New proposals to ship LNG by Rail

[Euclid]

The article says the opposition is based on fear and not facts. 

Maybe so, but what are the facts that would come into play with a high speed derailment of a unit train; or even a lone LNG carload in a freight train?

Is it likely that the LNG tank cars might be punctured, torn open, or somehow breached in the derailment, or are those cars expected to be capable of withstanding all of the forces encountered in a derailment? 

If a car were breached in a derailment, what exactly does the LNG do when there is a sudden opening in the vessel that is carrying it?  I am just curious about the dynamics of that. 

[MidlandMike]

Overmod

...

Something I'd like to find a resource for:  what is the market for the heavier fractions (butane, propane, etc.) that are separated from the cryomethane as it is liquefied?

  

Butane is mainly used (90%) in blending with gasoline.

http://pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/compound/butane

About half of propane production is used in LPG for heating, cooking, etc, and much of the other half is used in the petrochemical industry.

http://pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/compound/propane

The other component seperated at gas plants is ethane, which is mainly used in the chemical industry.

[Overmod]

LPG and LNG are very, very different materials.  LPG is kept liquefied by pressure alone, and is normally transported at ambient temperature; it BLEVEs quite nicely under a variety of common railroad-accident conditions, but that has nothing to do with what LNG would do under similar conditions.  Butane as in lighters, propane as in torch cylinders...

The heat content of a given volume of LPG is considerably higher (about 2.5 times) than that for LNG, so a critical-mixture explosion involves that much more fun.

Cleveland was indeed an example showing difficulties with cryomethane: the material ran down into the sewer, and did not boil off immediately, leading to repeated problems both with pool fires and with critical-mixture explosions when the correct proportion of gas and air developed in the enclosed spaces of the sewer system.  I doubt that this situation would recur in most LNG scenarii, even if the tank vessel were catastrophically breached to release a large volume of cryo material -- the likely 'accident' would be a pool fire, as previously indicated, with no tendency to form a detonable mixture.

 

[erikem]

carnej1

However,LNG accidents can trigger very intense fires. I'm certainly not saying it's not a hazardous commodity..

The mother of one of my very long term friends was in Cleveland when the LNG accident happened during WW2. If she had been one bock closer, she would not have survived. Part of the problem was that the LNG from the leaking tanks flowed into the sewers, so the "cloud" of flammable gas had a chance to spread before it found an ignition source, which then led to a fuel air explosion.

One thing that helps a bit with methane is that it has a very high ignition temperature, IIRC, the equivalent octane rating (really performance number) of methane is 130. Another aspect that reduces the risk a bit is that ambient temperature methane is lighter than air and disperses rapidly.

- Erik

 

[samfp1943]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Tree68 (Larry) said[snipped] "...Half of one of the cars that BLEVE'd at Oneonta travelled some 3000 feet, stopping only when it ran into a riverbank.  Usually one half of the tank remains intact and takes off like a rocket, while the other flattens out and stays more or less in place.

Because of the resulting improvements to LPG tankers, we don't hear about incidents like Kingman, Crescent City, or Oneonta much any more, yet LPG is moved all across the country on a daily basis..." [snip]

Larry and others : You might find the following linked NTSB Report of some interest.

https://s3.amazonaws.com/omeka-net/361/archive/files/981afb3a79122f40628455a9ba0c7370.pdf?AWSAccessKeyId=AKIAI3ATG3OSQLO5HGKA&Expires=1416914318&Signature=61%2FvgiO8oVrOk0Hzcy0T%2FYe5oOU%3D

This is the report of the accident at Waverly, Tenn on Feb. 22, 1978 on L&NRR Train 584 and the subsequent BLEVE of an LPG tank car.  Kiled were 16 and 57 injured.  6 of the killed were Fire Service.  7 reilroad and Contractor employees were killed, and 19 sustained pretty serious injuries.

I happened to be in the area when the wreck occured, and left before the explosions occured. I also was back several days after the 23 Feb explosion had happened... The photos do not really do justice to the scene. 

[tree68]

A BLEVE (Boiling Liquid Expanding Vapor Explosion) can occur in a 55 gallon drum.

Generally, a BLEVE occurs when fire impinges directly on the vapor space of a closed vessel.  The metal weakens at the point of impingement, meanwhile the pressure inside the container rises.  At some point, the metal fails and the liquid is released.  

If the liquid is flammable (a container of water could actually BLEVE), it obviously ignites and we're off to the races.

Half of one of the cars that BLEVE'd at Oneonta travelled some 3000 feet, stopping only when it ran into a riverbank.  Usually one half of the tank remains intact and takes off like a rocket, while the other flattens out and stays more or less in place.

Because of the resulting improvements to LPG tankers, we don't hear about incidents like Kingman, Crescent City, or Oneonta much any more, yet LPG is moved all across the country on a daily basis.

[carnej1]

tomikawaTT

You might ask Norfolk Southern what they think of the idea.  I seem to recall that a misadventure with LNG cars did a number on one of their yards a few decades back.

Bakken crude burns.  LNG BLEVES!!*

*Boiling Liquid Explosive Vapor Explosion.  Monster fireball and rolling stock parts headed for orbit.

I'm not concerned with Bakken crude passing through town.  The individual LNG and propane cars in the nearby industrial area concern me.  I don't even want to think about a LNG unit train.

Chuck

 

 

  Under normal conditions Natural Gas in liquid form will not cause a BLEVE:

http://www.netl.doe.gov/publications/proceedings/02/ngt/quillen.pdf

 However,LNG accidents can trigger very intense fires. I'm certainly not saying it's not a hazardous commodity..

 I do bet though that if any of the U.S railroads starts transporting LNG in large quantities there will be many stories in the media repeating the BLEVE claim. People seem to think LNG tankers are floting bombs so trains will be viewed as rolling ones....

 

[samfp1943]

LensCapOn

Could LNG be combined with frozen good shipments? Less damage then in a spill.........

 

(In the same train. Not the same car. Duh!)

 

I cannot speak to the use of LNG as a refrigerant intransport of frozen food, but for years there has been truck shipments of very perishible medical supplies, in van trtucks and trailers utilizing 'blanketing' of the cargo from an on board supply of liquid nitrogen that is vaporized to freeze the cargo. 

Some consumer products are now using packaging that add to its shelf life with nitrogen blanketing.  My guess is that using LNG as a coolant would possibly effect not only taste, but as it was gassed off, a combustion problem.

 

 

[LensCapOn]

Could LNG be combined with frozen good shipments? Less damage then in a spill.........

 

(In the same train. Not the same car. Duh!)

[Overmod]

I should probably add that I was discussing the shipping of LNG in the context of using it as a locomotive fuel, as an alternative to having it trucked either to servicing points or to consists.  I don't particularly think there is much market for long-distance shipping of cryomethane in a necessary purpose-built fleet of dewar cars.

Something I'd like to find a resource for:  what is the market for the heavier fractions (butane, propane, etc.) that are separated from the cryomethane as it is liquefied?

 

[MidlandMike]

The Wyoming link is about local in-state production and use of LNG for mine trucks, drilling rigs, locos, etc.  The study states:

      "This report concludes it 

is unlikely that a large centralized LNG production plant will 

be the best approach to supply the state’s estimated LNG 

demand of 509,000 GPD. This is primarily due to 1) the risks 

developers would face in building large-scale LNG plants in 

tandem with a one-to-two decade phased LNG market, and 2) 

the higher costs of LNG for end users if it is transported over 

distances exceeding about 250 miles."

This indicates that the cost savings of using LNG as an alternative to diesel, diminishes with the transport distance.  While transporting crude-by-rail is somewhat more expensive than by pipeline, transporting natural gas as LNG-by-rail is way more expensive than transporting natural gas as gas thru a pipeline.  As indicated in the OP's referenced link, it is being considered in the Bakken and other remote fields that are yet under-served by pipeline.  Shipping gas as LNG-by-rail is the conservation minded alternative to flaring the gas that is produced along with the oil.  It will be a niche market until gas pipelines catch up to production.  It has even less economic potential than CBR.

[Overmod]

Euclid

Here is an article on development to use LNG as locomotive fuel: http://www.railwayage.com/index.php/mechanical/locomotives/experts-weigh-in-on-lng.html

A somewhat better reference to start with might be this .pdf from Wyoming, which contains some technical detail.  Interestingly, this seems to take for granted that rail approval for LNG transport will be secured:

"Guidelines for the transportation of LNG by rail are currently being established in partnership with the American Railroad’s[sic; AAR] Tank Car Committee and the Liquefied Natural Gas Technical Advisory Group."

  I have to wonder, since this is a government-sanctioned report, whether this indicates approval of appropriately-constructed equipment will be forthcoming in a reasonable time.  Since elsewhere in the report the authors mention potential delays due to environmental 'permitting' (see p.104 'squirrel' for one example) I have to wonder also why there was no discussion of public concern over perceived risk of rail accident.  We've already seen one example of a well-informed person here who misunderstood a risk of LNG transport; imagine the fun that, say, the people who developed the Blast Zone map will have with the idea.

Discussion of small-scale liquefaction starts roughly on p.103.  I think, however, that a much more likely approach would be to build out a larger liquefaction plant close to service terminal areas -- the report notes this:

" ... the capital cost of such liquefaction must now be at least partially covered by the new LNG user, if they intend to own and operate the LNG plant; or another vendor must deal with those capital costs and potentially find multiple LNG users nearby to provide the necessary revenue
stream to payback those costs.  As interest in natural gas continues to grow, finding a financial lender to back a new LNG plant may be a viable option for larger operations.  An increasing number of financial institutions are entering
the market to support LNG projects of all sizes, due to low commodity costs and projections of increased natural gas production and consumption."

I would think that many railroad service points might have 'brownfield' areas that might provide attractive sites for liquefaction facilities...

In any case, as already noted, a 'likely' short-term alternative will be to use trucks to handle refueling delivery, perhaps coordinating with crew-change stops.  That will remain a highly preferred strategy until a high percentage of locomotives are converted -- which I don't think will happen for at least a few years.

[Euclid]

Euclid

What is the current status of shipping LNG by rail?  To what extent is it limited and why?

 

 

Here is an article on development to use LNG as locomotive fuel:

http://www.railwayage.com/index.php/mechanical/locomotives/experts-weigh-in-on-lng.html

I guess this quote is the answer to my question above:

“For example, under current FEMA rules, LNG is not permitted to move by rail, unless there is an FRA waiver.”

So I conclude that, yes, getting the public to accept the safety risk of LNG by rail, in unit train production, would be impossible after the safety issue that has developed around crude by rail.  However, some believe that the oil by rail safety issue is largely a drummed up pretext to thwart the use of fossil fuels.  Thus, LNG would be far more acceptable than the politically correct objections to oil.  So for LNG, there may be no safety issue working against it. 

However, according to the article in the OP, what is driving up the LNG supply is oil development.  So the climate change acceptability of LNG will be offset by the climate change objection to oil because the two are linked in production.

 

[MidlandMike]

LNG has been shipped (imported) by tankers for years, although less so since shale gas.  IIRC they would stop all other shipping in Boston Harbor when the LNG tanker came in.

[Euclid]

What is the current status of shipping LNG by rail?  To what extent is it limited and why?

[Paul_D_North_Jr]

LNG is commonly shipped in cryogenc tank truck trailers now anyway.  I don't see how moving it by rail would necessarily be more dangerous.  See for example this 2012 "white paper" article titled "Delivering LNG in Smaller Volumes" (5 pages, approx. 312 KB electronic file size in this 'PDF' format) from a Finnish company that builds such tanks (mostly small ship and industrial size, but it does mention trucks and containers):

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CB4QFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.wartsila.com%2Ffile%2FWartsila%2F1278525949884a1267106724867-ID0112_E5_Delivering_LNG_in_smaller_volumes.pdf&ei=kHBwVJiALqO1sQSWj4HoDw&usg=AFQjCNE91Mmuym2jTwSaqSGpOyoN186gaQ&sig2=9iXJ6vGkwEogkObsDy4C5g&bvm=bv.80185997,d.cWc

- Paul North. 

[Overmod]

tomikawaTT

Bakken crude burns. LNG BLEVES!!*

That's funny.  Just about every serious study I've seen since the '70s notes that there's minimal risk of an actual LNG BLEVE -- and that only if the carrier is colossally poorly designed.

A 'better' argument is that the heat release from a LNG pool fire is greater than that from an equivalent pool of gasoline.  But that's after the fuel has been released to atmospheric pressure, and the cryo drops the ambient temperature so the expansion of the ignited gas cloud stays limited.

Chuck, I thought you were familiar with cryomethane in the USAF...  ;-} 

CNG -- now, that scares me.  I don't like large-volume critical-mixture explosions.

[tomikawaTT]

You might ask Norfolk Southern what they think of the idea.  I seem to recall that a misadventure with LNG cars did a number on one of their yards a few decades back.

Bakken crude burns.  LNG BLEVES!!*

*Boiling Liquid Explosive Vapor Explosion.  Monster fireball and rolling stock parts headed for orbit.

I'm not concerned with Bakken crude passing through town.  The individual LNG and propane cars in the nearby industrial area concern me.  I don't even want to think about a LNG unit train.

Chuck

[carnej1]

In the wake of the heated discussion in the media(and on this forum) about crude petroleum shipment by rail comes the possibility of Liquid Natural Gas transportation by rail:

 

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/06/16/us-usa-railway-natgas-insight-idUSKBN0ER0D620140616

 The article was written last Summer but I could not find any discussion of it so far on the Trains forum..

 At least one US based cryogenic tank car manufacturer is working on LNG designs:

file:///C:/Users/jcarney/Downloads/R-PraMarketingLiterature14722936_LNG%20Railcars14722936%20(1).pdf