zugmann schlimm And if a railroad unilaterally refused, given the history and the two recent accidents involving Bakken, do you actually think the FRA would punish the carrier? Doubtful. Waiting years for new cars or retrofitted cars is unacceptable any longer. The railroads would be wise to at least appear to be ahead of the curve. Change is coming because the public is understandably losing confidence in safe transport of this cargo. RR refuses oil. Oil company complains to congress (esp. if election year). Congress pressures FRA. FRA pressures RR.
schlimm And if a railroad unilaterally refused, given the history and the two recent accidents involving Bakken, do you actually think the FRA would punish the carrier? Doubtful. Waiting years for new cars or retrofitted cars is unacceptable any longer. The railroads would be wise to at least appear to be ahead of the curve. Change is coming because the public is understandably losing confidence in safe transport of this cargo.
And if a railroad unilaterally refused, given the history and the two recent accidents involving Bakken, do you actually think the FRA would punish the carrier? Doubtful. Waiting years for new cars or retrofitted cars is unacceptable any longer. The railroads would be wise to at least appear to be ahead of the curve. Change is coming because the public is understandably losing confidence in safe transport of this cargo.
RR refuses oil. Oil company complains to congress (esp. if election year). Congress pressures FRA. FRA pressures RR.
Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.
schlimm BaltACDTo date the FRA has not seen fit to restrict the use of DOT 111 cars - so they are legal for the cargos they are hauling and for a carrier to refuse to accept the cars the carrier would be in violation of its common carrier status. And if a railroad unilaterally refused, given the history and the two recent accidents involving Bakken, do you actually think the FRA would punish the carrier? Nope, the STB would, with major fines, not to mention the shipper filing suit in civil court. Doubtful. Waiting years for new cars or retrofitted cars is unacceptable any longer. The railroads would be wise to at least appear to be ahead of the curve. Change is coming because the public is understandably losing confidence in safe transport of this cargo. Outside of the railfan community and some parts of the media, the general public has no clue what rides the rails, doesn’t want to know, and for the most part ignores railroads. Outside of constant and consistent complaining, I have yet to hear you offer any viable solution beyond the unworkable “Just say no”…plan on offering anything besides complaints?
BaltACDTo date the FRA has not seen fit to restrict the use of DOT 111 cars - so they are legal for the cargos they are hauling and for a carrier to refuse to accept the cars the carrier would be in violation of its common carrier status.
And if a railroad unilaterally refused, given the history and the two recent accidents involving Bakken, do you actually think the FRA would punish the carrier?
Nope, the STB would, with major fines, not to mention the shipper filing suit in civil court.
Doubtful. Waiting years for new cars or retrofitted cars is unacceptable any longer. The railroads would be wise to at least appear to be ahead of the curve. Change is coming because the public is understandably losing confidence in safe transport of this cargo.
Outside of the railfan community and some parts of the media, the general public has no clue what rides the rails, doesn’t want to know, and for the most part ignores railroads.
Outside of constant and consistent complaining, I have yet to hear you offer any viable solution beyond the unworkable “Just say no”…plan on offering anything besides complaints?
23 17 46 11
CShaveRR Ed, perhaps the combination of fire and Ice was too much for some posters to resist. One thing that I haven't seen addressed here (admittedly I haven't gone very far back) is that the Bakken crude is being discovered very recently (thanks to these incidents) as being not your ordinary crude oil. It has approximately the same volatility as gasoline. With Lac Megantic, they thought it might be a fluke, that the crude settled over the long trip and some volatile stuff came to the top. But this Casselton wreck involved fairly freshly-loaded cars, and the same thing happened. Still, the shippers are calling it crude oil, and trying to get it out before some sort of embargo occurs (don't know when or if that could happen). There are smoking guns out there saying that the shippers know that this is a different animal, yet they're trying to say that it's just more crude oil.So, conventional crude oil is shipped in DOT-111A tank cars. Gasoline is shipped in DOT-111A tank cars. There have been no problems because they haven't been shipped in trainload quantities until recently. One car blowing up would possibly be newsworthy for a day or so, depending on the location. But here you have something with the volatility of gasoline being shipped a hundred cars (give or take) at a time, and it seems like Armageddon, and the railroads are at fault (that's the perception, which I don't buy into). Now, new tank cars to accommodate the crude business have been coming out by the thousands for the last couple of years or so. I have yet to hear of a disaster involving those cars. There are enough cars on order right now for the carbuilders to be kept busy for a year or more. Between the crude itself and the frac sand, this has the potential to replace coal as a big revenue producer.So, how do we handle the wait for the roper tank cars to be built to accommodate this stuff? Carbuilders say that retrofitting existing cars is not the answer (they would...they want to fatten their order books!). It can be done, and probably for a lot less expense than new cars, but anything older than the cars built for the ethanol boom are probably too old to justify it (and how's that ethanol thing going...enough surplus cars there yet? Didn't think so...). The shppers want more cars, but are telling the railroads that this is just crude oil. They don't want to sit around waiting for the order backlog to be built sometime in 2015. New pipelines? Good luck with that...it would be even longer for them to be operational, even if they do get approval.Bullets will have to be bitten somewhere. The safest answer would be to invest in a lot of on-site refining capability, but that would take as long as any of the other options. And Heaven forfend that the oil companies spend any of their profits on such things when they can earn more money shipping and exporting the oil.Off my soapbox. I may be full of it. But think about who really might be to blame here, or how best to bide the time until viable solutions are available.
Ed, perhaps the combination of fire and Ice was too much for some posters to resist.
One thing that I haven't seen addressed here (admittedly I haven't gone very far back) is that the Bakken crude is being discovered very recently (thanks to these incidents) as being not your ordinary crude oil. It has approximately the same volatility as gasoline. With Lac Megantic, they thought it might be a fluke, that the crude settled over the long trip and some volatile stuff came to the top. But this Casselton wreck involved fairly freshly-loaded cars, and the same thing happened. Still, the shippers are calling it crude oil, and trying to get it out before some sort of embargo occurs (don't know when or if that could happen). There are smoking guns out there saying that the shippers know that this is a different animal, yet they're trying to say that it's just more crude oil.So, conventional crude oil is shipped in DOT-111A tank cars. Gasoline is shipped in DOT-111A tank cars. There have been no problems because they haven't been shipped in trainload quantities until recently. One car blowing up would possibly be newsworthy for a day or so, depending on the location. But here you have something with the volatility of gasoline being shipped a hundred cars (give or take) at a time, and it seems like Armageddon, and the railroads are at fault (that's the perception, which I don't buy into).
Now, new tank cars to accommodate the crude business have been coming out by the thousands for the last couple of years or so. I have yet to hear of a disaster involving those cars. There are enough cars on order right now for the carbuilders to be kept busy for a year or more. Between the crude itself and the frac sand, this has the potential to replace coal as a big revenue producer.So, how do we handle the wait for the roper tank cars to be built to accommodate this stuff? Carbuilders say that retrofitting existing cars is not the answer (they would...they want to fatten their order books!). It can be done, and probably for a lot less expense than new cars, but anything older than the cars built for the ethanol boom are probably too old to justify it (and how's that ethanol thing going...enough surplus cars there yet? Didn't think so...). The shppers want more cars, but are telling the railroads that this is just crude oil. They don't want to sit around waiting for the order backlog to be built sometime in 2015. New pipelines? Good luck with that...it would be even longer for them to be operational, even if they do get approval.Bullets will have to be bitten somewhere. The safest answer would be to invest in a lot of on-site refining capability, but that would take as long as any of the other options. And Heaven forfend that the oil companies spend any of their profits on such things when they can earn more money shipping and exporting the oil.Off my soapbox. I may be full of it. But think about who really might be to blame here, or how best to bide the time until viable solutions are available.
Carl,
I agree with what you say….my point is the DOT111A car is currently legal to use to haul this stuff.
Refusing to move the car because you don’t like what is in it is illegal.
In fact, refusing the car for any reason besides it being a bad order car is illegal.
Breaking the law is not a good idea.
Oh, and we do haul unit trains of gasoline out of Shell Deer Park , have done so for years…in DOT111A cars, with no incidents.
I asked both Henry and Schlimm for solutions, neither have responded beyond Henry stating “refuse the car”, which he knows we (both carriers and railroaders) can’t.
From Schlimm, all I have heard is…well, not much beyond pointing out the successor Matt Rose groomed to replace him has, in fact, replaced him.
That and the repetitive statement that the NTSB doesn’t like the DOT111A tank car.
Both seem to ignore the legal framework we have to work within, and appear to be more concerned with waving a flag of moral indignation than a real world working solution.
Henrys “Big Oil” conspiracy theory reminds me a great deal of the story that knocked around all the automotive and gear head forums and groups for years…you may have heard it, the one where ”a guy” sometime in the late 60s, early 70s invented a super carburetor that you could bolt on any engine and get 40, 50 60 mile to the gallon with….and the “big oil” companies forced him to sell them the patent and then hid it so they could keep forcing us to use more gasoline than we had too.
So, he implies that the people shipping the fracked crude systematically and intentionally mislabel and miss classify their product, for some unspecified reason, (even if they classified it as a class 3 flammable, it would still travel in the same cars, in the same quantities on the same trains on the same routes) and even though they know their mislabeled product will at some point be involved in an accident, they are pretty sure no one will notice.
Right…
A question for you specifically Carl, as you are one of the most car oriented guys I can think of…do you have the number of cars BNSF and UP ordered, and which one of the big leasing companies placed orders?
The GATX facility in Galena Park is going nuts fabricating tank heads, UP is dragging several flats a day out of there stacked to the max with them.
Your opinion. You don't actually know any of your contentions with anything resembling the certitude you portray them. And please do not intersperse your comments with mine, all under my quote.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
schlimm BaltACDTo date the FRA has not seen fit to restrict the use of DOT 111 cars - so they are legal for the cargos they are hauling and for a carrier to refuse to accept the cars the carrier would be in violation of its common carrier status. And if a railroad unilaterally refused, given the history and the two recent accidents involving Bakken, do you actually think the FRA would punish the carrier? Doubtful. Waiting years for new cars or retrofitted cars is unacceptable any longer. The railroads would be wise to at least appear to be ahead of the curve. Change is coming because the public is understandably losing confidence in safe transport of this cargo.
How many gas stations refused to allow gas to be put into Ford Pinto's with their gas tank location consistantly causing explosions and fires when the Pinto's were involved in collisions? None! No govermental authority with force of law ordered the Pinto's off the road - until such time as that would happen, the Pinto was just another car.
One cannot act unilaterally without the force of existing law to support your position, unless you want to have your business severly hammered by the appropriate regulatory and legal forces.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
schlimm Your opinion. You don't actually know any of your contentions with anything resembling the certitude you portray them. And please do not intersperse your comments with mine, all under my quote.
Oh, snap. I'll come up with a better reply once I get my dictionary and thesaurus out.
It's been fun. But it isn't much fun anymore. Signing off for now.
The opinions expressed here represent my own and not those of my employer, any other railroad, company, or person.t fun any
Please don’t assume you have any righ to tell anyone what they can and cannot say, do or write, in whatever manner, style or color they choose to.
And when did you buy a quote?
Are they expensive to feed?
The business model today is that the shipper provides the cars instead of the rails. Builders are ready but railroads invest in infrastructure, locomotives, and marketing leaving the shippers to provide cars sculpted to their needs. If anything, leasing companies will be the one's to invest in cars and lease them to the shippers.
Bakken Crude is different...it is more volatile and more flammable. According to what has been said by the oil companies since they confessed is that it is uneven by well, by location, by all kinds of differentiations so that they can't really tell the differences at any given time. All they know is that it is different. But they never told anyone.
If you were to accept a job into your home that you knew was dangerous in a serious and different way and that you couldn't calculate what could go wrong at any given time or place in the house and could destroy the house, kill your family and maybe destroy the neighborhood and kill your neighbors, too, would you? So why should a railroad or truck or barge accept a commodity that will do the same to their business and employees as well as their neighbors? Really, the questions are raised, the danger is laid bare for all to contemplate. Would you not decline the offer to destroy yourself?
RIDEWITHMEHENRY is the name for our almost monthly day of riding trains and transit in either the NYCity or Philadelphia areas including all commuter lines, Amtrak, subways, light rail and trolleys, bus and ferries when warranted. No fees, just let us know you want to join the ride and pay your fares. Ask to be on our email list or find us on FB as RIDEWITHMEHENRY (all caps) to get descriptions of each outing.
zugmann schlimm Your opinion. You don't actually know any of your contentions with anything resembling the certitude you portray them. And please do not intersperse your comments with mine, all under my quote. Oh, snap. I'll come up with a better reply once I get my dictionary and thesaurus out.
Ya know, its sorta like putting the house cat on a freshly waxed floor, and getting them to chase the dot from a laser pointer…it starts out funny, then you begin to wonder how dumb the cat can really be, then you discover the cat just can’t help itself, then you begin to feel sorry for the cat and stop…..of course, then you get bored and get the laser pointer back out!
schlimm BaltACDTo date the FRA has not seen fit to restrict the use of DOT 111 cars - so they are legal for the cargos they are hauling and for a carrier to refuse to accept the cars the carrier would be in violation of its common carrier status. And if a railroad unilaterally refused, given the history and the two recent accidents involving Bakken, do you actually think the FRA would punish the carrier? Doubtful.
And if a railroad unilaterally refused, given the history and the two recent accidents involving Bakken, do you actually think the FRA would punish the carrier? Doubtful.
You are correct, the FRA would not do a thing. That is not their job. The STB would have a field day with them however. Now, could you please stop asking the same question over and over, as the UP case study already points to the answer?
An "expensive model collector"
schlimm And if a railroad unilaterally refused, given the history and the two recent accidents involving Bakken, do you actually think the FRA would punish the carrier?
Yes. Already happened. Railroad refused to carry hazmat shipment. Was taken to court. Lost. Hauls the shipment. Been there done that. Legal precedent.
The railroads have been working with industry to design a new tank car for TIH/PIH. The UP has been hauling the prototype for free on an circular route from Houston to LA to N Platte and back to Houston for the last several months. They have put the equivalent mileage of several decades on the car in a short amount of time to test the effects of use on the structure of the car.
When the hazmat rules changed a couple years ago the government requested extensive data from the railroads on their hazmat shipments, quantity, routes, where it was switched, etc. You have to separate out the Lac Megantic and the Casselton incidents. One was a failure of management and processes. The other was truly an accident. It was just chance that a train was going by at the exact time the grain car failed and that the cars the derailed cars hit was crude oil. It could have been a manifest train and derailed into the side of LPG cars or into the engines and started a diesel fire and endangered the crew.
The odds of the Casselton derailment is like that of being hit by lightning during a shark attack on the day you win the lottery.
Dave H. Painted side goes up. My website : wnbranch.com
henry6 {snip} If you were to accept a job into your home that you knew was dangerous in a serious and different way and that you couldn't calculate what could go wrong at any given time or place in the house and could destroy the house, kill your family and maybe destroy the neighborhood and kill your neighbors, too, would you? So why should a railroad or truck or barge accept a commodity that will do the same to their business and employees as well as their neighbors? Really, the questions are raised, the danger is laid bare for all to contemplate. Would you not decline the offer to destroy yourself?
{snip}
Semper Vaporo
Pkgs.
henry6 The business model today is that the shipper provides the cars instead of the rails. Builders are ready but railroads invest in infrastructure, locomotives, and marketing leaving the shippers to provide cars sculpted to their needs. If anything, leasing companies will be the one's to invest in cars and lease them to the shippers. Bakken Crude is different...it is more volatile and more flammable. According to what has been said by the oil companies since they confessed is that it is uneven by well, by location, by all kinds of differentiations so that they can't really tell the differences at any given time. All they know is that it is different. But they never told anyone. If you were to accept a job into your home that you knew was dangerous in a serious and different way and that you couldn't calculate what could go wrong at any given time or place in the house and could destroy the house, kill your family and maybe destroy the neighborhood and kill your neighbors, too, would you? So why should a railroad or truck or barge accept a commodity that will do the same to their business and employees as well as their neighbors? Really, the questions are raised, the danger is laid bare for all to contemplate. Would you not decline the offer to destroy yourself?
Your correct Henry, leasing companies will be the ones to lead in the purchase of the new cars.
But, both BNSF and UP are also ordering cars, they will offer the same basic service the currently offer to grain and coal shipments as unit trains.
Most petrochemical shipments are not arranged by the producer and the railroad, but are arranged by a third part, a logistic transportation company, Vantage comes to mind.
The third party, once contracted by the producer, arranges the marshaling of the cars, works out the ordering of the suitable car, arranges the delivery of the car to the producer’s facility, notifies the carrier when the cars are released, pretty much handles all of it.
There are some major petrochemical companies who have their own internal logistic divisions, Shell, Dow and Phillips do, simply because of the sheer volume of cars needed and the volume of product they make, Shell has its own fleet of long term leased cars, but most companies use an outside logistic firm.
This logistic service is often offered by the car leasing company, so it is in the leasing company’s best interest to get as many of the new cars on line in the shortest time frame as possible.
About the only solution I can foresee to what seems to be your major concern, the mislabeling or misclassification of this type of crude is to reclassify it as a Class 3 flammable and placard the cars accordingly.
Firefighters will then be aware they are dealing with a product that ignites more easily and burn hotter than normal crude.
Heres something you might want to consider…
If the people who produce this crude came to the General Manager of the PTRA and said they wanted to start running 120 car unit trains of this stuff to us, in DOT111A cars and labled as a Class 3 combustiable, so we could run it out to Jacinto Port to be loaded into tanker ships and head out the intercostal water way…the reply from the PTRA will be, “When do want to start and how many trains a day will you want to run?”
No is not an option.
What I find a little ironic is that in one thread, people got all bent, jumped up and down and decried the carrier because it wouldn’t tie itself in knots to deliver one car of lumber once a month to a customer…the “How dare you not provide service to this customer? attitude…several of you were indignant about it, harping on the “customer service” concept, and one of you even pointed out that we are required by law to offer service…but then you guys turn around and in this thread condemn us because we won’t refuse to serve a customer’ or refuse their cars?
Jeeze guys, pick one and stick with it, ok?
Even more ironic is that the customer(and the person who started the thread) in the other thread, Murphy, was the first to point out and state that the railroad most likely lost money on the movement, and most likely it was uneconomical and inconvenient for his company to receive this shipment by rail.
Hummm, there is a bright light in the harbor after all!
edblysardA question for you specifically Carl, as you are one of the most car oriented guys I can think of…do you have the number of cars BNSF and UP ordered, and which one of the big leasing companies placed orders?
Some of the biggest leasing companies build their own (Trinity Industries, Union Tank Car Company, American Railcar Industries). Greenbrier Companies builds for other leasing companies, and National Steel Car is making noises about getting into the business.I haven't seen too many of the new cars myself, as UP isn't heavily into crude on my corridor. But right now, I might be able to gather some info on cars being built. I'm only showing cars built in 2012 and 2013; my references list cars of Car Type Codes T108 and T109, which are almost certainly class DOT-111A or DOT-211A (which I believe is the new specification) cars. There are also some new tank specifications, Car Type Codes T208 and 209, which I've seen being used for crude oil service. I don't know what their tank specificaton is, and I haven't been able to find a way to tell the difference without seeing them:Big West Resources, Inc.: 100 T108s.The CIT Group (lessor): 5327 T108s and T109s.Chevron: 75 T108s.General American (lessor): 224 T108sAmerican Railcar Industries (lessor): 1995 T108s and T209s? (SKSX): 720 T108sStatoil Marketing and Trading: 1040 T109sTrinity Industries (lessor): 1050 T108s, T109s, and T209s.Hess Corporation: 963 T208s.Union Tank Car Company (lessor): 440 T108s and T208s.? (VMSX): 2470 T108s and T109s.First Union Rail (lessor): 100 T209s.Phillips Petroleum: 2000 T209s.Procor Ltd. (lessor): 817 T208sSouthwest Rail Industries (lessor): 22 T208s.So I'm counting over 7000 crude-capable tank cars built in the last two years. Perhaps only the T208s and T209s are built to standards that would be considered safe. That would be only a drop in the bucket compared to what's needed. Railway Age says that there are 172,147 DOT-111 cars operating in hazardous-material service (some of which definitely are included in the 7000 or so cars I listed). And crude-by-rail volume, despite these incidents, is expected to increase over the next several years.Mislabeling the cars could be as simple as placing "combustible" placards on cars that require "flammable liquid" placards. I believe there was a mislabeling conspiracy, because this Bakken crude is a whole different animal, the shippers know it, and don't want to go to whatever added expense it would take to make it safer (about which I'm unsure it's possible beyond better tank cars...and "we're working on that.").
Carl
Railroader Emeritus (practiced railroading for 46 years--and in 2010 I finally got it right!)
CAACSCOCOM--I don't want to behave improperly, so I just won't behave at all. (SM)
Thanks Carl,
I think your numbers will surprise some folks, that’s a lot of tank cars!
I know BNSF has a boat load of tank cars under their logo; we handle a daily diesel fuel train out of Houston Fuel Oil to them…big train, lots and lots of BNSF tank cars.
BNSF doesn’t play around it with it either, they have road power and a DPU delivered to us well in advance of us pulling the train out of the plant, and it usually has a crew waiting to get their power in place once we cut away.
Empty in and load out once a day minimum.
edblysard Thanks Carl, I think your numbers will surprise some folks, that’s a lot of tank cars! I know BNSF has a boat load of tank cars under their logo; we handle a daily diesel fuel train out of Houston Fuel Oil to them…big train, lots and lots of BNSF tank cars. BNSF doesn’t paly around it with it either, they have road power and a DPU delivered to us well in advance of us pulling the train out of the plant, and it usually has a crew waiting to get their power in place once we cut away. Empty in and load out once a day minimum.
BNSF doesn’t paly around it with it either, they have road power and a DPU delivered to us well in advance of us pulling the train out of the plant, and it usually has a crew waiting to get their power in place once we cut away.
Don't know the BNSF logistics, however, that sounds like a company fuel movement to me (2000 miles away), todays engines swallow fuel in 5000 gallon gulps - it doesn't take long to consume a lot of company fuel. Fuel two 3 unit engine consists and you have emptied a 30,000 gallon tank car.
henry6 Bakken Crude is different...it is more volatile and more flammable. According to what has been said by the oil companies since they confessed is that it is uneven by well, by location, by all kinds of differentiations so that they can't really tell the differences at any given time. All they know is that it is different. But they never told anyone.
Did you even bother to read the article I linked to about a tank truck hauling Michigan crude that went off the freeway, crashed and exploded? Seems we could say Michigan crude is different too.
Norm
n012944 schlimm BaltACDTo date the FRA has not seen fit to restrict the use of DOT 111 cars - so they are legal for the cargos they are hauling and for a carrier to refuse to accept the cars the carrier would be in violation of its common carrier status. And if a railroad unilaterally refused, given the history and the two recent accidents involving Bakken, do you actually think the FRA would punish the carrier? Doubtful. Now, could you please stop asking the same question over and over, as the UP case study already points to the answer?
Now, could you please stop asking the same question over and over, as the UP case study already points to the answer?
Please! The Lac Megantic thread got way out of hand from the question being asked over and over.
Norm48327 henry6 Bakken Crude is different...it is more volatile and more flammable. According to what has been said by the oil companies since they confessed is that it is uneven by well, by location, by all kinds of differentiations so that they can't really tell the differences at any given time. All they know is that it is different. But they never told anyone. Did you even bother to read the article I linked to about a tank truck hauling Michigan crude that went off the freeway, crashed and exploded? Seems we could say Michigan crude is different too.
Yes. It was dated. Other and later releases support what I said not what your article said. Oil companies withheld information and didn't admit it until after the MMA Quebec accident when they were questioned and caught. Railroads are scapegoats so media mensa's did not pick up on it.
henry6 Norm48327 henry6 Bakken Crude is different...it is more volatile and more flammable. According to what has been said by the oil companies since they confessed is that it is uneven by well, by location, by all kinds of differentiations so that they can't really tell the differences at any given time. All they know is that it is different. But they never told anyone. Did you even bother to read the article I linked to about a tank truck hauling Michigan crude that went off the freeway, crashed and exploded? Seems we could say Michigan crude is different too. Yes. It was dated. Other and later releases support what I said not what your article said. Oil companies withheld information and didn't admit it until after the MMA Quebec accident when they were questioned and caught. Railroads are scapegoats so media mensa's did not pick up on it.
Happened about a week ago. Yeah. I guess that would be "dated".
I missed a day of discussion a week ago,and then the next day I saw there were so many replies I put if off another day, and then another, until I finally had time to catch-up. Reading several pages of replies at once lets you put things into perspective.
Posters have said that the railroads were not told of the hazards of Bakken crude. Canadian investigators have said that the tank contents at Lac Megantic were labeled one packing class less volatile that testing revealed. IIRC they were indicated as combustible rather than flammable. Nevertheless it was pointed out that the hazards and responses are the same for crude oil of either class. The link is to the governments guidebook for both combustible and flammable crude oil (placard UN 1267). [Near the top of the webpage, click on the sub-link that says"CAMEO Chemicals has 3 chemical datasheets".]
http://cameochemicals.noaa.gov/unna/1267
If you click on any of the 3 datasheets, you will see that all state that there may be explosive vapors, and involved rail tank cars should have a half mile isolation setback. All 3 hazard/response datasheets look (and actually may be) the same. Any crude should be considered potentially explosive The reason why the railroad should know this is contained in the federal TRANSPORTATION OF HAZARDOUS MATERIAL ACT. It requires all transporters of hazmet to have trained personnel.
(c) Certification of Training.—After completing the training, each hazmat employer shall certify, with documentation the Secretary may require by regulation, that the hazmat employees of the employer have received training and have been tested on appropriate transportation areas of responsibility, including at least one of the following:
(1) recognizing and understanding the Department of Transportation hazardous material classification system.
(2) the use and limitations of the Department hazardous material placarding, labeling, and marking systems.
(3) general handling procedures, loading and unloading techniques, and strategies to reduce the probability of release or damage during or incidental to transporting hazardous material.
(4) health, safety, and risk factors associated with hazardous material and the transportation of hazardous material.
(5) appropriate emergency response and communication procedures for dealing with an accident or incident involving hazardous material transportation.
(6) the use of the Department Emergency Response Guidebook and recognition of its limitations or the use of equivalent documents and recognition of the limitations of those documents.
(7) applicable hazardous material transportation regulations.
(8) personal protection techniques.
(9) preparing a shipping document for transporting hazardous material.
You can see they must be certified that they understand placarding, the Emergency Response Guidebook (datasheets referenced above), strategies to reduce releases, etc. As a transporter, the railroads are responsible to know the hazards of what they transport.
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/USCODE-2011-title49/html/USCODE-2011-title49-subtitleIII-chap51.htm
Earlier in the post I said
MidlandMike ... While it is true that Bakken is a light crude that is more volatile than something like an intermediate crude, it is not unique. As a retired geologist with decades of oil field experience, I can tell you that even within a field, there is variation from well to well, and even within the lifespan of an individual well. Trucks and gathering lines bring all this crude to the storage tanks at the rail loadouts where it may all be mixed together. The properties of the crude could vary thru the length of a train. From what I have read recently, they are looking at doing much more sampling to identify the more volatile batches. ...
...
While it is true that Bakken is a light crude that is more volatile than something like an intermediate crude, it is not unique. As a retired geologist with decades of oil field experience, I can tell you that even within a field, there is variation from well to well, and even within the lifespan of an individual well. Trucks and gathering lines bring all this crude to the storage tanks at the rail loadouts where it may all be mixed together. The properties of the crude could vary thru the length of a train. From what I have read recently, they are looking at doing much more sampling to identify the more volatile batches.
I was a geologist in Michigan and have been to hundreds of oil fields in that state. I know of Bakken geology thru scholarly reports from Univ. ND, US Geological Survey, etc and professional journals. I was surprised to see later in the thread the following quote:
henry6 ... Bakken Crude is different...it is more volatile and more flammable. According to what has been said by the oil companies since they confessed is that it is uneven by well, by location, by all kinds of differentiations so that they can't really tell the differences at any given time. All they know is that it is different. But they never told anyone. ...
I have never owned an oil well or oil company, and have never been the spokesman for an oil company, and have never worked in ND. It's obvious that Henry has (mis)quoted me, and then attributed the quote to a Bakken oil company.
"Aside from the unwanted attention, oil via rail is bringing with it some increased risks for the railroad industry. Between the increased liability, the disruption and service, and the costs that could arise from regulation, there is a slim chance that the rail industry could say "Enough is enough" and send oil producers looking for another way to move crude. So what would happen if rail companies said "no"? Tune into the video to find out whyEnbridge Energy Partners (NYSE: EEP ) and Plains All American (NYSE: PAA ) will feast and Continental Resources (NYSE: CLR ) and Oasis Petroleum (NYSE:OAS ) will famine in the event this happens and why rail giving up on oil shipments isn't as bizzare as it sounds." (from article above)
Which is what I have been saying on these threads for the past week.
activated
narig01The NTSB has issued its preliminary report http://www.ntsb.gov/doclib/reports/2014/Casselton_ND_Preliminary.pdf Article from the Wall Street Journal http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303819704579318950935713222.html And the Trains News Wire http://trn.trains.com/Railroad%2520News/News%2520Wire/2014/01/NTSB%2520issues%2520preliminary%2520report%2520on%2520Cassleton%2520derailment.aspx Rgds IGN
My guess (absolutely no inside knowledge) is that as the newer tank cars come online, they will be kept in dedicated unit trains, not mixed with the 111's. Meanwhile, the existing cars will be run with some/many of the special precautions mentioned by Dave K and others. And the filling of the cars with Bakken will be more carefully monitored. The additional costs will be allowed to be passed on to the shippers. No one will be fully satisfied, but the railroads will come out of this in better shape than now.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.