Euclidt only makes sense if it solves the problem, and solves it soon. Five years and a partial solution is too little, too late. With that plan, it becomes a game of Russian roulette placing at stake, innocent lives and the continuation of the oil by rail business.
There is also a huge potential financial loss at stake. it appears that manyn posters fear the loss of the Bakken oil transport revenue if the associated costs become too high. However, at least one rail CEO (BNSF?) opined that one crash had the potential to bankrupt his railroad. Risk management is an important part of a business' executive leadership team and is a good deal more complicated than denouncing lawyers, politicians, and the general public as "anti-rail." So perhaps the choice is between reduced revenue vs. an unacceptable risk for bankruptcy?
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
I think it is accurate to say that there are two independent risks to the industry regarding oil trains. One is the liability of an accident that is serious enough to bankrupt a company. The other is the loss of the oil hauling business due to new transportation regulations increasing the cost of Bakken oil to the point that it cannot compete with foreign oil.
My understanding is that the latest designs do considerably reduce risk by correcting known weaknesses in the old design.
daveklepperMy understanding is that the latest designs do considerably reduce risk by correcting known weaknesses in the old design.
That may be, but how much is a considerable reduction, and how long will it take?
This question involves my earlier post on this in response to your earlier comment as follows:
daveklepper Building as many flamable liquid state-of-the art tankcars as quickly as possible does make more sense,
It only makes sense if it solves the problem. As I understand it, it will take until 2015 to just develop the standards for new tank cars. Won’t it take several more years before the existing fleet is replaced by the new safer tank cars? And how safe will they be?
That question is not even being asked let alone being answered in the public discussion. In Fred Frailey’s statistic of SIX serious oil train accidents per year, how many will there be if all tank cars were of the upgraded design? Would SIX change to THREE? Or would there still be FIVE?
How long will it take for the oil-by-rail traffic to double as the boom continues, and SIX accidents per year becomes TWELVE?
It only makes sense if it solves the problem, and solves it soon. Five years and a partial solution is too little, too late. With that plan, it becomes a game of Russian roulette placing at stake, innocent lives and the continuation of the oil by rail business.
The only way to win that game is if fate postpones those SIX accidents per year and saves them for some date way in the future after a real solution to the problem is implemented that will prevent fate from cashing in all those saved up accidents.
Euclid As I understand it, it will take until 2015 to just develop the standards for new tank cars.
As I understand it, it will take until 2015 to just develop the standards for new tank cars.
The new standards were developed in 2011 and since then all new "111" tank cars have been built to those standards. There are still about 75,000 tank cars to rebuild or replace.
Dave H. Painted side goes up. My website : wnbranch.com
schlimm Euclidt only makes sense if it solves the problem, and solves it soon. Five years and a partial solution is too little, too late. With that plan, it becomes a game of Russian roulette placing at stake, innocent lives and the continuation of the oil by rail business. There is also a huge potential financial loss at stake. it appears that manyn posters fear the loss of the Bakken oil transport revenue if the associated costs become too high. However, at least one rail CEO (BNSF?) opined that one crash had the potential to bankrupt his railroad. Risk management is an important part of a business' executive leadership team and is a good deal more complicated than denouncing lawyers, politicians, and the general public as "anti-rail." So perhaps the choice is between reduced revenue vs. an unacceptable risk for bankruptcy?
Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.
Murphy Siding Also, if the Bakken crude doesn't ship by rail, how would it ship?
It might not ship if the cost of transportation drives up the cost of production so high that it cannot compete with foreign oil. We were living without Bakken before. We can live without it in the future.
they are breakin' I. E. recycleing old tankers in a yard in K.C.MO. every day. One does what 1 can to make things safe buit nothing is perfect.
EuclidIt might not ship if the cost of transportation drives up the cost of production so high that it cannot compete with foreign oil.
And one cannot help but wonder if there are folks who will cheer (discreetly) if that happens. That may or may not include those in the envirogreenie camp, and competitors to Bakken Crude...
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...
Euclid Murphy Siding Also, if the Bakken crude doesn't ship by rail, how would it ship? It might not ship if the cost of transportation drives up the cost of production so high that it cannot compete with foreign oil. We were living without Bakken before. We can live without it in the future.
OPEC would cheer! Could OPEC money be fueling the outrage?
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
dehusman EuclidAs I understand it, it will take until 2015 to just develop the standards for new tank cars. The new standards were developed in 2011 and since then all new "111" tank cars have been built to those standards. There are still about 75,000 tank cars to rebuild or replace.
EuclidAs I understand it, it will take until 2015 to just develop the standards for new tank cars.
You may be right, but what is meant by this reference when they speak of new standards that are in the process of being developed? I have seen other articles speaking of new tank car standards that will be developed to address this oil train issue.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/01/09/us-usa-rail-senator-idUSBREA0812T20140109
Quote from article:
“Foxx also said that federal specifications on tank cars would come "in weeks, not months," Hoeven said.”
****************************************************
Here is another article that refers to developing new standards for the future and it says that the industry players have 30 days to make comments about the proposed new standards.
http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303393804579312983265742414
An industry standard is not the same as a Federal standard. The industry established a standard in 2011, the Federal specs, soon.
Well then there are new standards coming, as I originally said.
Euclid Well then there are new standards coming, as I originally said.
But the industry isn't going to wait until whenever the government issues new standards to build cars as you suggested in an earlier post. They are building cars to the standards developed 2 (3) years ago and whether it takes weeks or months or years for the government to issue its regs, the industry is moving forward with new, safer car designs.
dehusman Euclid Well then there are new standards coming, as I originally said. But the industry isn't going to wait until whenever the government issues new standards to build cars as you suggested in an earlier post. They are building cars to the standards developed 2 (3) years ago and whether it takes weeks or months or years for the government to issue its regs, the industry is moving forward with new, safer car designs.
I understand, but even though the industry began improving tank cars 2-3 years ago to their own standards, won't those cars have to meet the new government standards that are being developed in response to the recent oil train wrecks? If so, how can the industry know that their existing highest standards will meet the new government standards that have not yet been created?
It sounds like you are supposing that new Federal standards will be better and safer than the current standards (the ones that new cars are being built to) used by the industry. That may or may not be the case. Railroads at times have requirements or practices that exceed what the Federal regs require. It could be that new Federal standards will mirror the industry standards.
Some that are said to be anti-rail I don't think really are. I think they like railroads just fine. It's corporations they don't like or trust. That a corporation won't act unless the government forces them to. So since the government has yet to act, industry must not be doing anything. Or if the industry is doing something it can't be enough or effective.
When the first car that has been built to the new standards is involved in a catastrophic derailment, the first thing to be said (and I imagine the NTSB will be shouting the loudest) will be that the new government standards were watered down by the industry.
Jeff
It seems to me that what is more needed is to reduce the volatility of the Baken crude oil. I live in MN and there is currently a shortage of propane. As I understand, propane and other "light" chemicals are the cause of the explosions that follow train accidents. Currently, the oil is not "treated" in any way before being loaded into tank cars. Separating out will reduce the volatility and make the treated-crude safer to ship.
The vast majority of crude being shipped from North Dakota to Chicago passes thru Minneapolis and St. Paul on tracks that are close to residential areas. The local press is starting to ask about alternate routes. Evidently the reporters do not understand the history of railroads: cities and towns came after the tracks.
Bob
RKS It seems to me that what is more needed is to reduce the volatility of the Baken crude oil. I live in MN and there is currently a shortage of propane. As I understand, propane and other "light" chemicals are the cause of the explosions that follow train accidents. Currently, the oil is not "treated" in any way before being loaded into tank cars. Separating out will reduce the volatility and make the treated-crude safer to ship. ... Bob
...
Production fluid from an oil well goes thru a gas separator and then a heater treater which removes more gas. If they did add some sort of degasser, the propane and butane would still need to be transported by rail. I have no doubt that better tank cars and safer operating practices will reduce the crude hauling risk to acceptable levels, or pipelines will be built
RKSThe vast majority of crude being shipped from North Dakota to Chicago passes thru Minneapolis and St. Paul on tracks that are close to residential areas. The local press is starting to ask about alternate routes. Evidently the reporters do not understand the history of railroads: cities and towns came after the tracks.
Irrelevant and ahistorical. Whoever came first doesn't matter when it come to safety, noise, etc. Times change. Heck, native Americans were there first. And in the mid 19th century, huge amounts of highly volatile crude oil were not being transported. In fact, the Bakken crude has really been being transported only in the last five-six years.
jeffhergertEuclidWell then there are new standards coming, as I originally said.It sounds like you are supposing that new Federal standards will be better and safer than the current standards (the ones that new cars are being built to) used by the industry. That may or may not be the case. Railroads at times have requirements or practices that exceed what the Federal regs require. It could be that new Federal standards will mirror the industry standards. Some that are said to be anti-rail I don't think really are. I think they like railroads just fine. It's corporations they don't like or trust. That a corporation won't act unless the government forces them to. So since the government has yet to act, industry must not be doing anything. Or if the industry is doing something it can't be enough or effective. Jeff
EuclidWell then there are new standards coming, as I originally said.
Jeff,
Regarding this oil train crisis with the volatile Bakken oil, like you, I don’t sense an anti-rail agenda being part of it. But there is definitely an anti-fossil fuel agenda, and an anti-corporation sentiment, as you say. So railroads being corporations hauling oil just happen to be in the target zone.
I would not be surprised if the industry has come up with better tank car standards than what the government might come up with. I certainly do not necessarily prefer a government solution as opposed to a private sector solution.
But as this oil train news calls for solutions to the problem, one of the key solutions that everyone is talking about is a need for new standards for tank cars to make them safer. So if the railroads’ best and newest standards are adequate, why is everyone talking about the need for new standards to be the solution to the problem?
Certainly the regulators must be aware of what the railroad industry is doing to improve tank cars. If the regulators deemed the railroad standards to be adequate, why would the regulators be talking about the need for new standards and offering all the players a chance to give input to develop new standards?
Based on all that, I suspect the new standards to be more rigorous than any existing standards. They may not be better, but I think they will be more rigorous than the current railroad standards. It is just the way this seems to be shaping up as the news flows out. And of course, the new goverment standards will be the law.
Here is why I brought it up:
Assume that the solution to the problem will be new standards being implemented. If that is true, that process has not even begun yet. And once it begins, it will take several years to fully implement the new standards. That seems to be an awfully slow response to a problem that is rapidly gaining popular momentum every day now. Because of this urgency of the problem today, and the solution being years away, there seems to be a giant disconnect between the problem and the solution.
So I am just wondering how this will play out. I reckon that the new regulations that come out of this oil train crisis will be the largest wildcard the oil industry has ever faced. As I mentioned before, it strikes me that this is more of a marketing problem than an engineering problem. A marketing solution could be put into action with great effect within a few weeks.
While I agree Lac Megantic was truly a crisis I can only believe that the other two accidents have been pounced on by the media in hopes of upping their ratings. Compared to the number of unit oil trains operating safely every day, two accidents with no injuries are being seriously over-played.
Norm
Norm48327While I agree Lac Megantic was truly a crisis I can only believe that the other two accidents have been pounced on by the media in hopes of upping their ratings. Compared to the number of unit oil trains operating safely every day, two accidents with no injuries are being seriously over-played.
I would say that the crisis is not what has happened with oil trains, but what is expected to happen. Lac Megantic was an anomaly that caused a very large pileup due to the high speed and the curve. It was a bad accident, but not a crisis on its own. However, it did do two things to set the stage for a crisis of expectation.
1) It showed what can happen when an oil train derails.
2) It exposed a previously unknown fact about the nature of Bakken oil.
And because Lac Megantic was a very bad accident, it got a lot of press, and therefore drove home the two points I mention.
Add to that the fact that both Bakken and Canadian tar sands oil are particularly maligned to begin with. There is a movement that wants to wean us off of oil. It makes no difference whether or not that is possible. They tell us we will soon be out of oil and we can live without it; and they say that is a good thing. Therefore this green movement is most distraught at the prospect of the sudden development of vast new domestic oil supply that promises a bright, new future with oil.
So the prospect of towns being destroyed for the sake of hauling this hated new Bakken oil is bound to be controversial. This is a major societal tug of war. The green movement has an advantage because the oil train crisis is a crisis in the future rather than now. So it can be shaped by the media as a work of fiction. One can predict doom and gloom whether it actually happens or not. This shaping of a future crisis with oil trains is the same with the climate change crisis which we are told is ultimate reason we need to wean ourselves off of oil.
So this whole oil train issue is a convergence of factors coming together as a kind of perfect storm. Before Lac Megantic, as the green movement was celebrating the killing of the Keystone Pipeline, rail suddenly emerged as a viable alternative to pipelines. As a desperate response, the green movement stepped up their opposition to oil trains. They made plenty of dire predictions about the danger of hauling oil by rail. They warned of spills, but mostly they warned of the danger of fire and explosions posed to towns along the railroads. So as a public relations tool to make their point, Lac Megantic was heaven sent.
Not only did the Lac Megantic wreck do physical damage and kill people, it also damaged the image of oil, and particularly the hated Bakken oil. It also damaged the image of railroads by default. In terms of that image damage, I would say that Lac Megantic will go down as the most costly train wreck in world history to this date.
"Not only did the Lac Megantic wreck do physical damage and kill people, it also damaged the image of oil, and particularly the hated Bakken oil. It also damaged the image of railroads by default. In terms of that image damage, I would say that Lac Megantic will go down as the most costly train wreck in world history to this date. "
I'll second that statement
Euclid,
With you consistently pointing out all the negatives, I sometimes have to wonder which side you're on. Your 'talking points' remind me of the original discussion on the Lac Megantic thread.
Norm48327 Euclid, With you consistently pointing out all the negatives, I sometimes have to wonder which side you're on. Your 'talking points' remind me of the original discussion on the Lac Megantic thread.
Norm,
There are a lot of negatives whether I point them out or not. The oil industry and the railroads are far better off by recognizing the negatives working against them than they would be by ignoring those negatives or failing to recognize them. They have to recognize those negatives before they can do something about them. So I think that pointing out those negatives is constructive.
Euclid They have to recognize those negatives before they can do something about them. So I think that pointing out those negatives is constructive.
They have to recognize those negatives before they can do something about them. So I think that pointing out those negatives is constructive.
The industry started replacing the tank cars with a better design 3 years ago. The railroads restricted the speed of trains carrying hazmat 30 years ago. The railroads reviewed the routes that carried hazmat with the Federal government about 2-3 years ago. The Federal government ratcheted up the securement of trains a year ago and the major railroads were already doing most of what was required.
I don't think you are pointing out anything they haven't already recognized (in some cases many years ago). The railroads don't need to play catch up, you do.
Norm48327 While I agree Lac Megantic was truly a crisis I can only believe that the other two accidents have been pounced on by the media in hopes of upping their ratings. Compared to the number of unit oil trains operating safely every day, two accidents with no injuries are being seriously over-played.
One of the reasons that the ND derailment got so much press was there was video of the explosion. Without that, it would have been a small bit buried somewhere deep in the news cast.
An "expensive model collector"
Some (domestic) pipeline projects were put on hold when rail became an viable option. If new tank car regulations push up the cost too much, then in the time allowed for the upgrade, pipelines will start to be built.
MidlandMike Euclid Murphy Siding Also, if the Bakken crude doesn't ship by rail, how would it ship? It might not ship if the cost of transportation drives up the cost of production so high that it cannot compete with foreign oil. We were living without Bakken before. We can live without it in the future. Some (domestic) pipeline projects were put on hold when rail became an viable option. If new tank car regulations push up the cost too much, then in the time allowed for the upgrade, pipelines will start to be built.
The pipelines were put on hold for political reasons that I won't get into here.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.