Tag Archives: Tar sands crude

Bakken Crude, Crude By Rail, Derailment, Explosion, Federal Regulation (U.S.), Fire, Massive increase in crude-by-rail, Oil stabilization, Tank car design, Tar sands crude, Volatility

NPR Interview: Another Train Derailment Raises New Concerns About The Safety Of Transporting Crude Oil

Repost from WAMU, American University Radio – The Diane Rehm Show
[Editor: In this lengthy and informative audio, Diane Rehm interviews Anthony Swift, NRDC; Cynthia Quarterman, Atlantic Council (former Administrator of the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration); Dina Cappiello, Associated Press; and Edward Hamburger, Association of American Railroads. Unfortunately, I am unable to embed The Diane Rehm Show here.  To listen to this 51-minute interview, go to the Diane Rehm Show.  – RS]

Another Train Derailment Raises New Concerns About The Safety Of Transporting Crude Oil

The Diane Rehm Show, Mon, Mar 09, 2015
Firefighters and rescue workers work along the tracks where several CSX tanker cars carrying crude oil derailed and caught fire in April 2014 along the James River near downtown in Lynchburg, Va.
Firefighters and rescue workers work along the tracks where several CSX tanker cars carrying crude oil derailed and caught fire in April 2014 along the James River near downtown in Lynchburg, Va. AP Photo/Steve Helber

Fueled by the shale oil boom in North Dakota and Montana, trains now carry more than 500,000 carloads of oil and ethanol to coastal refineries. Now, a series of fiery train derailments in the U.S. and Canada is raising public safety concerns. On Saturday, a train crashed in Ontario, leaking oil into a nearby waterway. Here in the U.S., another train derailed last week in Illinois, causing evacuations and fire damage. Safety advocates say rail cars carrying oil need to meet tougher design standards and lower speed limits. Shippers argue that stricter measures are costly and risks are exaggerated. We look at the rise in oil train derailments and what can be done to prevent them.

Guests

  • Anthony Swift attorney with the Natural Resources Defense Council.
  • Cynthia Quarterman distinguished senior fellow, The Atlantic Council; former administrator of the U.S. Department of Transportation’s Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA)
  • Ed Hamberger president and CEO, Association of American Railroads.
  • Dina Cappiello national environment and energy reporter, The Associated Press.
CPC-1232, Crude By Rail, Derailment, DOT-111, Explosion, Federal Regulation (U.S.), Fire, Tar sands crude, Train speed

How many explosions before we stop crude-by-rail?

Repost from Oil Change International

How many explosions before we stop crude-by-rail?

Matt Maiorana, March 13, 2015

This past Saturday, it happened again. A train carrying highly volatile crude oil, in this case tar sands crude from Alberta, derailed in Ontario and caught fire, damaging a bridge in the blaze. This is the fourth time in as many weeks an oil train has derailed and caught fire or exploded.

That’s right, there have been FOUR oil train derailments in North America over the past month. Here’s what that looks like:

rail-blog v1

There’s clear outrage at the local level, but, so far, political action in Washington has been nearly nonexistent. Worse, some recent reports suggest the Obama administration ‘balked’ at dealing with the problem when considering it last year.

Government Inaction

The White House is the responsible party here and it’s time this issue be given the level of attention it deserves by President Obama. It has been 20 months since the tragedy in Lac-Mégantic, but the President seems content pushing paper around while meeting with industry representatives.

As recently as last week dozens of industry representatives met with White House officials downplaying the need for strict safety regulations while an oil train in Illinois was still burning.

As it stands, draft safety standards put forth by the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), a part of the Department of Transportation, are awaiting final approval by the Obama Administration.

These new rules are a potentially important step, but the recent accidents make it clear even upgraded safety won’t be enough. All four accidents happened with “safer” oil tank cars, not the DOT-111 tankers widely known to be dangerous — and there are no reports any of the trains were going above the speed limit.

President Obama should adopt the strictest possible safety standards, but, at the end of the day, the only safe place for this oil is in the ground — we simply can’t afford to burn it for climate reasons and there’s no good way to transport it.

These Were No Minor Accidents

Let’s take a look at the recent derailments and why this past month demands more of a public response from Washington than it has received thus far:

  1. February 14, Ontario #1:
    • The train was going within the speed limit
    • The train was hauling newer model tank cars (CPC-1232s)
    • The train was carrying tar sands crude
    • The resulting fire destroyed 900 feet of track and burned for 6 days
  2. February 16, West Virginia:
    • The train was going within the speed limit
    • The train was hauling newer model tank cars (CPC-1232s)
    • The train was carrying Bakken oil
    • There were multiple massive explosions
    • The fires burned for days
    • Hundreds of families were evacuated and one person nearly lost his life
  3. March 5, Illinois:
    • The train was going within the speed limit
    • The train was hauling newer model tank cars (CPC-1232s)
    • The train was carrying Bakken oil
    • The fire burned for days
    • Firefighters could only access the derailment site by a bike path
  4. March 7, Ontario #2:
    • The train was going within the speed limit
    • The train was hauling newer model tank cars (CPC-1232s)
    • The train was carrying tar sands crude
    • Canadian National Railway Co. is building a new 1,500ft track of railroad around the burning train wreckage. Seriously.

It is clear from this most recent spate of accidents that neither “safer” tank cars or the current speed limits are limiting the threat crude-by-rail poses to our communities. But that wasn’t the only lesson to be taken from these derailments. The other, just as significant, is that transporting tar sands isn’t necessarily safer than transporting Bakken crude — which we explain in detail in our recent blog post.

Up until now it had been widely believed that tar sands crude wasn’t as explosive or combustible as the oil coming from the Bakken region in North Dakota. The recent accidents have blown this assumption to pieces.

The New Normal?

If the oil industry gets its way, accidents like these will become the new normal. The Department of Transportation itself has found that crude oil trains are likely to derail an average of 10 times a year over the next two decades — and that’s a conservative estimate made with old data. This would cause more than $4 billion in damage and possibly kill HUNDREDS.

This is a government agency saying hundreds of people might die in fiery explosions because of the greed of a few private corporations, yet there has been little action taken to slow or stop the oil industry’s efforts.

Communities Take A Stand

While exploding oil trains are a frightening proposition, none of this should suggest pipelines are any better. Choosing between one or the other, as many oil insiders have suggested is necessary, is like choosing to get hit by a bus or a truck.

What’s needed is an urgent and rapid transition to renewable energy that doesn’t devastate the landscape, trample on indigenous and community rights, or cook the planet. Put simply: we need to keep the oil in the ground.

That’s the message President Obama needs to hear. While he considers the best course of action on the proposed PHMSA rules, it’s important for him to know that communities all over the country are rising up and taking a stand.

In some places they’re already winning, blocking oil terminals and getting in the way of proposed expansions.

Near Seattle, local organizers won a victory over Shell, which wants to build an oil train terminal to supply its Anacortes refinery. Shell’s plans now require a full-blown environmental review. And in California, communities are standing in the way of terminal expansions across the state.  (See  here, here and here.)

Even Governors, like Pennsylvania’s Tom Wolf, are asking the federal government for stronger oil train safety standards.

Our message is simple. If transporting oil can’t be done safely, don’t do it. Keep it in the ground. It’s time for President Obama to take this issue seriously and put in place a moratorium on all crude-by-rail shipments until community and climate safety can be guaranteed.

Derailments like the four over the past month are what an “All of the Above” energy strategy looks like and we’re not going to take it.

–––

Update: While writing this article, another oil train derailed in Manitoba. Information is still coming out about this latest accident, though it appears to be smaller in scale. Still, that makes FIVE derailments involving trains carrying crude oil or refined oil products in under a month.

Bakken Crude, Crude By Rail, Derailment, Explosion, Massive increase in crude-by-rail, Tank car design, Tar sands crude

Rail industry: Recent train derailments are not a sign of deteriorating safety record

Repost from The Financial Post
[Editor:  Read this if you want to hear rail and transportation managers squirm.  Best quote: “If you ship 10 times as much crude oil, you’ll get 10 times more derailments.”   To which one might answer, “Yep.”  – RS]

Recent train derailments are not a sign of deteriorating safety record, say analysts

By Kristine Owram, Mar 12 5:42 PM ET
Four separate oil trains — two in Ontario and two in the United States — have derailed and caught fire in the past month and in each case the tank cars met what are supposed to be tougher, safer standards.
Four separate oil trains — two in Ontario and two in the United States — have derailed and caught fire in the past month and in each case the tank cars met what are supposed to be tougher, safer standards. THE CANADIAN PRESS/HO – Glenn Thibeault

A recent spate of train derailments is not a sign that the industry’s safety record is deteriorating, but is rather “the bad luck of the stats,” analysts say.

A Canadian National Railway Co. train derailed near Brandon, Man., on Wednesday night, joining two other high-profile incidents involving CN trains in less than a month.

CN spokesman Brent Kossey said the cars were carrying refinery cracking stock, a non-regulated commodity that’s used in the petroleum refining process. One of the 13 cars that derailed sprung a leak, but there was no fire.

This is in contrast to two CN derailments near the community of Gogama, Ont., in the past month, both of which were carrying crude oil and caught fire. There have also been two fiery oil-train derailments in the U.S. since mid-February — one a BNSF Railway Co. train in northern Illinois and the other a CSX Corp. train in West Virginia.

It sounds like an alarming trend but analysts say it’s simply the inevitable result of the growing volumes of crude transported by rail, as well as increased scrutiny of the industry following the Lac-Mégantic, Que., disaster in 2013.

“Last year was the safest year on record,” Tony Hatch, principal at railway consulting firm ABH Consulting, said in an interview. “I think what you’re seeing is intense scrutiny and the bad luck of the stats.”

According to the National Energy Board, the volume of Canadian crude-by-rail exports has increased by 1,000% in less than three years, from 1.45 million barrels in the first quarter of 2012 to 15.95 million in the fourth quarter of 2014.

“If you ship 10 times as much crude oil, you’ll get 10 times more derailments,” Allan Zarembski, director of the railroad engineering and safety program at the University of Delaware, said in an interview.

He added that an oil-train is no more likely to derail than any other type of train.

“The oil trains aren’t heavier than a coal train or an iron-ore train or even a grain train,” he said.

“They’re all loaded to the same range, they don’t travel any faster — in fact, they travel somewhat slower than the heavy intermodal trains. There’s no particular reason why you should have more derailments associated with an oil train.”

The industry’s safety record has been steadily improving over the last several years thanks to new technology, said Russell Quimby, a former rail safety engineer with the U.S. National Transportation Safety Board and president of Quimby Consulting.

“In the last 20 years, the amount of detection and inspection technology introduced and implemented is tremendous,” Mr. Quimby said. “The accident statistics reflect that.”

According to the Transportation Safety Board, a total of 83 main-track derailments were reported in 2013, down 6% from the five-year average.

Transport Canada is also working to reduce the risk of fires and spills. The agency proposed Wednesday a new standard for the tank cars used to ship crude that will include thicker steel, insulation to protect the contents from fire and a shield to guard against punctures, among other things. If the measures are approved, older tank cars will be phased out by 2025.

“While we have already banned the least crash-resistant tank cars from the system and came out last year with tougher new regulations, we will continue to do more,” Transport Minister Lisa Raitt said in a statement. The minister has also called on CN to testify before the Transport Committee about the recent derailments.

But as long as crude is being shipped by rail, there will always be a risk of fiery derailments, Mr. Quimby said.

“You want to have zero accidents,” Mr. Quimby said. “It’s like flying. Statistically, flying is safer than driving but it’s not safer if you happen to be in the airplane that goes down.”

Bakken Crude, Canadian regulation, CPC-1232, Crude By Rail, Federal Regulation (U.S.), Tank car design, Tar sands crude, Train braking systems, Train speed

Canada proposes tough new oil tank standards after string of crashes

Repost from CTV News

Canada to propose tougher oil tank standards after a string of crashes

Rob Gillies and Joan Lowy, March 12, 2015 1:22AM EDT              
CN Rail derailment
A CN Rail train derailment near Gogama, Ont., is shown in a Sunday, March 8, 2015 handout photo. (THE CANADIAN PRESS / HO – Glenn Thibeault)

TORONTO — The Canadian government has proposed tough new standards for rail tank cars used to transport crude oil in response to a string of fiery crashes. The proposal, posted online Wednesday by Transport Canada, would require the cars to have outer “jackets,” a layer of thermal protection, and thicker steel walls.

The requirements are tougher than the oil industry wanted. But the proposal doesn’t include electronically controlled brakes that automatically stop train cars at the same time instead of sequentially, which are opposed by freight railroads. Regulators said they will take that issue up separately

Final regulations are expected by mid-May. U.S. officials have been working closely with Canada on the regulations and the White House is reviewing a draft proposal.

There have been four oil train derailments in the U.S. and Canada since mid-February. A runaway oil train derailed in Lac-Megantic Quebec in 2013, killing 47 people.A U.S. Transportation Department analysis predicts that trains hauling crude oil or ethanol will derail an average of 10 times a year over the next two decades, causing more than $4 billion in damage and possibly killing hundreds of people if an accident happens in a densely populated part of the U.S.

New standards were enacted after Lac Megantic, but safety officials on both sides of the border called for even stronger measures after fiery derailments continued to happen despite the new tank cars standards.

The newest standard calls for a hull thickness of 9/16th of an inch, up from 7/17th of an inch and makes thermal jackets mandatory.

“The proposed requirements are still subject to final approval,” said Zach Segal, a spokesman for Transport Minister Lisa Raitt. “We are working to have this done in an expedited manner.”

Segal said Transport Canada is working in collaboration with the U.S and “wants this done and published as soon as possible.?” Segal said Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s cabinet will have final approval.

The Transport Canada proposal is a “pretty clear indication” of what final regulations are likely to look like, said Ed Hamberger, president of the Association of American Railroads.

“These are important protections to both help mitigate the potential for rupture of a tank car, as well as limiting the severity of an incident,” he said.

The oil and rail industries want thinner tank walls — half an inch thick, instead of the 9/16ths-inch that regulators propose. The thicker the shell, the less oil a tank car can hold, and with about a half-million carloads of crude hauled by rail in the U.S. and Canada last year, the cost difference could add up.

The tank cars in the recent accidents were built to a voluntary standard written by industry representatives in 2011 to answer criticism that cars used to transport flammable liquids were prone to rupture in an accident and spill their contents and ignite spectacular fires. But most recent accidents show that the newer cars — known as 1232s — also are prone to rupture, even at slow speeds. Trains involved in four recent accidents were travelling under 40 mph (64 kph).

The White House budget office is reviewing a draft proposal for a sturdier tank car design, as well as other safety proposals. U.S. and Canadian officials have been working closely together to co-ordinate the regulations since the tank cars move back and forth across the border. Railroads and shippers have said if there were separate regulations in each country it could cause significant shipping delays and raise costs.

The railroad association and officials from CSX, Norfolk Southern and Burlington Northern-Santa Fe argued against requiring the electronically controlled brakes in a meeting with White House officials last week, according to a document posted online by the government. They say the government has underestimated the cost of equipping tank cars with the brakes and overestimated the safety benefits. Railroads complain that electronically controlled brakes would cost them $12 billion to $21 billion.

The oil industry has rapidly moved to using trains to transport oil, in part because of oil booms in North Dakota’s Bakken region and Alberta’s oil sands, and because of a lack of pipelines.