Oil by Train - New Regulations

If this view of Lac-Mehantic on Google Maps after the derailment is any indication then increased safety guidelines are a must.

I did some more research.  One fascinating fact is that in 2008 railroads moved 9,500 carloads of oil.   More than 400,000 carloads of oil were moved in 2013.

The reason for this huge increase is the boom in oil drilling and that the pipelines are at capacity or that the pipelines don't go from the fields to the desired refinery or port.  

Here is a link to a long article about from the Association of American Railroads about moving oil by train.   It cites statistics show that moving oil by train has less spills than pipelines. 

I am going have to upgrade my model oil train fleet.

Here is the article that I found very interesting:

  https://www.aar.org/keyissues/...rude-oil-by-rail.pdf

Joe

Oh, Boy . . . A wishy-washy recommendation with virtually no enforcement will really fix the problem.

What do the regulators think the railroads are doing?  I can guarantee that, with as much negative press that past accidents have generated, as well as the enormous liabilities involved, railroads have been doing this for some time already.

Canada's already got new regulations.

Transport Cananda

As I recall, the industy has 3 years to replace their rail car fleets.

Rusty

I have also read that oil by rail has had much less spilled than pipelines. However, it could still be improved upon. Have also read about the tremendous increase in oil shipments by train for the above reasons. Trains magazine has been covering this for the last several months. Some good articles there also.

What I find fascinating is that an entire train, like the one that destroyed most of the town in Canada, could be operated by one person and then left unattended and running for the night while he went and slept?  Unfortunately we now know what happens when there is a problem with an unattended train.  To me it is just common sense that a train like that can not be safely operated by one person and should never be left unattended under any circumstance.

Have to also totally agree with Number 90, that railroads are already doing all they can to prevent future oil accidents and also everything else he said in his post.

  The big issue here is the Keystone pipeline, which has become a very hot political issue.  When the discoveries in Montana were made and the Canadian oil sands became viable the oil producers needed a pipeline to connect to existing pipelines to  carry the crude to the refineries, primarily on the US Gulf coast. This is what the Keystone pipeline was supposed to do. Then the environmentalist jumped on the issue citing all sorts of dooms day situations.  The government has studied the issues, recomended the pipeline then restudied the issue and recomended the pipeline from all points of view. The state department is now the lead agency in this ongoing debate because of the Canadians being involved. This has been a classic case of paralysis by analysis.

  While waiting on the pipeline to be built, a project that that is "shovel ready" and would provide thousands of jobs, the producers have had to resort to rail and barge shipment.  This is what has caused the increase in rail shipments. In 2008 when the new fields were coming on stream 9,500 carloads were shipped, in 2013 400,000 carloads were shipped.

  Pipelines are very safe considering the volumes they move and they are also the most economical way to move large volumes of oil. This translates as lower gasoline prices to the consumer.  Railroads were built in the 19th century and still run through the middle of most comunities on the same routes.  This is why the Lynchburg, Virginia accident happened in an urban area. New pipelines seldom go through comunities. They are designed to avoid metropolitan areas, to reduce social impact and reduce the cost of right of way costs.

  Pipelines compared to other means of transportation are very safe. Compared to highway, barge or rail pipelines offer the least risk of serious incidents. Liquid pipelines (as compared to gas pipelines) can be shut down very quickly if even a small leak occurs.  A lot of pipeline accidents are caused by other parties digging into a pipeline not operator mistakes. These accidents can be spectacular but cause little long term damage.

  One other issue with the Keystone pipeline is if we don't build it the Canadians will sell the oil to other countries such as China. Do we really want that?

  Crude oil is not the most dangerous material shipped in tank cars, popane, butane, chlorine, or amonia are all disasters looking for a place to happen.

  The Canadian oil train wreck still confouds me. Why did the engineer leave the train running and go to a motel?

Douglas

The Keystone pipeline will be north-south, a lot of the current rail shipments of oil are east-west. The pipeline will not do anything for those shipments. The disaster in northeast Canada would not have been avoided by the Keystone pipeline. I agree the pipeline would create a lot of jobs. The shipments by rail have also created a lot of jobs. As I posted above, Trains magazine has had some good articles on all this in the last few months.

None of this oil will benefit us, its all going to the world market.  There are reports that 1/4 of the land wasn't even purchased from the true land owner!  Obviously Transcanada did not do what they were supposed to and now that some of the permits are starting to expire, I don't see this project getting a final approval until 2015.  I wouldn't want it in my backyard.  I lived near the Marshall Mi. spill and if you've never smelled that stuff before, it would knock you off your feet.  Nasty stuff.  Make Canada go west on their own land---oh wait, the Canadians said NO already.  Wonder why? 

  Yes,the Keystone pipeline will be north-south.  The purpose is to tie into the existing pipeline system at Still Water, Oaklahoma. Once tied in the oil can be shipped to most places east of the rockey mountains in an efficient manner. The existing pipelines from Oaklahoma have enough capacity to carry the crude to most markets.

  I am sure the railroads will keep some business after the pipeline opens but nothing like they have now.  Constructing the last link of this pipeline will create thousands of jobs and lower the cost of gasoline for everybody. There are national security concerns also.

Douglas

The railroads offer much more flexibility than the pipelines as to where the oil is delivered and when. That's why they will continue to carry large shipments of oil. At least that is what I have been reading anyway. Also, the lower prices are just shall we say a 'pipe dream'. If there is any savings, we as the end users will never see any of it, don't believe that for a minute. 

Don't buy into the false hood of jobs, after initial construction by mostly foreign labor with pipe made in china, about 24 full time jobs in the state of Nebraska. Oil is a commodity subject to manipulative speculation on the free market. so actual price at pump never falls in spite of increased production, after all we have never produced more oil domestically ever any price decline? I think not. The trouble with tar sands is the secret  ultra toxic soup it has to be cut with to move through the pipe. In a steam heated tank car absolutely no dilution is necessary to transport anywhere less risk of toxic spill. I am not against a pipeline its a foreign company threatening landowners in Nebraska that irks me . My congressmans signature issue is for a foreign company? Traditionally  pipelines pay a small fee pennys on the gallon for crude passed across state lines. but when tax time comes tar sands are not crude oil until refined in Texas so oops gotcha technically we owe you nothing and why Houston? Free foreign trade zone no taxes Whazzah!!

Actually the labor to build the pipeline will be a majority of American workers (possibly some Canadian) and that will be a fair amount of jobs for until it's completed. Those will be good paying jobs for a few years. As for the pipe, I am not so sure that will be made in China, most likely not.

As for jobs after completion I think you are correct, not so many. Shipment by rail would probably offer more good jobs for a longer time.  I also agree with you and think you are pretty close on everything else, especially the pricing and difficulty getting the oil sands crude pumped through a pipe.   

What I read was that (more or less) the oil companies expect the Bakken to fizzle out before new  refineries put up there could pay for themselves.

---PCJ

Oh yes local job estimates  are 2400 or less for construction and 24 permanent jobs Omaha World Herald. That's an awful lot less than the exaggerated numbers from supporters look into it its a sham and all lies

The safest and most economical way is by steam heated tankcar period

Douglas: Yes on your first point, kinda yes on your second point.

Pipelines (in Alberta anyways) are amongst the safest way to ship any commodity, including water. If it were me, I'd rather have a small number of operations staff, highly trained, involved than having the potential for an accident at every single railroad crossing. We've all seen vehicles running crossbucks. Pipelines must be maintained through "pigging" and "batching" programs that are very stringent and if implemented incorrectly, can result in very heavy fines from government energy regulators. Through proper line location steps, a line strike can be avoided when disturbing the ground. Gas and oil pipelines under linestrike conditions have the exact same result here though. It's not the pressure alone that will kill someone, but the volume at pressure. 1m3 of gas at 1000 psi (transport pressure) will vent off quickly depending on the hole and distance to depressurize that length of line. 1000m3 will take much longer, liquids are quite uncompressable and the distance between emergency block valves can be great. You also don't know if the valves have been maintained, if they're an absolute ******* to turn, how many turns till close and whether or not they're stiffer in the summer or winter. Little long term damage... including possible death of a few people is somewhat incorrect. A large section of pipe affected by the strike must be removed and replaced, then re-inspected. This could cost millions of dollars in fines, lawsuits and eventually even operations costs and lost production.

Crude oil is not volatile. I can take a cup of it right from the ground, hot off the pump and sit it on a pipe stand for days. It's not going to explode or vent noxious gasses, it won't light on fire or even damage the earth unless the cup is knocked over. I can put my cigarettes and matches out in it (I've done so before to prove a point). The volatile one is called LPG or Liquified Petroleum Gas. This stuff is your Ethane, Hexane, Propane and Butane gasses, compressed to a liquid. It is high vapour pressure, readily flammable and extremely hard to contain once released due to it's "spread pattern". In every one of the incidents listed, I guarantee there were at least a few cars of LPG included in the trains that started the fires.

The problem is not what is being shipped but how it's being shipped. I've operated pipelines that have been in the ground since the 50's which have worked 4.8 out of every 5 years ( the .2 is for a planned shutdown that must happen every 5 years for equipment maintenance). The pipeline codes (ASME B31.3 / B31.1 and CSA Z662) are always changing. I doubt the tank cars (which fall under API 650 620 and 653) have been changed in a while.

Will someone tell me how the pipeline will create lasting jobs? Aren't the most jobs created will be construction jobs, done when the pipeline is completed?

Looks to me like the railroads are already furnishing more jobs that a completed pipeline will.

Ed

Will the "new" dot 111 tank cars look any different than the ones in use now?

If they were moving crude where you dont have to put additive to it to make it move, it would be pipe all the way, hands down.

But they will have t put additive to it if it moves by pipe.  Which means you have to get rid of it once you get it to a refinery.  And if this oil gets out of the Keystone system at Cushing, will the additive "spoil" other oils which will use the line after it?  How much does it cost per gallon or barrel to do that.

Energy independence, yes!  But at what cost!  And job creation is not a proper function of government!

The toxic chemicals used to dilute the tar sand is secret. So nobody but the industry knows what or how toxic it is. Self regulation where money is involved?   we no how that works. As for taxes all the current laws on books refer to crude oil or petroleum, Tar sands do not fit this definition until refined so no taxes, or payments to cleanup funds are required until the language in multiple states laws is changed.  semantical gotcha happens in court all the time. Remember A persons character is directly relevant to the ability of a dollar bill to change their opinion!!! Ask yourself whos throwing the money around and why. Follow the money. REMEMBER INCREASED PRODUCTION DOESNOT REDUCE PRICES IN A SPECULATIVE FREE MARKET!!!!!! WE HAVE BEEN PRUDUCING MORE OIL THAN EVER  AND PRICES HAVE NOT DROPPED. IT WAS JUST REPORTED THAT MIDWESTERN REFINERIES HAVE BEEN TAKING ADVANTAGE OF OIL PRODUCTIN GLUT TO PAY THE LOWEST BARREL PRICE FOR THE LAST SEVERAL YEARS. AND NO SAVINGS HAS OR WILL BE PASSED TO THE CONSUMER AS A MATTER OF FACT MIDWEST GAS PRICES ARE SLOWLYCREEPING BACK TOWARDS 4.00 A GALLON SAVINGS ? ONLY PROFIT FOR CORPORATIONS WHO WANT TO PAY NO TAXES YET BENEFIT FROM AMERICAN INFRASTRUCTURE AND MARKET

There were two large refineries in Kansas City (Phillips and Standard Oil), very central location. One had been here since around 1900 and the other was built a little later. They were closed in the '80s, they moved everything to the gulf coast.

Agreed on the increased profits and everybody wanting plenty of oil/gasoline to use, but not having any thing near them that has to do with producing it.

Crude oil is not supposed to be volatile or flammable, but according to the articles I have been reading on the Bakken crude shipped by rail, it is highly volatile and flammable. The oil companies probably knew this all along, but I am getting the impression the railroads did not know this until the terrible accident in Canada last summer.

SteamWolf,  I think that you are oversimplifying the volatility of crude oil.  For example, I have seen cigarettes and matches put out in gasoline without causing a fire.  We all know that gasoline will go up in a flash under most circumstances.  

During a train wreck, however, high temperatures are generated by the metal on metal contact of nearly every part of a train car.  Hot brakes, etc., cause very high temperatures.  The recent accidents prove that the oil in the cars ignites and continues to burn.  

None of the accident reports have mentioned other volatile substances being carried in these trains.  These trains are mostly unit trains going from the field to the refinery or port.  By definition, unit trains carry only one commodity.  

I think that it is fascinating that oil transported by rail expanded from 9,500 carloads in 2008 to over 400,000 carloads in 2013.  This is a huge increase.  I wonder how many carloads will be transported this year?  I also wonder how fast new tank cars with added safety features can be built.   

I don't think that any new pipelines will be coming on line for several years.  It will take several years to build one once construction starts.  This means that rail is the only viable option for near future to transport oil.

Long term, I predict that both coal and oil will be phased out as significant power sources by the end of this century.  This is going to cause a lot of economic disruption.

From the beginning of man, there have been several phases of power generation.

Beginning until about 1850:  Muscle (man, horse, etc.), wind, water.  Both George Washington and the Pharaohs relied on horses, men, and wind and water for their power sources.    

1850 to 1950 - Coal (coal drove the industrial revolution.)  My grandfather grew up riding a horse but lived to see jet planes.  My grandmother lived to see men on the moon.  

1950 to Present - Oil and Coal  (My father worked on nuclear power in the 1950s and 60s.  It is unfortunate that we haven't been able to overcome the safety issues.  My father thought that nuclear energy would provided unlimited, safe, clean energy for the world.)

Present to about 2070 - Oil

2070 and beyond - Light (solar, battery, thermal, etc.), wind, water, and possibly fusion.  I worked on fusion as a graduate student about 40 years ago.  We don't seem to be any closer today than we were then to fusion power.  Fusion has possibility of providing unlimited, safe, clean energy.    

I wonder if we will see anyone start building model layouts dedicated to the transport of oil?  There are many layouts dedicated to the transport of coal.

Joe

I remember reading a book on Explosions for my research in Flight Safety in Grad school a decade ago & one of the lessons I still remember was that if there is a source of fuel (needs to be in vapor form or as fine particles) & air, all the explosions I read about always seemed to find a source of ignition, however unlikely this ignition source may have seemed before the catastrophe. And it very easy for the fuel to get to this vapor, powder or mist form, whether it is liquid fuel in an aircraft fuel tank or grain dust in a silo. So while there is a risk of fires due to this increased traffic in oil shipments by rail or pipeline, the lessons learnt from past incidents will certainly he helpful in managing future incidents even though they may never completely eliminate them.

These are just my opinion.

Thanks,

Naveen Rajan

That right there is the crux of the problem.

Everyone wants cheap gasoline and all the modern conveniences. Nobody wants to take one for the team to make it happen.

I retired from "BIG Oil". I worked over 30 years in the oil and gas fields of Oklahoma, Kansas and Texas.  Crude oil is not all the same.  Crude oil can be "died" ( like motor oil) or "Live" ( like gasoline). Crude oil can be like gun grease or like water. It comes in many colors, black, brown, green, red, yellow, and clear as water.  All crude oil is flammable and volatile if heated.  I worked in oil fields that were drilled in the 1920's and 30's. Back then there was NO problem just to pump the oil into open pits, and you would not know that the land was covered in oil if you were to look at the land today.

 Old time oilfield works would put a little oil in their gardens as fertilizer. The salt water that is produced from some wells will do more damage to the land than the oil ( the microorganisms in the dirt like to eat the oil). You are whole lot safer next to a pipeline/Tank car than in a Large City or driving in your car on the Highway.

If you are reading this, Big Oil, Big Coal, Big Mining, Big Business thanks you for using their products.

  Yes indeed there are many types of crude, and each has a different volatility.  Crude oil is ususally shipped to a refinery via pipeline, and then the refined products are shipped out on a pipeline.

  Because pipelines are more efficient than rail transport pipelines will continue to be the prefered method if available.  The railroads must consider the future market for crude before investing in new tank cars. Should they buy a thousand new cars, take delivery in three years, then have a pipeline go on stream and take away the entire market?  Some refineries and refining companies have already purchased their own tank car unit trains, which is also a factor.

  New oil refineries are next to impossible to build in the USA because of environmental objections.  For some reason they are acceptable on the Gulf coast but not anywhere else.  The old NIMBY (not in my back yard) problem. "Let the people in Oaklahoma, Texas,and Louisiana worry about all that smell and noise, don't they dare bring it to my city with its rustbelt reputation, high unemployment, busted economy and high taxes".

  Another point oil is where it is found not where it is wanted or needed, hence the new wells in Alberta and Montana. Horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing were also factors in these fields coming on stream.

  The railroads will continue to be a secondary carrier for crude and refined products when pipelines are not available or the volume is to small to build new pipelines.

  Tank cars offer lots of modeling possibilities from pumping wells to distributors, they were ubiquitous during the steam era and are still quite common.  I have been trying to locate some 8,000 gal. or 10,000 gal. WWII era scale cars. I want them black not painted like a pack of lifesavers and welded or better rivited with a nice expansion dome. I have found some good ones in 2R but have not found any in 3R.

Douglas

The refineries in the Houston area got started because, well, because many of the first oil wells in the area were nearby.  Later, they had ports to transport crude and products in and out.  Still the case today with Eagle Ford.

Part of the reson for the unit trains is the crude pricing.  If it makes it to Cushing OK, the oil is priced as West Texas Intermediate.  If it gets to the Gulf coast, Brent.  The later has a higher price to it.

There's something folks are missing:  Even IF the all refineries were located by the oil fields, a finished volatile product still has to be shipped in bulk by some means to the distributors.

So the issue of a potential disaster never really goes away.

Rusty

Not only higher price in Houston free foreign trade zone means no taxes. And remember tar sand is so low quality it can only be refined into diesel NO GASOLINE, and other plastic precursors. It sure seems that with a little thought the only way to go is by tank car. Way more jobs here. Railroad workers  labor to build and maintain tank cars all American except for the steel, and turbo diesel vehicles are more economical and efficient look at Canadian cars tons of diesels. And Mr. Rich if the truth is political  we all need some help

I think you have made a good point here.