Tag Archives: Lac-Megantic Quebec

Crude By Rail, Hazmat notification, Rail industry, Rail routing, Train speed

Railroads oppose some oil train safety measures

Repost from Politico

Documents: Railroads want to hit brakes on some oil train safeguards

By KATHRYN A. WOLFE | 6/13/14 5:08 AM EDT
A fireball goes up at the site of an oil train derailment in Casselton, North Dakota, on Dec. 20, 2013.
The report previews what the administration may be considering to stop crashes. | AP Photo: A fireball goes up at the site of an oil train derailment in Casselton, North Dakota, on Dec. 20, 2013.

The railroad industry is warning the White House against some potential safety rules for trains carrying explosive crude oil, saying freight and passenger rail traffic could be disrupted for years if companies must obey 30 mph speed limits, install more sophisticated brakes and keep the trains manned at all times.

The arguments, contained in documents posted after a meeting this week between railroad officials and the Office of Management and Budget, also offer a preview of what steps the Obama administration may be considering in response to oil train crashes that have struck the U.S. and Canada in the past year. Those include a disastrous July 6 explosion that killed 47 people in Lac-Mégantic, Quebec, after an engineer left a train packed with North Dakota crude oil parked on a steep incline with brakes that may not have been properly set.

The Department of Transportation declined to comment on the documents. DOT submitted a draft rule proposal to OMB in April but has offered no details about what’s in it.

Companies represented at Tuesday’s OMB meeting included the four major freight railroads — BNSF, Union Pacific, Norfolk Southern and CSX — as well as other industry groups and Amtrak, according to White House records.

While Amtrak doesn’t haul crude oil, a BNSF handout arguing against lower speed limits said the passenger rail’s travel schedules on one 1,815-mile route could be lengthened by two hours if oil trains’ top speeds are lowered to 30 mph from 50 mph. That route stretches between Aurora, Ill., and Spokane, Wash., which BNSF called its primary route for crude oil.

Slowdowns would cause “severe” impacts for the railroad’s operations, including both oil and grain shipments, BNSF said in the handout, calculating six-hour delays for freight trains along the same route. All told, the railroad said it would have to spend $2.8 billion to rebuild its lost shipping capacity during the next four years, while facing $630 million in additional annual expenses such as additional crew wages and lost productivity.

The Association of American Railroads, the freight railroad industry’s main trade group, offered a similar document on the speed limit issue.

None of the documents address the main issue people are expecting the DOT rule to address: increased safety requirements for the tanker cars that carry the oil.

Oil train traffic across the U.S. has increased 40-fold since 2008 because of booming production in places like North Dakota and western Canada. It’s also become an increasingly contentious issue for communities from California and Washington state to Albany, N.Y., and Lynchburg, Va.

The documents may not accurately reflect DOT’s undisclosed draft — the railroads may have been blindly making a case for what they don’t want to see happen. But they reveal that industry insiders have given thought to potential regulations that would go much further than the mostly voluntary measures DOT has imposed so far.

Earlier this year, DOT announced that railroads had voluntarily agreed to restrict some oil trains to 40 mph in certain populous areas.

But lowering the speed limit to 30 mph would harm “delivery capability” for BNSF’s oil customers, the railroad said in the document. To keep up with demand, it said, it would have to add an additional 11,280 tank cars to its crude oil fleet.

In the other documents posted on OMB’s website:

— A handout from CSX argues against requiring electronically controlled pneumatic braking systems, saying the technology is “expensive and only works if the entire train is equipped.” The company says the brakes would have “limited use and minimal safety impact.”

As part of an existing voluntary agreement between the industry and DOT, railroads agreed to equip all trains pulling 20 or more carloads of crude oil with other types of advanced braking systems — either distributed power or two-way telemetry end-of-train devices.

— And a final handout, whose authorship is unclear, argues against requiring that crude oil trains never be left unattended. It says “attending crude oil trains from origin to destination will increase congestion, require additional handling, and significantly drive up costs,” including $96 per hour for a two-person crew.

It also says that “appropriate securement and security measures are already in place to ensure safe movement of crude oil shipments.”

Bakken Crude, DOT-111, Federal Regulation (U.S.), Reid vapor pressure levels, Volatile gases

Oil field developer proposes to strip Bakken crude of volatile natural gas liquids

Repost from EnergyWire, E&E Publishing
[Editor: Two significant quotes: “We’re not really taking a position on the tank car rule.  All we’re saying is, in making the rule, please consider what’s going in the car in addition to the car itself.” and “‘Right now, they [American Petroleum Institute] are kind of the lone soldier among the players involved here saying volatility isn’t an issue.  Everyone else is saying, “We know it’s an issue — now we have to figure out how we solve it.”‘”  Well, one way to solve it is to leave the stuff in the ground and invest in renewable energy.  Duh.  – RS]

Oil groups line up at White House over tank car standards

Blake Sobczak  |  E&E News  |  Tuesday, June 10, 2014

Quantum Energy Inc. claims to have no position on proposed oil tank car standards — yet the oil field developer stopped by a White House office last week to discuss them anyway.

Russell Smith, Quantum’s executive vice president of public affairs, said he met with the small but influential Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs to make sure regulators knew about the company’s plans for “stabilizing” hot-to-handle crude from North Dakota’s Bakken Shale play.

Bakken crude has earned a volatile reputation after a string of oil train derailments and fires. A 72-car oil train jumped the tracks and exploded in downtown Lac-Mégantic, Quebec, last July, killing 47 people and prompting regulators to warn that Bakken crude may be less stable than other types.

The deadly crash also set the stage for the “comprehensive” oil-by-rail rulemaking package now weaving its way through OIRA, part of the Office of Management and Budget. White House records show several oil companies, refiners and industry groups have met with administration officials and transportation regulators to shape new standards for the type of DOT-111 tank car long faulted for its puncture-prone design.

“We’re not really taking a position on the tank car rule,” said Smith, who attended June 2’s meeting with lobbyists from FTI Consulting, OIRA representatives and Department of Transportation regulators. “All we’re saying is, in making the rule, please consider what’s going in the car in addition to the car itself.”

Smith’s company hopes to set up “21st-century energy centers” in North Dakota’s Williston Basin capable of stripping the most volatile natural gas liquids out of Bakken crude before the commodity is loaded onto rail cars.

Oil producers have contested claims that Bakken crude is more volatile than other types, and the North Dakota Petroleum Council has conducted tests that it says show the crude is safe (EnergyWire, May 21).

Last month the oil industry’s top lobbying group, the American Petroleum Institute, met with OIRA to air its views on tank car rules that could have a big impact in the Bakken, where well over 600,000 barrels of oil leaves the state daily by rail (EnergyWire, May 28). API said in a later statement that it is “critical” that the proposed rule should “achieve measurable safety improvements by using science and data to address accident prevention, mitigation and response.”

Since then, several refiners, chemical companies and trade groups, including the American Chemistry Council and the American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers (AFPM), have also met with OIRA about the tank car rules.

AFPM has conducted its own study of Bakken crude volatility and concluded even older-model DOT-111 rail tank cars can safely handle the oil, although the refining group detected Reid vapor pressure levels as high as 15.4 pounds per square inch (absolute) in some samples.

Reid vapor pressure offers a good indication of flammable gas content in a liquid such as crude. While 15.4 psi is well within even the oldest DOT-111 tank cars’ safe pressure capacity, AFPM said in its survey of Bakken crude characteristics that vapor pressures of 10 psi or lower “are in the best interests of AFPM members.”

Smith said Quantum intends to strip Bakken crude down to a Reid vapor pressure of 6 psi or lower and sell the separated gas liquids. The Tempe, Ariz.-based holding company also hopes to set up five micro-refineries modeled after a new joint project run by MDU Resources Group Inc. and Calumet Specialty Products Partners (EnergyWire, April 11, 2013). Once completed, that diesel facility will mark the first new refinery built in the United States in nearly 40 years.

“Since we’re stabilizing [Bakken oil] upstream of our refineries, our refineries will actually be receiving ‘stripped’ crude,” Smith said. “With a reasonably small increase in investment, we could be capable of stripping every drop of oil coming out of the Bakken.”

The API said in a statement that “NGL removal is among the topics being considered by the experts who are developing with [the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration’s] participation the new standard for classifying, handling, and transporting crude by rail, and API intends to review their work on the issue before taking a position.”

API has repeatedly emphasized that Bakken crude poses no greater risk than other light oil varieties, a position Smith called “short-sighted.”

“Right now, they are kind of the lone soldier among the players involved here saying [volatility] isn’t an issue,” Smith said of API. “Everyone else is saying, ‘We know it’s an issue — now we have to figure out how we solve it.'”

Blake Sobczak

Reporter, EnergyWire

bsobczak@eenews.net

202-446-0400 (p)

202-737-5299 (f)

@BlakeSobczak (Twitter)

Environment & Energy Publishing, LLC

122 C St. NW, Suite 722, Washington, DC 20001

www.eenews.net

www.eenews.tv

EnergyWire, ClimateWire, E&E Daily, Greenwire, E&ENews PM, E&ETV

About Quantum Energy, Inc.

QUANTUM ENERGY, INC. is a development stage, publicly traded, diversified holding company with offices in Williston, North Dakota. Quantum places an emphasis in refinery development, land holdings, oil and gas exploration, drilling, well completion and fuel distribution www.quantum-e.com.

Bakken Crude, Local Regulation, Tesoro

Vancouver City Council votes to oppose crude oil train terminal – “unacceptable risks”

Repost from ThinkProgress

Washington City Rejects Massive Oil Train Project, Citing ‘Unacceptable Risks’

By Emily Atkin June 4, 2014

Flanked by hundreds of concerned residents, the City Council of Vancouver in southwestern Washington State voted early Tuesday morning to formally oppose what would be the Pacific Northwest’s largest crude oil train terminal, saying the project poses “unacceptable risks” to the city’s population of 160,000.

The council’s decision came after six hours of testimony from more than 100 residents, most of them opposed to Tesoro Corp.’s plan to develop a large train terminal at the Port of Vancouver, which would receive up to 380,000 barrels of North Dakotan crude oil per day and transfer it to ships bound for West Coast refineries. That amount of oil, which would come through the city on four separate unit trains per day, is just less than half the daily amount that would be transported by the controversial Keystone XL pipeline.

“The Council’s opposition … [is] due to the unacceptable risks posed to the citizens of Vancouver by the terminal and the related transportation of Bakken crude oil through the city,” the resolution, passed 5-2, reads.

The broad, non-binding resolution opposing Tesoro’s proposal also included language that formally opposes any proposal that would result in an increase of crude oil from North Dakota’s Bakken shale being hauled through Clark County. Last July, 47 people were killed in Lac-Megantic, Quebec, when a train carrying Bakken crude derailed. The U.S. Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration has warned Bakken crude could be more flammable than regular oil, due to either its unique properties or because of added chemicals from the hydraulic fracturing process used to extract it.

The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) also recently made recommendations that crude oil trains stay far away from urban population centers, citing the increasing rate of fiery accidents involving crude oil trains.

Vancouver Mayor Tim Leavitt and Councilor Bill Turlay were the two that voted no against the proposal, with Leavitt saying he didn’t want to make a “political statement” against a single project without having all the facts.

“It’s kind of like back in the Old West, [when] Judge Roy Bean said, ‘We’re going to have a fair trial and hang the guilty bastard’,” Turlay said, according to a report in the Columbian. “Now, that’s not exactly how I want to present this.”

Turlay and Leavitt did join the other councilors in voting for a resolution that would allow the city to actually have a say in the decision-making process over Tesoro’s proposed project. That resolution allowing intervention in the decision-making process gives Vancouver officials the right to present evidence against the project and appeal any decision, which will ultimately be made by the state’s sitting governor, currently Gov. Jay Inslee.

Bakken Crude, Crude By Rail, Derailment, Environmental Impacts, Federal Regulation (U.S.), Massive increase in crude-by-rail, Tar sands crude

Vermont: catastrophic risk to Lake Champlain

Repost from Lake Look, a publication of Lake Champlain Committee
[Editor: An excellent and thorough look at crude oil train derailment risks in and around Lake Champlain.  – RS]

Rail transport of oil poses risk to Lake Champlain

By Lake Champlain Committee Staff Scientist Mike Winslow   |  April, 2014
An oil train rolls south along the shores of Lake Champlain. Photo by Frank Jolin

The sound of trains clacking along the rails that abut Lake Champlain has become more common recently with the dramatic increase in freight traffic attributed to fossil fuel extraction. Each week approximately 60 million gallons of oil travel along the lake carried by 20 trains with up to 100 cars each. The U.S. now meets 66 percent of its crude oil demand from production in North America with tremendous growth in outputs from Canada and the Bakken oil fields of North Dakota. In October 2013 U.S. crude oil production exceeded imports for the first time since February 1995.

Oil produced from the Bakken fields is very light. That means it flows easily, but it also means it is more volatile and flammable. As a result, the potential property damage and loss of life associated with rail accidents involving Bakken oil is higher than oil from other sources. In January of this year two federal agencies issued a safety alert warning of these risks.

The alert was triggered by a series of devastating accidents. The Federal Railroad Administration statistics suggest that on average at least one car slips off the tracks every day. There have been six major derailments between the beginning of 2013 and mid-January 2014. The most infamous occurred on July 5, 2013, in Lac Megantic, Quebec. An improperly secured train began rolling on its own, and 63 cars derailed near the center of town. Derailment led to multiple explosions and fires, evacuation of 2,000 people, and 47 fatalities. On Oct. 19, 2013, 13 tank cars derailed in Alberta leading to evacuation of 100 residents. Three cars carrying propane burned following an explosion. On Nov. 8, 2013, 30 cars derailed in a wetland near Aliceville, Ala., and about a dozen were decimated by fire. On Dec. 30, 2013, two trains, one carrying grain and one oil, collided in Casselton, N.D. Twenty of the oil train cars derailed and exploded leading to evacuation of 1,400 people. On Jan. 7, 2014, 17 cars derailed in New Brunswick and five exploded leading to evacuation of 45 people. On Jan. 20, 2014, seven cars derailed on a bridge over the Schuylkill River in Philadelphia, though no oil leaked. More recently, 15-17 cars derailed in Lynchburg, Va., on April 30. Three fell into the James River and one burst into flames. There were no injuries but 300-350 people had to be evacuated and oil leaked into the James River. The state estimated 20,000 to 25,000 gallons escaped during the wreck.

Our region is no stranger to train derailments. In 2007, a northbound Vermont Railways freight train derailed in Middlebury spilling gasoline into Otter Creek and leading to the evacuation of 30 streets in the vicinity. Trains have also derailed along the Lake Champlain route. In 2007, 12 cars derailed near Route 22 in Essex, N.Y., the same stretch of tracks now carrying volatile oil.

Concern over the state of North American freight rail safety predates the increase in oil shipments. In 2006 the Toronto Star ran a five-part series on rail safety. They noted “Canadian freight trains are running off the rails in near record numbers and spilling toxic fluids at an alarming rate, but only a tiny fraction of the accidents are ever investigated.”

In contrast to Bakken field oil, tar sands oil is very heavy. Cleanup of tar sands oil following accidents is extremely difficult. The oil sinks rather than floating, making containment very difficult.

The greatly increased traffic in oil has further strained railroad infrastructure. According to an article in Pacific Standard Magazine, 85 percent of the 92,000 tank cars that haul flammable liquids around the nation are standard issue DOT-111s. They have been referred to as “Pepsi cans on wheels.” These cars are built to carry liquids, but lack specialized safety features found in pressurized tanks used for hauling explosive liquids. The industry has agreed to include additional safety features in any new cars put on the tracks, but since rail cars have an economic life of 30 to 40 years, conversion to the newer cars has been slow.

One relatively new risk is the predominance of “unit trains.” These are long series of cars all shipped from the same originating point to the same destination. Often the cars will all carry the same product. It used to be that oil cars were mixed in with other freight cars bound for different locations. Unit trains are a greater risk in part because safety standards are based on the carrying capacity of a single car and don’t account for the greater volumes that unit trains can transport. The National Transportation Safety Board, an independent federal agency charged with investigating accidents, has called on the Federal Railroad Administration to change this standard.

Recently, an oil company submitted plans to build an oil heating facility in Albany, N.Y. The facility would be used to heat oil shipped via rail. The oil would then be transferred to barges and floated to refineries. If permitted, a heating facility would draw increased transport of Canadian tar sands, which needs to be diluted or heated for loading or unloading, through the Lake Champlain region. In contrast to Bakken field oil, tar sands oil is very heavy. Cleanup of tar sands oil following accidents is extremely difficult. The oil sinks rather than floating, making containment very difficult. When a pipeline carrying tar sands oil broke near Kalamazoo, Mich., 850,000 gallons spilled. The resulting cleanup cost over $1 billion and costs were “substantially higher than the average cost of cleaning up a similar amount of conventional oil,” according to a report prepared by the Congressional Research Service.

In November of 2013, the New York Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) declared the proposed facility would have no significant environmental impacts. However, public outrage led them to reconsider that declaration, expand the public comment period, and seek additional information from the proponents. Still, the additional requested information only touches the tip of the facility’s impacts on the region. The facility should undergo a full environmental impact review that includes potential impacts on freight shipping throughout the region including along Lake Champlain.

The increased risk associated with more oil transport along Lake Champlain and in the region seemed to catch regulators by surprise, but they are reacting now. On Jan. 28, N.Y. Gov. Andrew Cuomo issued an executive order directing several state agencies to do a top-to-bottom review of safety procedures and emergency response preparedness related to rail shipments of oil. On Feb. 26, Sen. Schumer called for the phase-out of all DOT-111 rail cars and reduction in rail speed limits in heavily populated areas. On March 4, Cuomo sent a letter to the secretaries of the departments of Homeland Security and Transportation urging them to expedite and strengthen rail safety standards, require reporting by railroad companies of derailments, increase inspections and identify and track rail cars carrying crude oil. On April 10, the DEC issued a joint press release with EPA and the Coast Guard committing the agencies to enhance emergency preparedness and response capabilities for potential crude oil incidents. On April 30, Gov. Cuomo wrote a letter calling on President Barack Obama to prioritize federal actions to reduce risks of future train derailments.

Delays by the Federal Railroad Administration in updating standards to reflect the greatly increased traffic of potentially explosive Bakken crude oil all around the country puts people, communities, Lake Champlain and other waterways at risk. The administration needs to act before another disaster like what occurred in Lac Megantic occurs here or elsewhere. Train whistles echoing off the lake should elicit wistful thoughts of faraway places, not shudders of dread.

Lake Look is a monthly natural history column produced by the Lake Champlain Committee (LCC). Formed in 1963, LCC is the only bi-state organization solely dedicated to protecting Lake Champlain’s health and accessibility. LCC uses science-based advocacy, education, and collaborative action to protect and restore water quality, safeguard natural habitats, foster stewardship and ensure recreational access.