Interesting article. The EU as part of their trade agreement with the United States are going to dramatically increase LNG purchases from the United States. Should be interesting to see how this developes if it does develop.......
https://www.houstonchronicle.com/business/energy/article/Trump-looks-to-open-up-railroads-for-LNG-shipments-14569387.php
Yikes. (What could possibly go wrong? )
So I won't be called a NIMBY ... I am firmly opposed to this happening anywhere, period.
Lithonia OperatorYikes. (What could possibly go wrong? ) So I won't be called a NIMBY ... I am firmly opposed to this happening anywhere, period.
Why? There's far less hazard transporting this stuff than either undegassed Bakken crude or a BLEVE hazard like LPG. Arguably less than ethanol or gasoline.
Almost zero risk of sustained immediate fire even with impact damage; pool fires get hot but it takes them a while to get there and little if any critical-mixture hazard even then.
Combine this with the great advances in cryoinsulation in the last few years.
I have little hesitation in saying LNG is safer in a tank train than it is in OTR trailers ... where it has been legal many years. High cost and interesting maintenance issues trying to compete with pipelines over any but short distance.
Now, if you wanted to ban CNG transport by rail, I'd be right behind ya in the picket line. THAT stuff is dangerous as hell in my opinion.
Overmod Lithonia Operator Yikes. (What could possibly go wrong? ) So I won't be called a NIMBY ... I am firmly opposed to this happening anywhere, period. Why? There's far less hazard transporting this stuff than either undegassed Bakken crude or a BLEVE hazard like LPG. Arguably less than ethanol or gasoline. Almost zero risk of sustained immediate fire even with impact damage; pool fires get hot but it takes them a while to get there and little if any critical-mixture hazard even then. Combine this with the great advances in cryoinsulation in the last few years. I have little hesitation in saying LNG is safer in a tank train than it is in OTR trailers ... where it has been legal many years. High cost and interesting maintenance issues trying to compete with pipelines over any but short distance. Now, if you wanted to ban CNG transport by rail, I'd be right behind ya in the picket line. THAT stuff is dangerous as hell in my opinion.
Lithonia Operator Yikes. (What could possibly go wrong? ) So I won't be called a NIMBY ... I am firmly opposed to this happening anywhere, period.
LNG is already being transported around the world - just not on railroads.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_fGspi9UD4o
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
LNG as stated in the article is at a temperature below minus 300 degrees. Propane or other gases at atmospheric presure are at MUCH greater risk of catching fire or exploding.
The railroads routinely transport far more dangerous things than liquid or gaseous fuels. A few tank cars of chlorine or anhydrous ammonia have as much killing potential as a entire trainload of LNG/LPG/gasoline/crude oil.
CN now runs unit trains of propane (LPG) from the Edmonton area to Prince Rupert several times a week. This service started earlier this year, after a export terminal was completed at the port of Prince Rupert. They run as symbols U761 (loads) and U760 (empties).
There is also a daily 'bomb train' (M314, westbound counterpart M313) from Scotford (northeast of Edmonton) to Winnipeg. It normally has lots of LPG and anhydrous ammonia, along with all sorts of other toxic 'goodies' from Alberta's industrial heartland.
I'm sure all the other Class I's have some trains that are normally composed mainly of dangerous goods.
Greetings from Alberta
-an Articulate Malcontent
caldreamer LNG as stated in the article is at a temperature below minus 300 degrees. Propane or other gases at atmospheric presure are at MUCH greater risk of catching fire or exploding.
Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.
Murphy Siding caldreamer LNG as stated in the article is at a temperature below minus 300 degrees. Propane or other gases at atmospheric presure are at MUCH greater risk of catching fire or exploding. What happens if a car of LNG has a compressor go out?
What happens if a car of LNG has a compressor go out?
I imagine it would vent through a safety valve if the pressure rises too high.
There are already a fair number of insulated tank cars running around that carry cryongenically liquified gases like argon and carbon dioxide. If the pressures rises to high while in transit they will vent, which can lead to the odd sight of a thick layer of frost on the outside of the car on a hot summer day.
Lithonia OperatorYikes. (What could possibly go wrong? )
Coming to a town near you:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cleveland_East_Ohio_Gas_explosion
SD70Dude Murphy Siding caldreamer LNG as stated in the article is at a temperature below minus 300 degrees. Propane or other gases at atmospheric presure are at MUCH greater risk of catching fire or exploding. What happens if a car of LNG has a compressor go out? I imagine it would vent through a safety valve if the pressure rises too high. There are already a fair number of insulated tank cars running around that carry cryongenically liquified gases like argon and carbon dioxide. If the pressures rises to high while in transit they will vent, which can lead to the odd sight of a thick layer of frost on the outside of the car on a hot summer day.
Murphy Siding It would vent out as a gas-right? Does anybody know if the bad smell is put in before transport?
It would vent out as a gas-right? Does anybody know if the bad smell is put in before transport?
The tank cars are clearly marked as being "non-odourized".
Natural gas is lighter than air, so a small leak should rise up and dissipate. Propane is heavier than air, and will stay close to the ground.
Propane vehicles are not allowed in underground parking garages for that reason (such conversions used to be quite common out here, mostly older farm trucks).
MidlandMike Lithonia Operator Yikes. (What could possibly go wrong? ) Coming to a town near you: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cleveland_East_Ohio_Gas_explosion
Lithonia Operator Yikes. (What could possibly go wrong? )
A friend's mom would likely have died in that incident had she been a block closer. The root cause of that disaster was tank construction inappropriate for cryogenic liquids along with the spilled LNG pouring into the storm sewer system. Having said that, I'd be a lot more concerned about a trainload of LPG. Heck, a carload of ammonium nitrate can make a MOAB look like a forecracker by comparison.
I'd also suspect that the insulation could provide a modicum of puncture resistance.
SD70Dude The railroads routinely transport far more dangerous things than liquid or gaseous fuels. A few tank cars of chlorine or anhydrous ammonia have as much killing potential as a entire trainload of LNG/LPG/gasoline/crude oil. CN now runs unit trains of propane (LPG) from the Edmonton area to Prince Rupert several times a week. This service started earlier this year, after a export terminal was completed at the port of Prince Rupert. They run as symbols U761 (loads) and U760 (empties). There is also a daily 'bomb train' (M314, westbound counterpart M313) from Scotford (northeast of Edmonton) to Winnipeg. It normally has lots of LPG and anhydrous ammonia, along with all sorts of other toxic 'goodies' from Alberta's industrial heartland. I'm sure all the other Class I's have some trains that are normally composed mainly of dangerous goods.
zardoz SD70Dude The railroads routinely transport far more dangerous things than liquid or gaseous fuels. A few tank cars of chlorine or anhydrous ammonia have as much killing potential as a entire trainload of LNG/LPG/gasoline/crude oil. CN now runs unit trains of propane (LPG) from the Edmonton area to Prince Rupert several times a week. This service started earlier this year, after a export terminal was completed at the port of Prince Rupert. They run as symbols U761 (loads) and U760 (empties). There is also a daily 'bomb train' (M314, westbound counterpart M313) from Scotford (northeast of Edmonton) to Winnipeg. It normally has lots of LPG and anhydrous ammonia, along with all sorts of other toxic 'goodies' from Alberta's industrial heartland. I'm sure all the other Class I's have some trains that are normally composed mainly of dangerous goods. Are the locomotives equipped with any type of survival gear in case of accidents? Do the crews get any special training (no pun intended) and/or hazard pay?
Are the locomotives equipped with any type of survival gear in case of accidents? Do the crews get any special training (no pun intended) and/or hazard pay?
There's a first aid kit. And a stretcher, which is sometimes kept on top of the fuel tank.
Special training? Hazard pay? Are you kidding? We get some basic dangerous goods transportation instructions in rules class, but that's about it.
The only special safety gear I know of on CN and CP are the breathing apparatuses issued to crews running through long tunnels. CN's ex-BC Rail Tumbler Sub (not ventilated) and CP's two tunnels in Rogers Pass come to mind.
Living in Maine, I saw lots of coverage of the Lac Megantic disaster.
Anything that can go wrong will go wrong. No, that was not LNG; I realize that.
It just seems risky to me. But I claim no special knowledge of this.
Lithonia OperatorIt just seems risky to me.
Well, of course it's risky. If you look at the LNG ship video you will hear the somewhat intended-to-shock comparison of a full load of LNG to '55 nuclear bombs' and while this is certainly specious with regard to prompt detonation of the kind seen at Megantic, a similar catastrophic derailment of LNG tanks might easily start a pool fire of enormous proportions and extended heat release. The point is that it would be slow, even slower than one of Wells' canadum bombs, and just as escapable, and reasonably prompt firefighting attention to small sources of escaping LNG will probably starve any developing fire short of that (ice is a structural material at LNG temperature).
The issue to me is that if you want a high-energy-density fuel for transport, this is about the safest you can get. You'll see all sorts of people who should know better trying to scare by saying LNG is a BLEVE hazard, when 10 minutes of research will establish conclusively that almost nothing could be farther from the truth.
Lithonia OperatorSo I won't be called a NIMBY ... I am firmly opposed to this happening anywhere, period.
It's all the homeowners fault! If they didn't want to be incinerated in their sleep they should NEVER have bought a house next to the railroad tracks.
Not sure what you are imbibing but LNG is certainly a BLEVE hazard. BLEVE - Boiling Liquid Expanding Vapor Explosion. Since it boils at around -300F it is indeed a BLEVE hazard. A BLEVE requires only a boiling liquid to produce enough pressure to cause the containing vessel to fail. It does not have to be a flammable liquid. A locomotive boiler explosion is a BLEVE. When I taught firefighting we had a video of such a BLEVE. A vessel heated over a fire explodes and a shockwave travels about 50 yards then the whole circle abruptly is covered in a cloud of vapor. What produced this deady blast? 5 gallons of water in a beer keg.
Convicted One Lithonia Operator So I won't be called a NIMBY ... I am firmly opposed to this happening anywhere, period. It's all the homeowners fault! If they didn't want to be incinerated in their sleep they should NEVER have bought a house next to the railroad tracks.
Lithonia Operator So I won't be called a NIMBY ... I am firmly opposed to this happening anywhere, period.
Being incinerated by the pipeline buried in the ROW as in San Berdoo in 1989?
Erik_MagBeing incinerated by the pipeline buried in the ROW as in San Berdoo in 1989?
Train didn't do that; nincompoop banging around with a backhoe after being advised to be careful did it.
Who puts gasoline in a pressurized pipeline under a residential area in the first place?
I'm reluctant to put too specific a face on such events, out of a concern that it might tweak sensitivities of survivors.
I do recall that back when I was just a youngster an overweight truck traveling down a busy street 1 1/2 blocks from our house, cracked a weld on an 8" natural gas line buried feet beneath the pavement.....and the gas followed small voids in the soil around the pipeline, to the nearest service entrance to two adjacent homes, flooding into their basements and ultimately ignited by the water heater's pilot light.
Empty lots are all that remain of the two houses today. Thankfully the gas station immediately across the street was unaffected.
Sure built quite an environment of paranoia though, once the path of entry for the gas was determined. Loose gas will follow the path of least resistance, which isn't always "up".
I’ve been waiting for the day that we can finally haul LNG by tankcar. This traffic can be a good replacement for dwindling coal traffic. Not to mention areas that already host large scale coal mining (i.e. Powder River Basin). Happen to be located within, or alongside massive gas fields of NG.
Plain fact of the matter is boys, the stuff's going to get moved one way or another. If not by train, then by pipeline. If not by pipeline, then by truck. But it will be moved, you can bet on it. So, which do you prefer?
LNG being sold to EU nations? Sounds like they want to get out from under the Russians, who are supplying it now. Nothing wrong with a little competition.
Flintlock76Sounds like they want to get out from under the Russians, who are supplying it now. Nothing wrong with a little competition.
My first thought was that they (domestic producers) want to find an outlet for their supply, to create "demand" in order to drive up domestic prices.
I recall back in the deepest darkest day of the old embargos, you used to hear patriotically slanted spiels about how America needed to achieve energy independence, thus slaying the bad ol wolf at the door and rolling back prices at the pump, the meter, etc.
Only years later when fracking and horizontal drilling started to make that a possibility, the mantra suddenly changed, and the "global" fair market price continued to be the driver. How can ~we~ reasonably expect domestic capitalist interests to "take one for the team" when there is all that money waiting to be made on the foreign markets? export-export-export!! rah!
Convicted One Flintlock76 Sounds like they want to get out from under the Russians, who are supplying it now. Nothing wrong with a little competition. My first thought was that they (domestic producers) want to find an outlet for their supply, to create "demand" in order to drive up domestic prices. I recall back in the deepest darkest day of the old embargos, you used to hear patriotically slanted spiels about how America needed to achieve energy independence, thus slaying the bad ol wolf at the door and rolling back prices at the pump, the meter, etc. Only years later when fracking and horizontal drilling started to make that a possibility, the mantra suddenly changed, and the "global" fair market price began to become the driver. How can ~we~ reasonably expect domestic capitalist interests to "take one for the team" when there is all that money waiting to be made on the foreign markets? export-export-export!! rah!
Flintlock76 Sounds like they want to get out from under the Russians, who are supplying it now. Nothing wrong with a little competition.
Only years later when fracking and horizontal drilling started to make that a possibility, the mantra suddenly changed, and the "global" fair market price began to become the driver. How can ~we~ reasonably expect domestic capitalist interests to "take one for the team" when there is all that money waiting to be made on the foreign markets? export-export-export!! rah!
The viewpoint all depends on if you are buying or selling.
Consider this. If you're a country that has to import energy, be it oil, gas, or even coal, you're living with a dagger pointed at your throat.
That being the case, who would you prefer to hold the dagger? The Russians, who you really can't be sure of, or the Americans, who may not ever unsheath the dagger, even with the greatest provocation?
Good choice, bad choice? I leave it up to you.
Ahhhh,...."the devil you know"
Convicted One Ahhhh,...."the devil you know"
There it is, bro!
Flintlock76There it is, bro!
Sometimes I think that my greatest trump card is the knowledge that I won't live forever. Somebody else will have to deal with that mess.
Doubtful that LNG by rail will be sent to Europe, but I can anticipate how that devil I do know might manipulate the system to my disadvantage. Exporting the logistically easy Texas natural gas thru Gulf ports, leaving only the more expensive "bottled" variety to be delivered domestically by train.
Reminds me of like 15 years ago when hedge funds cornered the domestic natural gas market, and gamed the pipeline delivery system, where they were claiming natural gas delivered to point "B" had to be routed from "A" to "C" to "D" first, adding thousands of miles of claimed transit.
Now, those likely could be remembered as "the good old days"
Flintlock76Consider this. If you're a country that has to import energy, be it oil, gas, or even coal, you're living with a dagger pointed at your throat. That being the case, who would you prefer to hold the dagger? The Russians, who you really can't be sure of, or the Americans, who may not ever unsheath the dagger, even with the greatest provocation? Good choice, bad choice? I leave it up to you.
Depends upon who occupies the Office of President of the United States we are finding out.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.