schlimmut that the problem can occur when the content is the more volatile Bakken. This crude was unknown when the cars were designed .
Say not that Bakken crude is "more volatile" Say rather that heavier crudes are less volatile. But it is the sweet lighter crudes that we really want as they refine more easily and cleanly, so when you buy oil what you want to buy is the volatility.
Safer cars must be constructed as quickly as possible. Bakken Oil Express is responsible for the oil terminals here in North Dakota and they have a lot on their plate at the moment. Indeed, they are going to start refining diesel fuels in our area as quickly as possible, still that refinery is still a year away at least. So instead of shipping crude oil they sill ship refined products. does THAT make you feel any better. We are also shipping Ethanol from plants here in North Dakota, and that is far more volatile.
We got oil, we got fuel, we got ethanol, we got coal and we got wind power too. All of that ships by rail (except the wind power which goes by wire).
You want POWER: we got power and cows for meat and grains for bread.
ROAR
The Route of the Broadway Lion The Largest Subway Layout in North Dakota.
Here there be cats. LIONS with CAMERAS
henry6As I said earlier, gasoline, jet fuel, etc., have all been carried by rail for over one hundred years.
Gasoline, jet fuel, LP, etc, are usually shipped in "loose car" railroading, not in 100 car unit trains. The major hazmat disasters of years past (Oneonta, Kingman, Crescent City - all involving LP, but I digress) involved a comparatively small number of hazmat cars. With crude, and ethanol, that has changed.
If the Lac Megantic runaway had involved a mixed freight with assorted hazmat involved, it wouldn't have been the disaster that it was. There may well have been explosions and fires, but not at the scale of what did happen.
Larry Resident Microferroequinologist (at least at my house) Everyone goes home; Safety begins with you My Opinion. Standard Disclaimers Apply. No Expiration Date Come ride the rails with me! There's one thing about humility - the moment you think you've got it, you've lost it...
Yes better cars must be built and put in service immediately. But the fact is that the railroads were not told of the higher volatility of the Bakkan crude until they accused the oil companies of putting additives or mixing something else into the tank cars. So, what should we do immediately? Probably not allow passings unless the opposing train is stopped and known to be on the rails and intact? Perhaps. Keep speeds down? A train can derail at any speed and a spark is a spark is a spark so I don't know as that is really an answer, though everything helps I suppose. What has to be done by the AAR and others is to underline the thousands of tank trucks driving through cities, towns, neighborhoods per hour it would take if rails were not carrying the crude. And also note how a permanent pipeline under peoples houses is probably not any safer; at least it sounds less safe. Perhaps the refining of Bakken crude should be done on site (virtual on site, closer to the source) is the answer then the less volatile gasoline or whatever product can be moved more safely. But lets work for solutions and not for the destruction of industries like railroads, energy companies, and neighborhoods.
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.
I agree with your let's-find-a-way-and-make-it-work spirit, Henry. An idea or two is impractical. New refineries are too expensive and face too many hurdles to be built in big numbers. We'll be doing well to get TWO -- the first in the States in 40 years -- up and going in North Dakota. Slow oil trains down to 10 or 20 miles an hour, limit meets, etc., and you take all the economy out of them.
Yet, we can get it done, with acceptance of some of the risk that accompanies daily life. A start is outlawing the kind of obscene operation, or non-operation, that led to Lac Megantic. The product that goes into tank cars must be scrutinized. We've already said tighter tank cars will be phased in.
There will be more improvements, I'm sure. But we should hold onto the principle that rail movement of oil is too important to the country to be disqualified by the occasional rare accident, even as we work to make those accidents more rare yet.
While it's true that railroads have been hauling crude and refined products for well over a hundred years, the last big use of rail hauled crude was during WWII hauling the oil from the gulf coast to the refineries along the east coast, on account of u-boat attacks on tankers. I don't know how big a story a crude train fire would have been in those dark days. One of the reason so many big accidents involve Bakken crude, is because its a big new field without established pipelines, and thus a big source of what's carried.
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.
Some posters have mentioned near-field refineries. The refinery to be built there will be more for local consumption. Petroleum economics are such that refineries are generally located near the area of consumption. Crude can be brought long distance to the refinery in bulk, and then the many refined products with specialized transport will only have to travel a shorter distance to their distribution points. Since refineries often "crack" heavier crude components into the more valuable gasoline, refined products often are more volatile than the crude they came from.
For crude hauling, it seems that the rail industry/safety/regulatory groups are obviously moving toward more robust tank cars.
FYI
Here is Report on CNR Oil Train Collision in double track at St. Hyacinthe, Quebec, Dec. 30, 1999.
Broken Rail Weld.
http://tsb.gc.ca/eng/rapports-reports/rail/1999/r99h0010/r99h0010.asp
The Second NTSB briefing is now on YouTube.
Loaded Oil Train was EB having loaded at Freyburg, ND and was bound for the Barge Transload at Hayti, MO. The Grain Train had loaded at Royalton, MN and was bound for the Rivergate Terminal near Portland, OR. The Oil train crew had originated at Mandan, ND at 6:10am and had been on duty about 8 hours. The Grain Train crew had Originated at Dilworth, MN and were heading to Minot, ND and had been on duty just under 2 hours. The Grain Train was slowing at the time of the accident to take the diverging route at KO Junction onto the Surrey Cutoff. The cars were placarded as UN1267 with a hazard code of 3(Flammable) and the postscript of 1, indicating the highest hazard.
NTSB Press Briefing
Not in the NTSB report, but from elsewhere these cars were older DOT 111 tankcars without end shields.
Refineries having to be near the consumer is "it's the way we've always done it" thinking and philosophy. Now we've got a problem because of "the way we've always done it" so it is time to change...think outside the box, bring in new thinking, new ideas, new marketing, what ever it takes to make is safe to do. I am sure the oil companies don't want to lose the product this way nor do they want the bad publicity. And the railroads sure as hell don't want to blow up their trains and tracks and face the public outcry either. A solution has to be found even if it mean building refineries in the ground under each derrick. Think absurd, it might just lead to an answer.
henry6 I just heard that the oil train struck some derailed cars of another train on the adjacent track.
I just heard that the oil train struck some derailed cars of another train on the adjacent track.
Sounds like one safety precaution is wider spacing between tracks. This is far from the first accident where a derailment on one track has caused damage to a train on another track.
Due to the cost of moving track on an established line, the wider spacing is more likely to show up where a second track is being added to handle traffic.
- Erik
Happened back then, too - this article from the "Columbus Railroad" site covers the derailment of a crude oil train just outside of Columbus in the '40's...http://www.columbusrailroads.com/new/pdf/accident%20reports/crash%20steamroad%2019410915.pdf
henry6 Refineries having to be near the consumer is "it's the way we've always done it" thinking and philosophy. Now we've got a problem because of "the way we've always done it" so it is time to change...think outside the box, bring in new thinking, new ideas, new marketing, what ever it takes to make is safe to do. I am sure the oil companies don't want to lose the product this way nor do they want the bad publicity. And the railroads sure as hell don't want to blow up their trains and tracks and face the public outcry either. A solution has to be found even if it mean building refineries in the ground under each derrick. Think absurd, it might just lead to an answer.
If absurd thinking is what you were after, let me congratulate you on your success.
But I will be the first to admit that there are always exceptions to general trends like refineries located near the point of consumption. The prime example is Texas, which has more refining capacity than its own needs. Much of its refined product is sent north in product pipelines. The first problem is that the different products sent thru the line in batches, will contaminate each other, and that part at the beginning and end of each batch called trans-mix, must be re-refined or sold as a degraded product. Products in volumes too small or too thick for pipelines, must go by truck or train. Also note that the accident/fire cited near St. Hyacinthe, Quebec was refined gasoline and heating oil. Of course "loose car railroading" is at a higher rate than a unit train of crude. The extra expense is probably justified for Texas because all those refineries have created critical mass to foster their petrochemical industry. Sometimes chemical plants are located adjacent to refineries, and have direct pipe connections. Texas also has ports and available workforce that ND just does not have.
The oil industry will follow its economic model until something better comes along. If railroads don't get a handle on fire/explosion accidents, then the oil companies will probably abandon crude-by-rail and go back to pipeline, soon as capacity is built.
The safest way for railroads to deal with volatile crude is to refuse to ship it. The reality is that they can't and won't. The other reality is that the oil companies have as big a stake in shipping crude as do the railroads. And if the railroads make a big enough stink about how dangerous it is the oil companies would have a hard time talking people into accepting pipe lines through their yards and towns. And how many towns would say yest to hundreds of truck loads of this stuff on the roads be it an Interstate or town road? So, bot the oil companies and the railroads have to sit together and get a grip on it or both will be out of the business. So if the only answer to quell the danger is to refine it at the well head, then somebody has to say it and tighten their belts. We could talk better tank cars, single track railroads or separated rights of ways or stopping all opposing trains or one way operation of railroads for certain time periods. It looks and sounds like the onus in on the railroads to come up with the idea or system. But the question is on all as to who is going to pay for it and how.
.
What sort of additives can be added to Bakken Crude to decrease it's volatility?
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
Cooling the oil might help as vapor pressure increases with temperature.
Pipelines in ND can be built to avoid towns and would be built under eminent domain if necessary. As I tried to say in my previous post, refined products are even more dangerous than crude. Oil companies would like to keep the option of rail transport, and I think would do what is in their interest to keep that option open, but I would not be overly exuberant in my expectations.
BaltACD What sort of additives can be added to Bakken Crude to decrease it's volatility?
The volatility is what makes Bakken crude so valuable. Its just the nature of light crude. I noticed that they are starting to paint the tank cars white, which couldn't hurt in keeping them cooler.
I remember at one time, for airplanes, they were considering carrying a chemical that upon crash, would mix instantly with the jet fuel to convert it to a gel. Apparently it was never pursued.
I'm in Henry's camp. Both the shippers and the railroads must sit together and work out a solution before the usual knee-jerk reaction of politicians. Now that we've had a similar, but thankfully a much less tragic, incident like Lac Megantic, someone is going to force them to do so. The Canadian TSB has not yet released detailed information because there is concurrently a criminal investigation in progress. The unanswered question is whether the shippers are knowingly mis-marking the product. If true, it could lead to criminal charges both here and in Canada. A pipeline would take a long time to be built, and the oil is flowing now. That leaves the rails as the only option at the moment.
Norm
As to using pipelines instead of tank cars to move crude oil, we must remember that pipelines are subject to leaks; there have been several such leaks in the Salt Lake City vicinity in the last few years--and when the last one popped open, a dam built by beavers helped contain the oil that leaked out. The beavers should have been given a medal for reducing the probability of contamination. As I recall, they did need to be cleaned up.
Johnny
The oil companies don't fear that the sudden loss of rail will happen. Politicians may grandstand, but they know oil is too important to be severely choked. If the oil companies have to pre-sample loads, they will do that. They use the rails for convenience, and if it gets inconvenient, they will sign the usual take-or-pay contracts with the pipeline companies, obligating them to a required level of use . Once the pipelines are built, that will be the end of rail's opportunity for any permanent piece of the crude business. IMHO it is really the railroads battle to win or lose.
A few exceptions:
Pipeline blowouts, breakage, leaks seepage's are all subject to detection and shut-off valve locations. If only hundreds of gallons leaked (and could explode or burn) segments of the pipe between detect and shut down points would be separated by hundreds of gallons of capacity and powered or monitered and powered continuously.....or, was the shut down point hundreds of thousands of gallons of pipe content away from the fault, and how would the shut down necessity get to the valve? Detection of less pumping power being required, human -observation of an under-ground leak, holy kryptonite!
When the need to protect against a rear-end collision ended, and when the Boss, Conductor, didn't need to oversee ops, (did'ya notice that, wonder why, that the helm's mas....helm's person and boat/ships maste...commanding officer were posted to the rear end of the vessel?) cabooses were not needed except as dwellings and offices, and without electronic detectors of train faults, observation posts.
Meeting or passing trains on an adjacent track.....
I wish every 18-wheeler carrying haz-mat would stop before i passed or met them on every road: Main Street, State Rt 49, or any Interstate...5...80...95...any place... Stop and let me go by safely.
My late post on the first day of this North Dakota fire, eventually, referred to what I did, holding a train order prohibiting moving meets or passes between trains with certain hazmat (in this case, l p g, propane) on the first Newswire report of this series of explosions.
I asked what should I have done?
I still want to know?
The answers won't do anything for the world.
So...
Whatever......
henry6We could talk better tank cars, single track railroads or separated rights of ways or stopping all opposing trains or one way operation of railroads for certain time periods. It looks and sounds like the onus in on the railroads to come up with the idea or system. But the question is on all as to who is going to pay for it and how.
The issue of rail cars in general, and tank cars in particular, is that the railroad does not own them. All they do is move them. Companies like Bakken Oil Express lease tank cars from companies like GATX.
BOE can specify what kinds of cars it wants to lease, but there will be a lag of two or three years for GATX to have the cars built and leased to companies like BOE. Between now and then BOE is going to lease whatever kinds of cars they can get their hands on, because the oil MUST move.
Yes a Diesel Refinery is planned for Dickinson (ok call it Fryburg if you want), but it is intended to provide product for local consumption. North Dakota has faced several diesel fuel shortages in recent years, and farmers need lots of diesel.
BroadwayLion ... Yes a Diesel Refinery is planned for Dickinson (ok call it Fryburg if you want), but it is intended to provide product for local consumption. North Dakota has faced several diesel fuel shortages in recent years, and farmers need lots of diesel. ROAR
...
You mean that ND farm tractors don't just burn bio-diesel and ethanol?
I went to the Dickinson refinery's website and I see they will have a pretty simple operation, producing diesel, and then feedstocks for other refineries. Of those feedstocks to be transported out: naptha is more volatile than diesel; the bottoms are less volatile.
http://www.calumetspecialty.com/about-us/facilities/dakota-prairie-refining
Broken Axle suspected of being 'root' cause
http://news.yahoo.com/broken-axle-found-scene-nd-derailment-000838071.html
henry6 Refineries having to be near the consumer is "it's the way we've always done it" thinking and philosophy. Now we've got a problem because of "the way we've always done it" so it is time to change...
Refineries having to be near the consumer is "it's the way we've always done it" thinking and philosophy. Now we've got a problem because of "the way we've always done it" so it is time to change...
Henry, I don't want to sound like I'm beating a dead horse, but after further thought I realized my first response did not adequately answer the question. My first answer was partly based on my memory of high school history where Rockefeller had consolidated refining in the 1800s so that by the early 1900s he controlled 5 out of every 6 barrels refined. The Supreme Court broke up the Standard Oil trust in 1911, which opened refining back up. When I started in the Michigan oil fields in the mid '70s, there were 8, mostly independent, refineries in the state. Some were in the center of the Michigan Basin, so were central to the production region, but others were scattered thru the southern part of the state. By the early years of this millennium, the only one left was the major one in Detroit, a population and transportation center. The independent refiners did OK until their local fields dried up, small pipelines were abandoned, and then the oil crisis of the 70s put a strain on marginal operations. Oil fields are much more ephemeral as compared to refineries. The present consolidation of refining is much more recent than "the way we've always done it".
But MidlandMike, it still puts the onus on the oil and gas companies to do something about it. If it means cutting their profits from 100% to 50% or even 20 or 10%, so be it. They have to take responsibility. e are told someplace here or elsewhere, that the problem is that the volatility of the Bakken crude varies from well to to well and time to time and that they didn't mention it to the railroads because they evidently thought nothing of it. So, railroads didn't supply the right tank cars for the volatility nor make other handling arrangements and notifications to crews and first responders along the way. So right now I put the pressure on the oil and gas companies to take the lead in solving the problem. They own the tank cars for the most part; it's not like they call the railroad and the railroad rounds up the needed cars, the oil companies lease the cars from other sources. So, they have to decide that Bakken crude is so worth the money to refine on the spot of recovery or pay more for transportation in proper cars and for proper safety measures a railroad may decide it has to take. I can see if a railroad decides that all trains running opposite a Bakken crude move have to take siding and be inspected for derailed cars before the Bakken can meet and pass, the cost goes to the oil company. Manned switches, separated tracks and road beds, stopped traffic, whatever cost incurred by the railroads have to be shouldered by the oil companies. If that cost is more than a refinery or not has to be determined and the safest plan implemented.
Apparently it's not only Bakken crude. This morning a tank truck went off I-69 near Davison, MI rolled down an embankment onto a surface road and exploded and burned. I can't confirm from TV reports that it was Michigan crude, but it likely was and was headed to the refinery in Sarnia, Ontario.
Link to story:
http://www.abc12.com/story/24347559/i-69-near-tanker-explosion-remains-closed
Norm48327This morning a tank truck went off I-69 near Davison,
Russell
Michigan has heavier weight limits than most states, though that is the Gross Vehicle Weight, not the cargo weight.
Everybody remembers this derailment and explosion right? You get three guesses as to who was the CEO of the railroad involved.
Weyauwega, WI
beaulieu Everybody remembers this derailment and explosion right? You get three guesses as to who was the CEO of the railroad involved. Weyauwega, WI
And who was CEO of the UPRR when they had a string of head on collisions ? I know lets start a thread and bash Dick Davidson .
Or Lets just bash ALL the railroad CEOs.. What's your point really ??
What does the CEO have to do with a train wreck ??
Subsequent investigation and litigation established that the derailment was caused by an undetected, fractured heel block in a switch. The fracture then propagated through several bolt holes. A contributing factor was a lock bar that had been missing for approximately a year.
This switch was put together by the SOO line long before WC owned it.
As far as I know Ed Burkhardt wasn't on the Weyawega train. If your intent is to bash Ed Burkhardt your attempt is amateur and obviously a cry for attention.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.