General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsOil Tank Rail Cars. Where Do They Go?
I live in St. Paul, MN. There's a very large rail yard just outside of the downtown area of the city. It's also immediately adjacent to the Mississippi river. These days, it's full of tank cars and they're full of crude oil, much of it from North Dakota and Canada. On some days, the entire yard appears to be made up of those tank cars. BNSF is the major transporter.
So, where are they going? They're going south. Some will make it all the way to Texas, where that oil will be loaded into ships for transport to refineries outside of the U.S. Some of it will be refined in the U.S. Guess where the rail lines are that that oil will be transported on. Why, right next to the Mississippi River as it makes its way from St. Paul to the Gulf of Mexico.
Other trains of rail cars are headed to other places, mostly in major cities, where major rail yards are most often also next to a river. As they travel, those trains will pass through cities and towns, almost always right through the heart of the city or town. That's because the railroads serve those communities by transporting all sorts of goods. The railroads go from major city to major city. They're how stuff travels. There are refineries all over the country. There may be one near where you live. And tank cars will deliver oil to those refineries.
Guess where those refineries are? Often, they're right next to a river or the ocean. We have a big refinery not far from St. Paul. It's right on the Mississippi River. The crude oil in those tank cars doesn't go to that refinery. It gets its crude oil through pipelines.
Many of the trains of tank cars are 120-150 cars in length. The oil in those tank car trains adds up to over a million gallons in each train. Each train, and there are many trains moving through St. Paul every day. Sometimes trains derail. Sometimes oil spills. Sometimes it burns. And the trains go through cities and towns, along our major rivers, and through all sorts of countryside.
Pipelines also carry massive quantities of oil from place to place in the United States. They've been built for many years now. It's cheaper to transport oil through pipelines and uses far less energy than transporting it in fragile tank cars on railroad tracks. This country runs on oil. It shouldn't, of course, and we should be developing alternative energy as fast as we can. But for the time being, oil is what fuels our economy.
The oil will move. It will go from where it is produced to refineries. It will go to ports where it gets loaded into tanker ships that will take it other places for refining. The oil will continue to move. The only question, really, is how it will move. It will go in rail cars or it will go in pipelines. But the oil will move. Which method is safer? Which method is more environmentally sound? That's difficult to say. Both methods have risks. Both have had historical disastrous incidents.
I don't know which method of transportation is the better one, all things considered. It may even be a wash. But:
The oil will move, one way or another.
cali
(114,904 posts)MineralMan
(146,317 posts)Maybe I missed something in there. Transporting oil comes with risks, regardless of how you do it. And yet, it will be transported. Is there more risk with pipelines than with rail transport? I do not have the answer to that question, but the Mississippi River is also an important environmental asset. So is the Ogallala aquifer. Which method is safer? That seems to me to be an important question, since the oil will be transported, one way or another.
cali
(114,904 posts)I think the risk is about equal- though different. I did quite a bit of research about this after the Lac Megantic disaster.
MineralMan
(146,317 posts)I'm not necessarily an opponent, either. What I know is that oil is going to be moved from production fields to shipping and refining destinations. There's no way that's not going to happen. So, I'm interested in finding the safest, most environmentally-sound method for doing that. From what I can see, the pipelines appear to have the edge, overall. My problem is surface shipping of volatile oil in tank cars right through every major city. The XL pipeline goes nowhere near major cities.
The environmental risk is always there, as well.
I'm a proponent of finding alternative energy sources as quickly as possible. Still, the oil will be moved until we get there.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)pipeline.
JonLP24
(29,322 posts)When the State Department issued its long-awaited environmental-impact statement on the Keystone XL project earlier this month, one of its key findings was that if the controversial pipeline weren't built, oil-laden rail cars would pick up the slack. "Rail will likely be able to accommodate new production if new pipelines are delayed or not constructed," it argued. As we noted recently, that rail transit is already underway. According to the Association of American Railroads (AAR), crude oil traveling by rail increased from 9,500 carloads in 2008 to an estimated 400,000 in 2013. Recently, an ExxonMobil official said the company had already begun to use trains to haul oil out of the Canadian tar sands, and the company plans to move up to 100,000 barrels of oil per day from a new terminal by 2015. In other words, tar sands will be developed one way or another, according to the State Department, with or without the $5.4 billion pipeline that would eventually link Alberta to the Gulf of Mexico.
The AAR argues carrying crude by tanker car is safe, citing a statistic that 99.9977 percent of dangerous chemical shipments by rail reached their destination without incident through 2010, making it safer than other forms of transport. But as crude by rail in the United States is increasingthe AAR says shipments have shot up 443 percent since 2005so too are the spills. An analysis of the data from the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration shows that in the US, 7 of the worst 10 railroad oil spills of the past decade happened in the last three years. This number doesn't include the catastrophic accident in Lac-Megantic, Quebec, last July, which decimated the town and killed 47 people.
In fact, at over 1.2 million gallons spilled in total, more crude oil was spilled from trains last year than every other year since 1971 combined. The 10 worst spills together cost nearly $2 million in damages. The worst was in Aliceville, Alabama, on November 8, when nearly 750,000 gallons spilled from a 90-car train after it derailed, setting off a series of explosions. In Casselton, North Dakota, nearly a half-million gallons spilled on December 30, after a grain train derailed in front of a BNSF train filled with crude oil, igniting an inferno that forced the town to evacuate.
The severity of the Lac-Megantic incident forced the National Transportation Safety Board, in conjunction with the Canadians (where crude by rail is also booming), to issue a 15-page document recommending increased safely measures. The report finds that "railroad accidents involving crude oil have a potential for disastrous consequences and environmental contamination equal to that of the worst on-shore pipeline accidents." Despite the urgency, the report says not enough has been done to properly equip US railways to face the increasing demands: "Although railroad accidents involving large numbers of crude oil tank cars can have similar outcomes [to pipeline spills], oil spill response planning requirements for rail transportation of oil/petroleum products are practically nonexistent compared with other modes of transportation."
http://www.motherjones.com/blue-marble/2014/02/map-railway-oil-spills
MineralMan
(146,317 posts)in the past year or so, as well. I'm still trying to figure out which transport method is the safer of the two, overall. I include both environmental damage and damage to structures and people, as well. I don't know the answer.
Thank you for your information. Now, if we can get some information on damage caused by pipeline spills for comparison. Clearly rail transport has many hazards.
JonLP24
(29,322 posts)but the key substantial difference between the two appears to be "oil spill response planning requirements for rail transportation of oil/petroleum products are practically nonexistent compared with other modes of transportation."
Here is the report of the Environmental Impact Statement
http://keystonepipeline-xl.state.gov/documents/organization/221135.pdf
MineralMan
(146,317 posts)about oil tank car railroad safety. It's interesting.
http://www.lohud.com/story/news/local/rockland/2014/04/23/crude-oil-derailments-fire-concerns/8054931/
I also read a fire engineering organization article on the subject, but can't find it again to provide a link. The upshot of it was that fire departments are not at all prepared for a major spill and fire from oil tanker trains.
JustAnotherGen
(31,828 posts)I'm certified for HAZMAT - IATA, Vessel, DOT, Rail - as I have a homeland security function at my company. It's part of the freight controls.
This is a link:
https://www.fra.dot.gov/Page/P0151
You can also reference the 49 CFR - it's a weighty 'document' - but eventually those rail cars loads have to go onto a truck or ocean vessel for midway or final destination.
There's no guarantee that tomorrow you won't get in your car to run errands and find yourself in a highway accident with a hazmat containing vehicle. None.
Ditto a train derailment in your vicinity. But if the seller has followed the rules - first responders WILL know precisely what to do. I can't imagine a natural disaster causing an oil spill (train derailment) that we could avoid by just keeping the train where it is at - or diverting it.
I can imagine a natural disaster causing a massive leak/spill and ruining more than 2 million human beings' water supply. How do we mitigate that? Do we put a placard up every quarter mile along the pipe line? Every 8th of a mile?
I have to get re-certified every few years and there is a lot of information there. It's class time to stay up to date - but I Hope this helps. You are a true Information Sponge. 49 CFR gives the highest level overview but then you have to veer off for IATA, Ocean, etc. etc.
MineralMan
(146,317 posts)I can ask the questions, but the answers are something beyond my capabilities. The one think I know is that the answers are neither simple nor obvious.
And don't get me started on highway hazards. Last winter, on a day when icy roads were causing accident after accident, I had to drive to the MSP airport, which required me to jump onto I-94 through St. Paul. No sooner than I got on the highway, I found myself behind a Liquid Oxygen semi tank truck. Fortunately, traffic was light enough that I was able to pass that truck and put a good deal of distance between me and it.
I'm no expert on hazardous materials, but I know that LOX is not something I want to be near if that large tanker truck got into an accident. It didn't, of course, but I was not about to follow it for any longer than it took me to get far in front of it.
JustAnotherGen
(31,828 posts)My certification for all aspects as well as a refresh on C-TPAT was about 5 weeks of in class time this year. And that's not as a novice.
But there are rules you have to follow or you pay massive fines.
Ask me about Deepwater Horizon - because I'll tell you - that was a cheap shot. The fact that they got away with that. It's absolute murder.
I don't want a situation like that on land.
Agnosticsherbet
(11,619 posts)If we are going to transport all that oil by rail, the US will need to repair and replace a lot of miles of rail that have not been properly maintained for decades.
MineralMan
(146,317 posts)system is being challenged right now, due to the high volume of crude oil being shipped. That is causing major delays in transport for other commodities normally shipped by train.
Even Amtrak is impacted. I've seen it here in St. Paul. Passenger trains coming from the west are now typically several hours behind schedule due to freight traffic which shares the same rail lines and has a higher priority. We picked up my wife's uncle, when he traveled from Montana to St. Paul. His train was 8 hours late. It was stopped for a long time in North Dakota due to oil tanker trains having priority. That's a minor issue, really, since cross-country passenger train transport is minimal, really. But, it's a symptom of the problem that is being faced in transport of many goods, including grain crops.
KamaAina
(78,249 posts)Amtrak will continue to work with NS Railway, CSX and other carriers to restore dependable service along these routes.
And those routes are more heavily traveled than the Empire Builder through ND.
edit: The irony is that rail travel uses less of the stuff that's clogging up the rails than driving or flying.
JustAnotherGen
(31,828 posts)A massive infrastructure project in America that puts the Great Works projects to shame. You are bang on with this. Now how to get the legislative bodies to understand that its an investment that puts people back to work? That's the challenge.
It's such a win win all the way around for us to do these thing which makes us safer. Imagine if we had spent the money on this as opposed to TSA activity. More Americans have railways running through their backyards - and take to the highways and roads than fly.
Brickbat
(19,339 posts)B Calm
(28,762 posts)snooper2
(30,151 posts)VICE
The Crude Gamble of Oil by Rail: Bomb Trains
MineralMan
(146,317 posts)Last edited Fri Nov 14, 2014, 04:49 PM - Edit history (1)
in very deadly ways in some cases. I wonder when there will be such an incident here in St. Paul. Given the huge amount of crude oil that passes through my city, I imagine it will be sometime soon.
Note: I live two blocks from a rail route. Fortunately, it's not one that transports oil. It takes a roundabout route to Chicago from St. Paul, and serves a lot of smaller cities along the way. There's a shorter distance freight line from St. Paul to Chicago that is owned by BNSF, which is the main transporter here of crude oil. The line that passes near my home is a Union Pacific route.
It really highlights the potential for danger. Also likely that it travels through Steilacoom. While not the potential for disaster as downtown Seattle, it straddles small town, historical downtown buildings, a popular beach and Pugent Sound.
Needs regulations BAD. The pipeline tries to avoid as much water as possible, rail carts just have the possibility of dumping large amounts of oil into the Pugent Sound and there are plenty of opportunities.
I was a 100% against Pipeline but now I'm not so sure. It seems to be the most reasonable & safest way to handle the demand that's going to be handled one way or the other.
MineralMan
(146,317 posts)Mississippi is beyond amazing. That's also an environmental resource that could easily be badly contaminated by a spill. Each 120-car unit train of crude oil carries over 1 million gallons. Several a day leave St. Paul heading south along the Mississippi.
snooper2
(30,151 posts)I bring it up again and again,
Only to be greeted by crickets each and every time. Best I can figure everyone just loves saying KEYSTONE!
MineralMan
(146,317 posts)It's important, but it's far from the only issue that matters. For me, the bottom line with Keystone is that oil is going to be transported, one way or another. It may just be that a pipeline is the least dangerous way to do so. Nobody but me seems to be bringing that up, so this thread isn't getting a lot of traction. Or maybe it's just that I'm the one who posted it, so what I'm saying must be wrong.
snooper2
(30,151 posts)Plenty of ranchers and farmers getting their land cut in half by it. A few Texans down here are pretty pissed off.
Now, THAT would be the way to get support for a position against it. But nay, people here just say FUCK THE KOCKS!, who only 2.34% of the population even know exist.
MineralMan
(146,317 posts)As for the Kochs, they own half of the petroleum pipelines around the Twin Cities, along with the refinery on the river. That refinery serves jet fuel to MSP airport, through a pipeline directly from the refinery to the airport. Runs right under cities along the way. Most major cities are a maze of pipelines already.
Ink Man
(171 posts)BNSF railroad?
I remember. Warren Buffett. Good friends with the President. Money talks and both sides of the aisle.
The President will veto the bill. Then Buffett and the Koch brothers will flood Washington with money to override the veto or not. So starts the war chest for 2016.
JonLP24
(29,322 posts)The Environmental Impact Statement, the VICE video, and other facts presented are key to forming an opinion. There was a lot I didn't know that I do know.
Can't blame DU for focusing on this since policy makers are focusing on the issue. It doesn't hurt to focus on issues currently presented by lawmakers, then move on to the next important issue presented by lawmakers. A political message board should function along those lines.
MineralMan
(146,317 posts)the issue, since it's not one that is getting much attention. It's important to recognized what happens if Keystone isn't approved. Two sides to the same knotty problem.
JonLP24
(29,322 posts)You seem like one who understands the situation rather than react to it.
I wouldn't focus much on attention. Sometimes the level-headed threads sink while the polarizing threads have the effect they're designed for.
Erich Bloodaxe BSN
(14,733 posts)not moving the tar sands, then yeah, you get 'bad choice 1' vs. 'bad choice 2'.
Money conquers all.
MineralMan
(146,317 posts)What I think is best isn't going to happen for a long time. In the meantime, I have realities to consider. Nothing I do is going to stop the oil from moving from one place to another. My opinion on that will not affect that at all. In the meantime, I drive by those rail yards regularly. They are a reality. The oil is passing through them every day.
For me, politics is not a theoretical thing in any way, really. The impact of political issues is real enough for me. The oil will continue to be transported. That's not theoretical. It is a fact. I can consider not producing oil in North Dakota by fracking or by mining oil sands and shale deposits in Canada. My consideration will not change the fact that it is already being produced and is going to be transported.
Facts dictate that figuring out the safest ways to transport it is a real issue.
Erich Bloodaxe BSN
(14,733 posts)As you note, you don't have a real say in whether or not it's moved.
MineralMan
(146,317 posts)I will always assume you mean me. That's English for you.
riversedge
(70,242 posts)WI--preventing other commodities from being shipped via rail. Interesting story. A few weeks ago a friend wanted his patio cement laid before it froze. Anyway, he had to wait about 2 weeks because local stores were out of cement mixture- which is shipped by rail (mid Wisconsin). I had read an article to this effect a few weeks ago--can't find it now Sorry.
MineralMan
(146,317 posts)Apparently even the new Vikings stadium has to wait their turn.
riversedge
(70,242 posts)riversedge
(70,242 posts)Heitkamp: Lucky no one hurt in new ND train derailment http://thehill.com/policy/transportation/224227-heitikamp-lucky-no-one-hurt-in-new-nd-train-derailment#.VGfTXYk7Ipk.twitter
Sen. Heidi Heitkamp (D-N.D.) said Friday that it was lucky no one was hurt in a pair of new freight train derailments near Casselton, N.D., on Thursday night.
Two empty trains that would normally be used to carry flammable crude oil derailed on Thursday night near Casselton, according to a report from the Bismarck Tribune.
The trains were operated by freight company BNSF Railway, which was also operating a train that was involved in a December 2013 derailment in Casselton ....