Tag Archives: American Association of Railroads

Bakken Crude, Crude By Rail, DOT-111, Export of North American crude, Oil stabilization, Reid vapor pressure levels, Tar sands crude, Train speed, Volatile gases

Regulators Ignore One Proven Way to Eliminate Bakken Bomb Trains: Oil Stabilization

Repost from DeSmogBlog

Regulators Ignore One Proven Way to Eliminate Bakken Bomb Trains: Oil Stabilization

Justin Mikulka, 2014-08-08

On the same day that the Obama administration released long-awaited new safety regulations for the oil-by-rail industry, the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) released another report with their testing results for Bakken crude oil. The conclusion reached by PHMSA is that Bakken crude oil “is more volatile than most other types of crude.”

These results don’t come as a surprise since the five oil trains that have crashed and exploded in the last year all were carrying Bakken crude.

Of course, the new regulations released simultaneously do not require the oil industry to do the one thing that would eliminate this problem: oil stabilization.  A well known and proven method for removing the natural gas liquids from crude oil that makes the oil “stable” and non-explosive.

While the new regulations do not offer any proposals to require the oil industry to remove the volatile components of Bakken crude, on page 144 of the proposal they do acknowledge that this is possible. They request comments on the following question:

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?

Essentially they are acknowledging that if the industry stabilized the oil it wouldn’t be explosive and thus they would be able to continue to use the existing DOT-111 rail cars to transport it. Just like those tank cars will be able to transport Alberta tar sands oil because it is not explosive.

The week before the release of the new regulations, the American Petroleum Institute and the American Association of Railroads released a joint statement stating that they were in agreement on two things that shouldn’t be part of the finalized new regulations — lower train speeds and mandatory stabilization. And while the proposed regulations do offer some requirements for lower trains speeds, they include nothing about mandatory stabilization.

In May, Myron Goforth, the president of Dew Point Control LLC, a manufacturer of stabilization equipment put the situation in simple terms for Reuters.

“It’s very easy to stabilize the crude – it just takes money,” Goforth said. “The producer doesn’t want to pay for it if he can ship it without doing it.”

So without regulations to require the stabilization of Bakken crude, the public will be put at risk so that the oil companies can make higher profits. And with the new proposed regulations, the regulators have made it clear they will not stand in the way of Big Oil to keep the people safe.

The good news for the public is that Big Oil’s greed might actually lead to them having to stabilize Bakken crude.

There is currently a major lobbying effort by the oil industry to lift the ban on exporting American crude oil. And in order to ship the oil to other countries, the oil companies may be required to stabilize the Bakken crude. One industry analyst recently commented to Platts on what would happen if stabilization was required for export.

“You could stabilize and go. You’d still have to put it into rail cars and ship it to the coast, but at least you’d be selling it at a global market price instead of at the WTI discount. Who wouldn’t do that? Everybody would do it.”

It isn’t like the regulators weren’t aware of this possibility before they put out the new proposed regulations for oil by rail. In the many private meetings held at the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) prior to the release of the regulations, one company stood out from the oil and rail companies making up the majority of the meetings: Quantum Energy Ltd.

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.

Higher RVP correlates to higher volatility and explosiveness.

The last slide in the Quantum presentation shows that “post stabilization” Bakken crude would have a RVP of 1.5 – 6 psi.

So why was an energy company arguing the case for stabilization to OIRA prior to the new regulations? Because they are in the stabilization business and they are getting ready for the export ban to be lifted.

Russell Smith, executive vice president for Quantum, explained their position to Platt’s prior to the release of the new regulations.

“We’re not advocating if they do or if they don’t [require stabilization]. Quite frankly, we don’t care. Our business plan is centered around exportability.”

It appears that the safety of the people located within the blast zones of the bomb trains will not ultimately be addressed by regulators until the oil can be shipped to other countries, at which point they will require the oil to be stabilized to reduce the risk of explosions.

As the analyst said, “Who wouldn’t do that? Everybody would do it.”

Image credit: Lac-Megantic deadly oil-by-rail disaster, via Shutterstock.

 

Bakken Crude, Crude By Rail, DOT-111, Ethanol, Federal Regulation (U.S.), Train speed

DOT proposes stricter oil train safety rules

Repost from Politico

DOT proposes stricter oil train safety rules

By Kathryn A. Wolfe  | 7/23/14
Anthony Foxx is pictured. | M.Scott Mahaskey/POLITICO
Anthony Foxx’s announcement follows a year-long spree of oil train crashes. | M.Scott Mahaskey/POLITICO

The Obama administration on Wednesday announced its long-awaited proposal to improve the safety of oil trains, a step meant to address a series of fiery derailments that have raised fears about the dark side of the North American energy boom.

The proposed rules include mandates for phasing out older, less-sturdy rail tank cars during the next two to five years, tightened speed limits, improved brakes and steps to address concerns that crude oil produced in North Dakota’s Bakken region is unusually volatile or flammable. The rules also include provisions that would affect the shipment of ethanol, another flammable liquid frequently transported by rail.

“We need a new world order on how this stuff moves,” Transportation Secretary Anthony Foxx told reporters in making the announcement.

“More crude oil is being shipped by rail than ever before,” Foxx said. “If America is going to be a world leader in producing energy, our job at this department is to ensure that we’re also a world leader in safely transporting it.”

The details of the White House-vetted proposal had been the subject of fierce lobbying by the oil industry, which maintains that Bakken crude doesn’t pose unusual dangers, and the railroads, which have long called for tougher tank-car standards but objected to calls for reduced speed limits. The rules would offer both industries incentives to go along — for instance, oil trains meeting the toughened standards for crashworthiness and brakes could travel as fast as 50 mph in all areas, while those that don’t could be limited to 30 mph or 40 mph.

“The fact that the proposed rule incorporates several of the voluntary operating practices we have already implemented demonstrates the railroad industry’s ongoing commitment to rail safety,” Ed Hamberger, CEO of the Association of American Railroads, said in a statement Wednesday. “We look forward to providing data-driven analyses of the impacts various provisions of the proposal will have on both freight customers and passenger railroads that ship millions of tons of goods and serve millions of commuters and travelers across the nationwide rail network every day.”

The American Petroleum Institute initially said it would review the proposal, but it later blasted out a statement rejecting “speculation by the Department of Transportation” about the safety of transporting Bakken crude.

“Multiple studies have shown that Bakken crude is similar to other crudes,” CEO Jack Gerard said. “DOT needs to get this right and make sure that its regulations are grounded in facts and sound science, not speculation.”

The DOT proposal drew initial praise from lawmakers, along with some calls to go further.

Wednesday’s rollout followed months of interim rules and voluntary agreements with the railroad and oil industries. It also came after a year-long spree of oil train crashes in communities from Quebec and North Dakota to western Pennsylvania, rural Alabama and Lynchburg, Virginia — including one that killed 47 people in the Canadian town of Lac-Mégantic last July.

Even without any fatalities so far in the U.S., oil train accidents in 2014 have already shattered records for property damage, based on POLITICO’s review of data from the federal Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration. As of late May — a month after the Lynchburg derailment — the damage toll exceeded $10 million through mid-May, nearly triple the damage for all of 2013. The number of incidents at that point in the year — 70 — was also on pace to set a record.

Oil trains have also inspired local opposition in communities from Albany, New York, to Washington state and the San Francisco Bay area, where residents expressed alarm at finding that they had become key way stations in a network of virtual pipelines that carry oil from production hot spots like North Dakota and western Canada.

Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) urged DOT to see that the rules are “finalized, implemented and enforced as soon as possible.”

“These desperately needed safety regulations will phase out the aged and explosion-prone … tanker cars that are hauling endless streams of highly flammable crude oil through communities across the country and New York,” Schumer said in a statement Wednesday.

Sen. John Hoeven (R-N.D.) said the proposal “appears to be comprehensive,” adding that “we will continue to review these proposed standards to ensure they are workable and will keep our communities safe.”

But Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.) who chairs the Appropriations subcommittee overseeing DOT, said in a statement that “there is still more work to be done, by both regulators and industry.”

“I’m pleased that the proposed regulations address issues I outlined in the 2015 transportation spending bill, like enhanced rail tank car standards and improved classification of flammable liquids, that are much-needed steps to improve the safety of our rail system,” Murray said.

Bakken Crude, Crude By Rail, DEIR, Fire, Hazmat notification, Massive increase in crude-by-rail, Oil spill, Rail routing, Train speed, Valero Benicia Refinery

Sacramento Bee – Report minimizes risk from oil trains through Roseville, Sacramento

Repost from The Sacramento Bee

Report minimizes risk from oil trains through Roseville, Sacramento

By Tony Bizjak and Curtis Tate The Sacramento Bee   |  Jun. 17, 2014
A crude oil train operated by BNSF travels just outside the Feather River Canyon in the foothills into the Sacramento Valley. Jake Miille / Special to The Bee

A much-anticipated report released Tuesday offered new details and some controversial safety conclusions about a Bay Area oil company’s plan to run crude-oil trains daily through Roseville and Sacramento to Benicia.

Valero Refining Co., which operates a sweeping plant on a hillside overlooking Suisun Bay, plans to transport crude oil from undisclosed North American oil fields on two 50-car trains every 24 hours through the Sacramento region to the Benicia site. One would run at night and the other in the middle of the day to minimize conflicts with Capitol Corridor passenger trains, which share the same line.

If the project is approved, Valero would begin shipments later this year or early next year. The trains would cut through downtown Roseville, Sacramento and Davis, and pass within a quarter-mile of 27 schools, 11 of them in Sacramento, according to the draft environmental impact report, which was commissioned by the city of Benicia, lead agency on the project.

In findings that already are provoking debate, authors of the draft report concluded that the shipments would not constitute a significant safety risk for communities along the rail route because those trains are very unlikely to crash or spill their oil.

“Although the consequences of a release are potentially severe, the likelihood of such a release is very low,” wrote the report’s author, Environmental Science Associates of San Francisco. The report notes that safety steps by federal officials and railroad associations, such as slower train speeds through some urban areas and more track inspections, already are reducing the chance of crashes.

A spill risk assessment included in the report calculates the probability of a spill of 100 gallons or more in the 69 miles between Roseville and Benicia as occurring only once every 111 years. The key report section regarding impact on up-rail cities, including Sacramento, Davis, West Sacramento and Roseville, concludes: “Mitigation: None required.”

Several local Sacramento leaders on Tuesday said they had not yet read the Benicia report, which runs hundreds of pages, but that they weren’t soothed by a declaration that oil spills are unlikely.

Mike Webb, director of community development and sustainability in Davis, said the assessment misses a frightening reality for people living along the rail line: “It only needs to happen once to be a real problem.”

Across North America, six major crude-oil train crashes in the last year resulted in 2.8 million gallons of oil spilled, some of it causing explosions and forcing evacuations. The worst of those occurred last July in Lac-Megantic, Canada, where a runaway Bakken train crashed, spilling 1.6 million gallons of crude and fueling an explosion that killed 47 people and leveled part of that city’s downtown.

State Sen. Jerry Hill, D-San Mateo, introduced a bill last week to charge the oil industry a rail-related fee to pay for safety measures. In an interview earlier this week, he said he believes “it is not a matter of will (a spill) happen, it’s when. We have to be prepared.”

The debate over the Valero project is part of a growing discussion nationally about crude oil safety, prompted by increased pumping in recent years of less-expensive crude oil from Canada and the Bakken fields of North Dakota.

The surge in extracting North American oil is enabling some companies, such as Valero, to reduce reliance on overseas shipments of foreign oil. At the same time, it has caused a dramatic increase in the number of trains crisscrossing the country, pulling 100 cars or more of flammable crude through downtowns, with almost no notice to the public and minimal warning to local fire departments.

The debate was heightened by a federal warning earlier this year that Bakken crude may be more volatile than other crudes, and by federal concerns that the fleet of train tanker cars in use nationally is inadequate to safely transport crude oils. Last week, Gov. Jerry Brown’s administration issued a report saying California is behind in taking steps to protect cities and habitat from potential oil spills given the increase in crude oil shipments.

The draft environmental impact report released Tuesday does not state whether Valero will be transporting Bakken crude to Benicia. Valero has declined to disclose publicly exactly which crude oils it will ship. But the report lists Bakken as one of the lighter crudes Valero could ship.

The U.S. Department of Transportation is considering amending tank car design standards in light of concerns raised by recent fiery spills. Valero officials say they already have purchased some tank cars that have more safety features than most rail cars in use nationally. Valero spokesman Chris Howe said his company would expect to phase in retrofits of those cars, depending on what the federal government ultimately requires.

In California, the Valero crude-by-rail project is one of a handful planned by refineries. Another by Phillips 66 in Santa Maria likely will involve crude oil shipments through Sacramento. Several Kern County refineries also are adjusting or planning to retrofit their sites to receive crude shipments by rail. Trains last year began delivering crude oil to a transfer station at McClellan Park in Sacramento.

Rail companies are insisting that details of those shipments not be disclosed to the public, saying they are worried about security issues and don’t want to divulge “trade secrets” to competitors.

Local officials, including fire chiefs, recently have said they want to know more about the Valero project in particular. The Davis City Council has passed a resolution saying it does not want the shipments to come through the existing UP line in downtown.

Sacramento Rep. Doris Matsui, responding to questions by email Tuesday, expressed concern as well. “As the number of cars coming through Sacramento increases, it is clear that our risk also increases,” she wrote.

Webb, the Davis community development director, said representatives from Sacramento area cities will meet in two weeks to discuss the Benicia environmental report. Several local officials have said they would like Valero and UP to work with them on safety measures, including more communication about train movements and hazardous materials training.

The Benicia report declines to specify the routes trains may take to get from oil fields to Roseville, saying that any potential routes beyond Roseville are speculative. The most likely routes, according to people knowledgeable about rail movements, are through the Sacramento Valley via Dunsmuir and Redding, as well as over Donner Summit or through the Feather River Canyon.

The conclusion that an oil spill between Roseville and Benicia is a once-in-111-years event was made by Christopher Barkan, an expert on hazardous rail transport at the University of Illinois who did a risk assessment attached to the draft environmental impact report. Barkan previously worked for the American Association of Railroads, the industry’s leading advocacy group in Washington, and does research supported by the railroad association, according to his institute’s website.

Barkan, in an email, said his work for Benicia was not influenced by his relationships with the railroad association.

“The AAR had nothing to do with this project,” he wrote. “Whenever I am approached about conducting projects such as this, I discuss any potential conflicts of interest with other sponsors, as I did in this case, and it was mutually agreed that there was none … My role is to apply the best data and analytical methods possible to assess risk, irrespective of the sponsor.”

Benicia city officials did not respond to a request for comment Tuesday. The draft EIR will be circulated for public comment this summer. Those comments will be incorporated into a final environmental document, to be voted on by the Benicia City Council. The council has the authority to approve changes at Valero’s plant to allow the oil company to begin rail shipments.

Howe, the Valero spokesman, complimented the city of Benicia on “the thoroughness and detail” of the report.

“We are reviewing the material published today and will be developing comments as part of the process. We look forward to working with the community and the city of Benicia toward completion of this important project.”