North Dakota Considers Requiring Treatment of Bakken Crude
Hearing Is Planned on Whether Shale Oil Should Be Made Less Volatile Before Transport
By Chester Dawson, August 10, 2014
North Dakota officials are considering requiring energy companies to treat the crude they pump from the Bakken Shale to make it less volatile before it is loaded onto trains.
The North Dakota Industrial Commission plans to hold a public hearing in the coming weeks on possible steps to reduce volatility at a well site before oil is stored or transported, said a spokeswoman for North Dakota Gov. Jack Dalrymple.
The commission, the state’s chief energy regulator, is considering issuing new standards for treating crude as well as monitoring requirements, she said.
Several trains carrying Bakken crude have derailed since the summer of 2013, exploding violently and in one instance killing 47 people in Quebec.
As The Wall Street Journal has reported, light crude tapped from North Dakota shale is more combustible than many other grades of oil and, unlike in other places, seldom stabilized.
Production of this volatile oil through hydraulic fracturing has soared, accounting for most of the additional three million barrels a day of oil that the U.S. produces today compared with 2009. Much of that is shipped to refineries by railcars, especially crude produced in the Bakken where there are few oil pipelines.
Mr. Dalrymple, one of three members of the state commission, on Friday briefed visiting federal officials including Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz and Transportation Secretary Anthony Foxx on proposals for treating Bakken crude oil in the field. The federal government has been weighing whether to require stabilization.
Energy executives point out that neither federal nor state regulations require crude to be stabilized before it is transported. Some say stabilization is unnecessary.
Most oil producers in North Dakota haven’t installed stabilizing equipment designed to reduce crude volatility, which is commonplace in similar shale oil fields such as the Eagle Ford formation in South Texas.
Stabilizers use heat and pressure to force light hydrocarbon molecules—including ethane, butane and propane—to boil out of the liquid crude. The operation lowers the vapor pressure of crude oil, making it less volatile and therefore safer to transport by pipeline or rail tank car.
WHEN MY FAMILY MOVED TO BENICIA IN 2003, we spent our first week in the Best Western on East Second Street. During our stay we met several workers visiting from refineries in Texas to assist with projects at local refineries. During breakfast, I mentioned to one of them that we had bought a house in Benicia and were waiting to move in. He replied, “I wouldn’t have my family living within five miles of a refinery,” implying that it was unsafe because of the risk of an accident.
We had already purchased our home and were pleased with the location of the town, the high-quality schools, the quaint downtown and the local arts community. At the time, I judged that the prevailing wind direction and rolling hills would likely buffer our home from the effects of any serious accident, such as the recent Chevron fire in Richmond, and that the many Benicia amenities outweighed any risk the refinery posed.
Now we are faced with the prospect of 100 tank cars of crude oil being hauled into Benicia every day. Valero insists this would be safe and warns that without a new facility to offload the crude oil, local jobs, company profits and charitable contributions would be at risk.
I have no doubt that, if necessary, crude oil could be transported by rail to various parts of the country safely and efficiently. We have the technological and engineering expertise to do amazing things these days, and such expertise could readily be applied to the crude oil transport business.
Some in our community scoff at the risk posed by crude by rail (it’s comforting to some that the Quebec derailment that killed 47 people and the many accidents that have since occurred were caused by human error and could have been prevented). Others are horrified at the thought of a similar accident here or elsewhere. They highlight the fact that this crude oil is more volatile and toxic than other types, that an accident here would wreak havoc on our lives, and they want to stop the Valero Crude-by-Rail Project in its tracks.
As I see it, there are three major reasons to oppose the project at this time.
First, simply put, hauling 100 tank car loads of volatile Bakken crude or toxic Canadian tar sands crude raises the risk of an accident relative to the status quo. Benicians already live in the shadow of a refinery; is it really necessary or desirable to add to this risk to satisfy Valero?
Second, rules governing high-hazard flammable trains need to be thoroughly vetted and approved before the Valero proposal can be approved. Between March 2013 and May 2014, there were 12 significant oil train derailments in the United States and Canada, including the Quebec accident. Crude by rail arriving in California was up 506 percent, to 6.3 million barrels, just last year. In fact, more crude oil was transported by rail in North America in 2013 than in the previous five years combined. Yet it wasn’t until the first of this month that regulations were proposed for dealing with this unprecedented increase in “High-Hazard Flammable Trains” (see Federal Register, Aug. 1, 2014, pg. 45,016).
Apparently the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (part of the U.S. Department of Transportation) expects to issue new regulations governing crude by rail sometime after a 60-day comment period that ends Sept. 30. Oddly, their federal notice includes a brief two-page “environmental assessment” that concludes there will be no significant environmental impacts associated with their proposals. Apparently we are to trust the railroad industry and their minders to do the right thing after they have steadfastly refused to institute train safety mechanisms, such as “Positive Train Control,” that would have saved 288 lives, prevented 6,500 injuries and 139 crashes in the past 45 years. At a minimum, the rules governing high-hazard flammable trains should be subject to a full environmental impact statement as provided by the National Environmental Policy Act.
Such an environmental impact statement might determine that crude-by-rail terminals should be located a minimum distance from residential areas and that crude-carrying trains travelling through metropolitan areas be guided by automated systems that monitor speed, location and rail traffic, so that the potential for human error would be substantially reduced. Such systems currently exist, but have been largely ignored by the railroad companies. These measures need to be studied and decided upon before the Valero proposal is approved.
Finally, what’s the rush? Many would argue that fossil fuel use needs to be curtailed because of greenhouse gas emissions and the environmental havoc caused by ever-more-destructive means of obtaining oil (fracking, tar sands, etc.). Approving the Valero project gives tacit approval to these means, allowing our community to profit at the expense of other people and places. Maybe it’s time to just say no.
Craig Snider is a Benicia resident. He recently retired from the U.S. Forest Service, where he was regional environmental coordinator for the national forests in California from 2003-14.
Our View: Tell us when dangerous oil cars are rolling
August 9, 2014
Tank cars suitable for carrying Bakken crude oil sit on the BNSF railroad tracks that run through Escalon in May. The cars were empty, but left unattended for several days at a time. MIKE DUNBAR — mdunbar@modbee.com
Anyone who bothered to examine the 40 black, cylindrical railway tankers parked within 60 feet of a neighborhood in Escalon would have noticed a couple of markings. First was the red diamond-shaped placard with a flame on it; the other was the designation “DOT 111” in a grid stenciled on the tank.Those markings are what you find on tank cars used to carry the most dangerous liquids across America – including the volatile crude oil extracted from Bakken shale deposits in North Dakota.
A BNSF official said those unattended tank cars left on one of the double tracks in Escalon for a total of seven days over several weekends from April to June were empty. Unfortunately, no one in the community of 7,000 knew enough about them to bother to ask what was in them.
“I’m not aware of what was in those cars,” said Escalon Fire Chief Rick Mello, who commands a staff of nine full-time firefighters and a volunteer force of 16. Up to 50 trains go through Escalon each day, and BNSF never notifies Escalon about what is moving along its tracks – unless asked.
That must change, because it’s entirely likely we’ll see far more of those cars in the future. And they won’t always be empty.
California’s Office of Emergency Services estimates shipments of Bakken crude will increase 25-fold by 2016 as 150 million barrels move to California’s refineries in the Bay Area, Southern California and eventually Bakersfield. Since all Bakken crude moves by rail, that could mean another 225,000 tank cars a year moving through Roseville, Sacramento, Modesto, Merced and beyond. Mother Jones magazine calls it a “virtual pipeline.”
The Wall Street Journal reported Bakken crude contains higher amounts of butane, ethane and propane than other crudes, making it too volatile for most actual pipelines. Those gases have contributed to the deaths of 47 people in the town of Lac-Megantic in Canada, where a train carrying Bakken crude derailed in July 2013 and exploded. Less dramatic derailments, some with fires, have occurred in North Dakota, Virginia and Illinois. The U.S. Department of Transportation reports 108 crude spills last year.
“When you look at the lines of travel from Canada and North Dakota, you figure if they’re headed for the Bay Area or to Bakersfield, the odds are that you’re going to see shipments going down the Valley,” said Assemblyman Roger Dickinson, who represents north Sacramento. That’s why he authored Assembly Bill 380, which would require the railroads to notify area first-responders whenever these trains are passing through.
But the nation’s railroads are largely impervious to local concerns; they’re governed by the U.S. Department of Transportation and they’re powerful.
In July, the DOT issued proposed new rules for safe transport, including increased cargo sampling, better route analysis, a 40 mph speed limit on trains labeled “high-hazard flammable,” and switching to the new, safer DOT 111 cars after Oct. 1, 2015. The new cars have double steel walls, better closures and heavier carriages. Currently, they make up about a third of the nation’s tanker fleet.
California’s Office of Emergency Services has issued 12 recommendations, ranging from allowing better data collection to phasing out those old tank cars to better training for first-responders.
Laudably, the railroads are already doing most of these things. Since the mid-1990s, BNSF has offered – at no charge – training for handling spilled hazardous materials and dealing with emergencies. One of Escalon’s eight full-time firefighters was trained at virtually no cost to the city. BNSF said they would even do on-site training for departments. But not every fire department has taken the courses. A BNSF spokeswoman said Sacramento sent only one firefighter to the most recent three-day training on dealing with hazardous materials, including Bakken crude.
The federal DOT issued an emergency order in May to require all carriers to inform first responders about crude oil being shipped through their towns and for the immediate development of plans to handle oil spills. Unfortunately, it contains a discomforting criteria: the order applies only to trains carrying 1 million gallons of Bakken crude, or roughly 35 tank cars. And to reach DOT’s definition of a “high-hazard flammable train,” a train must have 20 tank cars.
But a Bakken explosion in Virginia blew one tank car an estimated 5,500 feet; a photograph of another explosion showed a fireball rising 700 feet from a single car. Our first responders ought to know when even one car carrying such material is coming through.
Dickinson’s bill would make notification available on a real-time basis, without having to ask. His goal, said Dickinson, is to “give first responders better information on how to respond. The techniques and materials used in dealing with different chemicals, or even different types of oil, vary widely. ‘I know I’m dealing with oil, but what kind of oil?’ My bill is aimed at getting better, more timely, more complete information to responding agencies.”
But his bill mirrors federal orders on the size of the train; our first responders need to know when any hazardous shipment is moving through.
The incredible expansion of America’s oil resources is creating many positives – from more jobs to less dependence on foreign oil. But it’s happening so fast that we’re devising the safety aspects as we roll along this virtual pipeline from North Dakota to California in the west and to New Jersey in the east. Accidents are happening along the way. Federal rules don’t go nearly far enough to protect public safety in this new world. Dickinson’s bill and the state OES recommendations would help, but we need a broader dialogue. As Dickinson said, “we know we’re going to have derailments, no matter how careful people try to be.”
That’s why first-responders such as Escalon’s Chief Mello must “prepare for anything, any day.” Knowing what’s coming gives us a head start.
Repost from Railway Age [Editor: Check out rail industry insider perspectives on the DOT’s proposed new safety rules, and a few of their hoped-for changes before the rules become final. – RS]
DOT crude oil NPRM: Will cooler heads prevail?
August 7, 2014, by William C. Vantuono, Editor-in-Chief
A recent call-in forum on crude by rail conducted by Cowen and Company Managing Director and Railway Age Contributing Editor Jason H. Seidl “helped affirm our view that the final version of the DOT’s safety rules may include some changes to the ones proposed on July 23.”
“We believe that the final draft of the [Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on High-Hazard Flammable Trains and DOT 111 tank cars] could be more friendly to shippers than the first proposal,” said Seidl. “This, along with the removed uncertainty, could put a more positive spin on regulations that are sure to add costs for the industry.”
Retrofitting tank cars to 9/16-inch-thick steel is “a tall order,” said Seidl. “A railcar manufacturing executive on our panel suggested that retrofitting existing 7/16-inch-steel cars to 9/16-inch layers would be a problematic task, as the technology for implementing the conversion may not be currently available. Additionally, such an undertaking may be restricted by tight steel supplies, which could disrupt and prolong production for months. This would exacerbate concerns about the two- to five-year proposed compliance period, which is already viewed as insufficient by many players in the industry. According to our panelist, a more realistic retrofitting of the existing 7/16-inch-steel car fleet would take five to seven years and consist of other improvements, such as top fittings and thermal jackets. If retrofitting to a 9/16-inch-steel layer is ultimately adopted in one or more of the paths to compliance, the Greenbrier Companies could benefit as it already applies this standard to its “Tank Car of the Future” group of tank cars. That being said, we believe that the final version of the rules will include some key changes to the ones proposed on July 23.”
The Cowen panelists agreed that reducing crude oil train dwell time would make more sense than reducing speed. “The consensus opinion seemed to be that enforcing broad speed restrictions may not be the right approach,” noted Seidl. “The panelists indicated that emphasis should be placed on reducing the total time that High Hazard Flammable Trains (HHFTs) spend in populated areas, and slower trains do just the opposite. Additionally, reduced train speeds would require more cars and detrimentally impact the supply chain, potentially resulting in higher dwell times in populated areas. One panelist suggested that CBR regulators should communicate with the groups that have created regulations for other rail-transported hazardous materials, such as chlorine. Such regulations, which rely in large part on reducing dwell time in densely populated areas, appear to have been effective in improving transportation safety.”
You must be logged in to post a comment.