New article on oil trains

[Overmod]

This article is by "an independent consultant on chemical facility and transportation safety and security":

http://www.startribune.com/business/282785701.html

He draws an interesting parallel with nuclear-waste transport by rail.

I think most of his points are already well familiar to many on here, and some of them already refuted or argued against.  Does this article represent the current 'state of discourse' as presented in popular media?

(Personally, I think the recently-announced program to require volatile, etc., removal from crude before allowing transport in railroad cars addresses a great deal of Mr. Millar's "insidious metastasizing of oil patch disaster risks into America’s cities and neighborhoods"...)

 

[Murphy Siding]

From the article:

"...the railroads to prove that they have selected the “safest and most secure” routes for all their highest risk hazmat cargoes, as a 2007 federal law require..."


     Is there such a law, and is it clear enough to include the shipment of oil by train?

[MidlandMike]

The fact that he is a chemical safety consultant base in Washington, DC indicates he works for national associations or lobbyists.  The fact he used nuclear waste as an analogy suggest he advocating for environmental groups.

[Paul_D_North_Jr]

Overmod

[snipped - PDN] . . . (Personally, I think the recently-announced program to require volatile, etc., removal from crude before allowing transport in railroad cars addresses a great deal of Mr. Millar's "insidious metastasizing of oil patch disaster risks into America’s cities and neighborhoods"...) 

Late last week an article in the Wall Street Journal was about the North Dakota regulators deciding to require that (greatly simplified by me) the 'volatile' content of that state's crude oil be measured using a "closed" sampling method and measuring device, not those open to the atmosphere which allow the volatile fractions to escape, essentially producing a bogus 'low' measurement.  I didn't see or note anything in that article about actually removing the volatiles - just about measuring them more accurately. 

- Paul North.   

[Euclid]

It sounds like he is advocating the banning of oil by rail on the grounds that it is unnecessary and too dangerous.  We have had discussions here about this.  The nuclear waste transport represents the level of mechanical safety that is needed to end the danger of oil by rail. 

With the mechanics of shipping nuclear waste, the objective is clear.  With the rerouting of oil trains and strengthening of tank cars, the objective is murky.

[schlimm]

Given that Casselton dodged the bullet the other day with a two train collision/derailment involving empty oil tank cars next to an ethanol plant, one should understand why North Dakota is nervous.

[BaltACD]

Everyone believes DOT 111 tank cars with Baaken Crude behave like the Pinto in the following video clip

[CShaveRR]

The Google ad that accompanied this video clip was for cremation services.

[MidlandMike]

Paul_D_North_Jr

 

 

 

Late last week an article in the Wall Street Journal was about the North Dakota regulators deciding to require that (greatly simplified by me) the 'volatile' content of that state's crude oil be measured using a "closed" sampling method and measuring device, not those open to the atmosphere which allow the volatile fractions to escape, essentially producing a bogus 'low' measurement.  I didn't see or note anything in that article about actually removing the volatiles - just about measuring them more accurately. 

 

- Paul North.   

 

Paul, the link to the WSJ article did not appear to be live.

Perhaps the regulators wanted to be sure the sample testing was accurate to be sure the load was classified into the right hazardous packing group.  The problem with removing the more volatile components of the crude, is they still need more gas pipelines, and propane facilities (which would generate even more explosive propane tank car loads).

[BaltACD]

CShaveRR

The Google ad that accompanied this video clip was for cremation services.

 

Sorry that I can't control Google Ads.

[Paul_D_North_Jr]

MidlandMike, I did not intend for that link to be live - I underlined it just for citation/ reference format purposes.  Still, try this link - the article is date-lined Nov. 13, but I believe it appears in the Nov. 14th edition:

http://online.wsj.com/articles/north-dakota-to-require-producers-to-treat-crude-before-shipping-1415913185 

Also, this article from Nov. 13th:

http://online.wsj.com/articles/bakken-volatility-tests-face-more-challenges-1415841108?KEYWORDS=russell gold  "Industry, Canadian Officials Fear That Explosive Risk of North Dakota Oil Is Understated"

Recalling it a little better (I may have confused/ conflated the 2 articles), a secondary point of concern was the regulators would require that if the crude had too high a level of volatiles, it would have to be "stabilized", which apparently means removing the volatiles, as you allude to and which Overmod also suggested a few posts above. 

- Paul North. 

[CShaveRR]

Oh, I wasn't blaming you, Balt...just thought that it was funny, but perverted.