out fires.” Valero Fire Chief Joe Bateman called it a “fabrication,” and he’s right. No one I know has claimed this. (Classically, this is referred to as a “straw man” argument … and as you might guess, someone with my last name just can’t resist rising to the bait.)

The fire at Lac-Mégantic, Quebec, is out, so it surely was extinguished, though it took two days beginning with a period when it could not be approached. For a time there was, in fact, no alternative to just letting it burn. The same is true of the explosion in Casselton, N.D. In certain circumstances, firefighters do deliberately let a fire burn itself out. Sometimes this is a triage decision: First responders’ priorities are sometimes directed to saving lives and deflecting the flow of a spill. Other times it is because there is no other choice.

It is accurate to state that foam puts out crude oil fires, but that statement loses its meaning in a worst-case scenario of a major catastrophic derailment and explosion. When there is a massive fire such as that in Lac-Mégantic or Casselton, firefighters have been unable to safely approach the inferno and have indeed been forced to let the fire burn. Foam puts out oil fires, but not when emergency personnel are a half-mile distance from a catastrophic explosion.

I recently received a communication from Fred Millar, a well-known independent consultant and expert on chemical safety and railroad transportation. Millar gives convincing and documented testimony addressing the tactic of “letting it burn itself out.” He wrote, “…in several post-Lac-Mégantic forums (see the NTSB Safety Forum webcast) and in many media articles, the majority of fire service experts have been clear that the ongoing crude oil rail disasters are beyond their capabilities to handle. Even with an infinite amount of costly foam, letting them burn is the only sensible approach (and this is what was done in all the major crude oil disasters in North America).”

Millar’s full statement and nearly a dozen other reputable sources confirm this as fact. (See Benicia Independent articles: Firefighters will sometimes stand back and let an oil train fire burn itself out and Expert on first responder decisions to ‘let it burn’.)

A few questions remain. Did the Union Pacific training include preparation for a massive unapproachable explosion? Do our first responders know what to do (or not do) in the case of another Lac-Mégantic, Lynchburg or Casselton? Have our firefighters and emergency personnel considered how to protect Valero’s Industrial Park neighbors and residents within a 1-mile blast/evacuation zone of a potential major accident? Somehow, I don’t think Union Pacific’s shiny yellow training tank car did much to help our local heroes figure out what to do if a 50-car train carrying millions of gallons of volatile Bakken crude oil derails, punctures and sets off multiple massive explosions.

Yes, I know … not likely. But few would disagree: When it comes to high-risk ventures, “well-prepared” means knowledge of, and readiness for, worst-case scenarios.

For more information, see SafeBenicia.org.

Roger Straw is a Benicia resident.

 

For safe and healthy communities…