Repost from CBC News [Editor: from Wikipedia: “Moncton is a Canadian city located in Westmorland County in southeastern New Brunswick. Situated in the Petitcodiac River Valley, Moncton lies at the geographic centre of the Maritime Provinces.”– RS]
Oil spilled in derailment at Moncton train yard
CBC News, Nov 08, 2014
About 150 litres of oil spilled when a number of rail cars derailed Saturday morning at CN’s Gordon Yard in Moncton, a CN spokesperson says.
Louis Antoine Paquin says the train derailment happened at about 12:20 a.m.
There were 16 cars on the train, all remained upright. Ten were carrying unrefined crude oil, while the remaining six were empty cars that are used to transport vehicles.
The leak was quickly plugged and the clean up is complete, said Paquin.
Paul Bruens, a platoon chief with the Moncton fire department, said they weren’t informed of the derailment until 7:45 a.m.
“They requested us for their assistance on a standby mode while they transferred fuel from a damaged rail car into an undamaged rail car,” he said.
Bruens said the incident happened on private property, away from homes and businesses.
Repost from The Jamestown Sun, Jamestown, ND [Editor: Significant quote: “An oil conditioning standard must be framed in the broad context of public safety, not what might or might not inconvenience the industry. The ‘winners’ must be homeowners, businesspeople and others who live near oil train rail lines.” – RS
Flexibility in oil rule has limits
By Forum Editorial Board on Nov 5, 2014
“Flexibility” has emerged as the operative word in a proposed crude oil conditioning standard being developed by the North Dakota Department of Mineral Resources. Director Lynn Helms said he is summarizing some 1,200 pages of comment and testimony about how best to prepare volatile Bakken crude for transport. All well and good, but just how flexible “flexibility” will be should be a primary concern.
The drive to “condition” Bakken crude that is transported in rail tank cars accelerated following several derailments and explosions of oil trains, including a spectacular collision/derailment and explosion near Casselton, N.D., last December. Three reports about characteristics of Bakken crude are in the public record and will play a part in Helms’ work.
The aim is to remove certain volatile components of North Dakota’s light crude oil, thus making it less likely to flash to flame and explode in a train accident. Helms said his department will propose a standard to the Industrial Commission next month. The means by which the industry meets the standard likely will include various operating practices. The commission imposes the rule. Good, as far as it goes.
Helms added that his department’s flexibility approach is the best way to go because, “We certainly don’t want at this point … to pick a winner or loser in that discussion.” Really?
Once again, Helms and company are so focused on the industry’s priorities that his view of “winner or loser” is constricted. An oil conditioning standard must be framed in the broad context of public safety, not what might or might not inconvenience the industry. The “winners” must be homeowners, businesspeople and others who live near oil train rail lines. The means to achieve a meaningful oil safety standard could be flexible, but only if procedures can achieve the standard.
Transporting oil by rail can never be 100 percent safe. By its nature, oil on the rails entails risk. But if rail oil traffic is to be as safe as possible, anything that compromises that goal is unacceptable. North Dakota’s standard must be written with that in mind.
Repost from The Sacramento Bee SOAPBOX [Editor: I am somewhat reluctant to post the following article, an oil and rail industry promotion piece by the CEO and Founder of the Institute for Energy Research (IER). Wikipedia: “Praised by Rush Limbaugh as the ‘energy equivalent’ of the Heritage Foundation…. IER has received funding from… the Claude R. Lambe Charitable Foundation, which is run by executives of Koch Industries, an oil industry giant known for its massive political involvement. They have also previously received funding from ExxonMobil and from the American Petroleum Institute.” So… I would describe what follows as an inside peek at the current industry spin on crude-by-rail. Proceed with a unit train barrel-full of healthy skepticism. – RS]
Shipping oil by rail lowers energy costs
By Robert L. Bradley, Special to The Bee, 11/06/2014
A tanker truck is filled from rail cars containing crude oil at McClellan Park in March. Following a lawsuit, the oil company is ending transfer operations there this week. | Randall Benton/Sacramento Bee file
Chalk up a hollow victory for EarthJustice and the Sierra Club. The two environmental groups sued over InterState Oil Co.’s permit to unload oil trains at the former McClellan Air Force Base in Sacramento County.
The company plans to end operations there on Friday, after the regional air quality district said it issued the permit in error without doing a full environmental review. The groups are ecstatic, trumpeting the first California “crude transport project that has been stopped dead in its tracks.”
But before attempting to use the same legal tactics to halt oil trains elsewhere, the activists should examine the ramifications of their actions. Chances are they are hurting the very people and the environment they seek to protect.
Americans rely on fuels and countless other goods produced from crude oil in the nation’s refineries. Blocking oil trains will result in the market finding other ways to transport oil from wells to refineries, whether through new pipelines, on barges, by tanker or by truck. Environmentalist-created bottlenecks could artificially raise prices for consumers.
Shipping oil by rail was encouraged by President Barack Obama – the environmentalist-in-chief – when he delayed the Keystone XL pipeline. Railroads became the next-best method of transporting oil from the Upper Midwest to Gulf Coast refineries, making oil trains a permanent fixture on America’s landscape. Now, an alternative pipeline through Canada has emerged.
According to the federal Surface Transportation Board, nearly 1 million barrels of crude per day is being shipped by rail, 10 percent of all oil produced in the United States. In Canada, oil-train shipments have increased fourfold since 2012 and are continuing to grow.
Railroad revenues also have risen sharply. Federal statistics show major railroads earned $2.2 billion in 2013 from hauling crude oil, up from $26 million in 2008. With financial results like these, railroads are building new terminals to handle more oil. Although terminals are not cheap – a large one built by independent oil company EOG Resources in North Dakota cost $50 million – they are far less expensive than pipelines.
Trains have a strong safety record, and efforts are underway to make them even safer. The American Association of Railroads has volunteered to update its operating practices, called for tank car improvements and is ensuring that local officials and first responders are aware of the materials being shipped through their communities.
Likewise, the American Petroleum Institute has issued a new standard for rail shipments and is working with the railroads and the government on safety. The goal is to reduce the likelihood of accidents to zero.
“North America’s rail network moves hazardous materials without incident 99.998 percent of the time. The challenge for both industry and regulators is to address and eliminate the remaining .002 percent,” API President and CEO Jack Gerard recently told reporters.
Consumers are benefiting from oil trains, especially in the West. Because there are no major pipelines from oil fields in the heartland through the Rockies, West Coast refiners have been relying largely on imports and Alaskan oil. Even with the added expense of shipping oil by train from North Dakota – where crude oil costs about $15 a barrel less – refiners are able to lower their costs, which helps to lower or stabilize consumer prices.
Producing domestic oil is creating thousands of jobs, improving our energy security and enhancing our economic prospects. As U.S. oil production rises, it will find a way to the marketplace. The American dream needs some help from oil being transported by the safest means possible, not shortsighted environmental lawsuits.
Our market-driven economy has no incentive to spill oil or harm people and the environment. Lawsuits filed by anti-fossil fuel groups might disrupt some train traffic, but they are not going to prevent oil from being drilled, transported and consumed. To truly help the environment, these groups would be better served by working on real environmental problems.
Robert L. Bradley Jr. is CEO of the Institute for Energy Research, a Washington, D.C., advocacy group whose funders include oil companies.
OLYMPIA, Wash. – Rail safety regulators in Washington state submitted comments today expressing concern about the proposed Grays Harbor Rail Terminal (GHRT) in response to the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) scoping.
The Utilities and Transportation Commission (UTC) sent a letter to GHRT addressing specific concerns and requesting rail safety evaluations during the EIS process.
GHRT has proposed to construct a new rail facility at the Port of Grays Harbor. The facility would accommodate an average of 45,000 barrels per day of bulk materials, primarily, various types of crude oil for export.
The UTC recommends that the EIS require comprehensive track and safety evaluations and appropriate upgrades be implemented prior to any operation of trains hauling crude oil on this line.
The letter states:
“In the UTC’s view, the EIS should evaluate the potential impact of the GHRT on the safety of the public on and around all railroad lines and crossings that would be used to deliver crude oil to the facility. Currently, up to six trains per day serve the Port of Grays Harbor. Increasing the train traffic could potentially require upgrades to the rail infrastructure, including upgrading track, new crossings, or new or expanded sidings or upgrades to existing crossings.”
The letter also references three derailments of train cars that occurred during a 16-day period along the rail line between Centralia and the Port of Grays Harbor earlier this year. The frequency of the derailments is a significant concern, and the UTC recommends that the EIS require comprehensive track and safety evaluations, along with appropriate updates, before any operations of trains hauling crude oil on this line.
The commission addresses the issue of blocked crossings due to increased train traffic. Blocked crossings pose an inconvenience to the public and can also increase public safety risks by preventing emergency response vehicles from reaching emergencies on the other side. The UTC recommends that the EIS evaluate and offer mitigation strategies for blocked crossings along the line between Centralia and the GHRT.
Finally, the UTC recommends the EIS include an in-depth analysis of all railroad crossings between Centralia and Hoquiam. The analysis should review whether there are grade crossings along all routes that require additional warning devices; supplemental safety devices; modification of existing warning devices; crossing closures/consolidation or grade separation. UTC staff should be involved in the analysis.
The UTC regulates railroad safety, including approving new grade crossings and closing or altering existing rail crossings, investigating train accidents, inspecting public-railroad crossings, approving safety projects, and managing safety education through Operation Lifesaver.
