I'm baffled why anyone even cares whether it's legal to ship LNG by rail. The margins on LNG between origin and destination are insufficient to support the cost of rail transportation in the overwhelming majority of markets, compared to (1) burning fuel oil, (2) pipelining the gas, or (3) burning the gas at origin and wire-lining the power.
LNG is also perishable; it all starts turning back to gas which if not immediately captured and burned to generate power is immediately lost to the atmosphere, the moment it's liquified. Transportation losses to regasification in a container the size of a large ocean-going vessel sitting in a bath of 40 degree water aren't so bad; the tank's ratio of surface area to volume is low, the weight and dimensional penalties of insulation aren't onerous, and the offgas is readily captureable and can be used for power. When LNG is shipped in a small container that isn't hooked permanently to an engine room, and can't afford the dimensional penalty of being swaddled in insulation, like a tank car, the offgassing can quickly become significant. Park that tank car for 30 days and it turns itself into an empty.
The safety of rail transportation of LNG isn't unusual, unless you hold the belief that NO hazardous materials should be transported by ANY mode EVER.
JLD
The "extra" warming potential of methane over CO2 is due to methane being a much more dilute gas in the atmosphere than CO2. At the same absolute concentrations, CO2 is a bit over twice as effective as a GHG. Main benefit from using methane versus flaring is reducing the amount of other fuels burned.
N.B. Once the mean free path of a photon at a resonance frequency of a Green House Gas becomes less than about five miles (the thickness of the atmosphere would be if it was all at sea level density), the green house effect of adding more of that gas declines dramatically.
Surely someone by now has done an effective analysis of the 'greenhouse' difference between flaring and venting wellhead or 'fracture-released' gas, and ideally noted if there is any pollution impact from recovering 'flared' gas as electricity or process/space heating rather than free burning.
Psychot MidlandMike Gas is usually burned off in an oil field because the economics are not there to construct pipelines, or the gas is sour (H2S) and the economics are not there to bulid a sweetening plant. They usually need permission from state regulators to flare the gas. Even if they build a gas liquifying plant, they still need to gather the gas thru pipelines from a sufficient number wells to feed the gas plant. I'm a native of western North Dakota, which is lit up like a Christmas tree these days due to flaring in the Bakken oil fields. It mystifies me why the ND state government allows them to do that, because it's an environmental travesty. Back when the price of oil was much higher, the state could have simply told the oil companies that they can't extract a single drop of oil until they find a way to capture and use the natural gas. I guarantee they would have found a way. Now they can argue that the economics don't work out, and meanwhile the state has become dependent on oil tax revenue.
MidlandMike Gas is usually burned off in an oil field because the economics are not there to construct pipelines, or the gas is sour (H2S) and the economics are not there to bulid a sweetening plant. They usually need permission from state regulators to flare the gas. Even if they build a gas liquifying plant, they still need to gather the gas thru pipelines from a sufficient number wells to feed the gas plant.
Gas is usually burned off in an oil field because the economics are not there to construct pipelines, or the gas is sour (H2S) and the economics are not there to bulid a sweetening plant. They usually need permission from state regulators to flare the gas. Even if they build a gas liquifying plant, they still need to gather the gas thru pipelines from a sufficient number wells to feed the gas plant.
I'm a native of western North Dakota, which is lit up like a Christmas tree these days due to flaring in the Bakken oil fields. It mystifies me why the ND state government allows them to do that, because it's an environmental travesty.
Back when the price of oil was much higher, the state could have simply told the oil companies that they can't extract a single drop of oil until they find a way to capture and use the natural gas. I guarantee they would have found a way. Now they can argue that the economics don't work out, and meanwhile the state has become dependent on oil tax revenue.
The State of ND does make regulations for gas capture, although they will never get it all. See page 5 for the order: (note that gas driven generators are one solution)
https://www.dmr.nd.gov/oilgas/or24665.pdf
The US EPA also was making regulatons for gas venting, but the Trump Administration is looking to scale those regulations back.
OvermodYou're forgetting by far the most expensive part of the exercise -- the capital cost of the genset and its connected equipment, and wiring, isolation arrangements and switchgear to connect it to an electric-power network or grid.
Indeed - no argument there. A problem encountered with our regional landfill was that the utility lines leading to the landfill had to be upgraded to handle the new generated electricity.
A regional landfill in the Finger Lakes provides gas to the local ambulance squad, among others. That squad also uses geothermal.
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...
tree68I would imagine it would come down to dollars and cents - if keeping gas supplied to the genset is more expensive than the yield in electricity, it's not worth the effort.
You're forgetting by far the most expensive part of the exercise -- the capital cost of the genset and its connected equipment, and wiring, isolation arrangements and switchgear to connect it to an electric-power network or grid.
Back at the relative dawn of dual-fuel studies, we did some calculations indicating that the du Pont house 'Patterns' could get effective HVAC via a couple of fairly simple 350cid IC engines, on skids driving refrigerant compressors and generators. Subsequently the York company actually designed and manufactured a ceramic engine for this application at smaller scale (driving a typical home-sized heat-pump compressor directly and recuperating heat from the combustion exhaust). It didn't sell well, though I admired the hell out of the design and the company's willingness to develop it.
Landowners were generally using the free gas to cook and heat homes. Some lucky people had the free gas in their mineral lease, and when a gas storage company aquired the leases, people would take advantage of the fact they could heat the house and any attachments. They would attach garages, workshops, barns, and in one case, an indoor pool.
MidlandMikeIn the old days, lease gas incendental to oil production, was sometimes given to the landowner.
As I wrote that, I invisioned the oil company itself doing the whole genset thing, not a third party.
I would imagine it would come down to dollars and cents - if keeping gas supplied to the genset is more expensive than the yield in electricity, it's not worth the effort.
tree68 CMStPnP Missed by many in this thread was the fact that many oil fields currently flare off the gas. What that means is they burn it onsite without attempting to capture it. The LNG export market and shipment by rail will give a margin incentive to capture the gas and sell it vs just burning it off. Why some on here think that is a huge travesty is beyond me. If anything it uses the gas productively instead of wasting it at the well head. Produces more tax revenue for the United States. Our regional landfill used to flare off the methane produced by the contents of said landfill. Now they capture the gas and use it to run generators, selling the power to the utility. There was talk of using the waste heat from the genset so air condition greenhouses. The manager of the landfill told me that a similar set-up in the Buffalo area supplies something like one-fifth of the hothouse tomatoes in NY. Seems to me like that would be an option for the oil fields...
CMStPnP Missed by many in this thread was the fact that many oil fields currently flare off the gas. What that means is they burn it onsite without attempting to capture it. The LNG export market and shipment by rail will give a margin incentive to capture the gas and sell it vs just burning it off. Why some on here think that is a huge travesty is beyond me. If anything it uses the gas productively instead of wasting it at the well head. Produces more tax revenue for the United States.
Our regional landfill used to flare off the methane produced by the contents of said landfill.
Now they capture the gas and use it to run generators, selling the power to the utility.
There was talk of using the waste heat from the genset so air condition greenhouses. The manager of the landfill told me that a similar set-up in the Buffalo area supplies something like one-fifth of the hothouse tomatoes in NY.
Seems to me like that would be an option for the oil fields...
In the old days, lease gas incendental to oil production, was sometimes given to the landowner. Oil wells need lots of maintenance and sometimes shut down by themselves, so they are not always a reliable gas supply. There have been cases where the landowner tried to restart the well, with bad results. Malfunctions at the well facility may send oil or water down a lease gas line. There have been a lot of safety reasons why oil companies have discontinued the giveaway.
MidlandMikeEven if they build a gas liquifying plant, they still need to gather the gas thru pipelines from a sufficient number wells to feed the gas plant.
And even if you build a small-scale liquefaction plant (which is a 'thing', and could be subsidized as a matter of policy) you'd have to arrange periodic access to it to transfer the liquefied product. Not impossible, but the infrastructure for LNG handling and eventual re-gasification has to be well advanced to permit it economically.
See some of the implementations of a hydrogen carrier infrastructure for things like iLINT for ideas.
CMStPnPMissed by many in this thread was the fact that many oil fields currently flare off the gas. What that means is they burn it onsite without attempting to capture it. The LNG export market and shipment by rail will give a margin incentive to capture the gas and sell it vs just burning it off. Why some on here think that is a huge travesty is beyond me. If anything it uses the gas productively instead of wasting it at the well head. Produces more tax revenue for the United States.
Vern MooreI live very near a proposed LNG plant and railcar loading site. Here in the Marcellus Shale gas field getting poduct to market is the limitting factor in gas production. One key market that is unreached is New England. Gas demand there is greater than current pipeline capacity can supply and importing CNG from overseas is the current solutuon. Additional pipelines from PA to New England have been proposed, but the State of New York has blocked construction, strangling growth in the New England states. The CNG rail transport solution will see daily 100 car trains travelling up the old D&H from Binghamton, NY through Albany, NY and on to an unloading facility somewhere along the old B&M. I hope the NY politicians enjoy the sight of those trains rolling ith eyesight of their offices.
Missed by many in this thread was the fact that many oil fields currently flare off the gas. What that means is they burn it onsite without attempting to capture it. The LNG export market and shipment by rail will give a margin incentive to capture the gas and sell it vs just burning it off. Why some on here think that is a huge travesty is beyond me. If anything it uses the gas productively instead of wasting it at the well head. Produces more tax revenue for the United States.
I live very near a proposed LNG plant and railcar loading site. Here in the Marcellus Shale gas field getting poduct to market is the limitting factor in gas production.
One key market that is unreached is New England. Gas demand there is greater than current pipeline capacity can supply and importing CNG from overseas is the current solutuon. Additional pipelines from PA to New England have been proposed, but the State of New York has blocked construction, strangling growth in the New England states.
The CNG rail transport solution will see daily 100 car trains travelling up the old D&H from Binghamton, NY through Albany, NY and on to an unloading facility somewhere along the old B&M. I hope the NY politicians enjoy the sight of those trains rolling ith eyesight of their offices.
Overmod SOTC" Shouldn't that be a bit different -- "STCO", for example? Were you thinking about Ford 427s...
SOTC"
Shouldn't that be a bit different -- "STCO", for example? Were you thinking about Ford 427s...
A bit dyslexiated....
Side oiler? Hmmm, such as in a GT40? (May have got that one wrong, ISTR that one version of the mid 60's GT's used a side oiler).
I was in Berkeley in 1978 when the horrendous tanker truck accident happened in the Caldecott tunnel. IIRC, the truck was carrying gasoline, but anything more volatile than JP-7 (AKA Lockheed Lighter Fluid #1) could have caused similar damage. One state legislator had proposed a bill to ban tankers from vehicular tunnels in response to that accident and I remember the weekend PBS press show criticizing that effort. Seemed reasonable to me.
I also recall that propane cylinders were prohibited from either Grand Central Terminal or Penn Station.
Erik_Magwould there be any restrictions on handling LNG through long tunnels? I would be very wary of routing an LNG train through a tunnel in an urban area as it could re-create the Cleveland LNG incident.
It would be little more dangerous to route LNG through a tunnel than any compressed gas, whether liquefied under its own vapor pressure or stabilized over liquid like acetylene. The problem in Cleveland was the existence of sewers in which a critical mixture could be established, and this is not nearly the problem in a railroad tunnel that it would be in, say, a subway tunnel under residential properties (or a gasoline pipeline under houses, but I digress) unless the tunnel drainage system ran into either storm sewers or residential sewers, or enough LNG in liquid form ran down out of the tunnel to pour into street drains. That's likely to be a LOT of LNG over a comparatively long time, left unrecognized until the gas can form a critical mixture in an appropriately large or 'tuned' confined space (which is what would take it from essentially deflagration to detonation).
There's also a consideration for tunnels that, unlike those at most summits, have downward curvature like the ex-PRR Hudson River tunnels. In those the liquid would pool at the center of the tunnel and likely have pretty good heat-transfer to vaporize; I'm not sure if any fire would propagate as periodic 'puffs' before settling down to a roof plume with combustion air flowing in at low level, or indeed going out due to oxygen exhaustion and continuing chill close to the "pool fire". Surely someone somewhere has done testing on this...
So in brief: yes, I'd keep LNG trains out of urban tunnels, certainly to the extent the tunnels already have a 'gas restriction' for prompt leakage hazards (as in the 'bottled gas' prohibitions in some trans-Hudson tunnels). I suspect there are some comparatively common-sense actions that could be taken to reduce 'liquid leakage' problems to a minimum for LNG, some of them similar to how you would keep storm surge out. Some of these also have the effect of restricting atmospheric mixing, although you might still want to incorporate one-way and self-closing explosion doors in them.
https://www.phmsa.dot.gov/sites/phmsa.dot.gov/files/docs/ERG2016.pdf
Activated for you.
[quote user="Lithonia Operator"]
What is an ERG?
[/quote]
Emergency Response Guide:
Here is a PDF for a current publication: Should be an updated version due in about 2020,
They are generally carried by first responders in their own(POV) vehicle;
or in their Official Response Vehicles.
SOTC: Your reference to worst case scenario brought up a thought - would there be any restrictions on handling LNG through long tunnels? I would be very wary of routing an LNG train through a tunnel in an urban area as it could re-create the Cleveland LNG incident.
I know what you mean on the ERG and what to do when stuff is on fire. I have to keep one on me at all times at work since I work at a Hazmat certifed carrier. You want to talk about fun times. We play worst case scenerio at times when bored at work. You know what could be the worst ever accident we could recreate in a standard MVA that could happen on the road. The joys of gallows humor at work.
BaltACDDepends upon who occupies the Office of President of the United States we are finding out.
The Russians always communicate who they think the weak POTUS is via military moves on the ground during that specific administration.
Lithonia Operator What is an ERG?
You can download the ERG app on your phone. The next update is 2020. It's upated every 4 years.
OvermodOvermod wrote the following post 2 hours ago: Lithonia Operator What is an ERG? Emergency Response Guide. Advises what to do when you've identified the hazarduous materials or situations you face. The PHMSA 'Orange Book' conveniently puts the ID material on the left-hand page and the Rx on the right, so everything is together and right at hand when something happens. (PS: I believe you can get a version of this as a free phone app or download PDF from PHMSA, and I think everyone who is concerned with hazmat or potential 'encounter' with it should have a copy and read it.)
There are indeed apps for your phone, and the download PDF. There is another app, called WISER, which provides similar information. I keep both on my phone. Both are also searchable, which can save a lot of time vs scrolling through looking for what you're looking for.
If you're friendly with your local fire department, see if they have an old copy you can have. There isn't much change from issue to issue.
The ERG also includes illustrations of placards and other information (including rail cars).
The intent of the ERG is to provide responders with initial guidance for dealing with a hazmat incident. I've heard it said that it's good for the first ten minutes or so.
Substances are listed by UN number, then alphabetically by name, then the appropriate actions, and finally by special information on TIH (toxic by inhalation) chemicals, including appropriate evacuation distances.
Lithonia OperatorWhat is an ERG?
Emergency Response Guide. Advises what to do when you've identified the hazarduous materials or situations you face. The PHMSA 'Orange Book' conveniently puts the ID material on the left-hand page and the Rx on the right, so everything is together and right at hand when something happens.
(PS: I believe you can get a version of this as a free phone app or download PDF from PHMSA, and I think everyone who is concerned with hazmat or potential 'encounter' with it should have a copy and read it.)
Isobutane is 2-methylpropane, which can be thought of as a kind of LPG. Its shipping pressure is relatively low (probably little more than 30psig) and since the boiling point is about 10 degrees F it will 'find its own equilibrium pressure' to stay liquid without inert-gas pressurization. (Compare this to straight propane which is about 320psig at the same temperature)
None of the reports, or reported damage, is consistent with a double explosion involving a BLEVE, which makes this one of the grandmothers of all critical-mixture explosions. The flammable limit is under 9% rich, but only over about 1% lean, so probably only a comparatively short time between ignition at cloud edge and turbulent carburetion to limit within the cloud itself.
To put this in somewhat different perspective, 2-methyloxirane (which would presumably be a common rail borne 'thing' only a few years later with the rise of urethanes in production) which is a strained-ring and slightly self-oxygenated analog, is a favored fuel for thermobaric devices.
Falcon48 Falcon48 I've been retired from the rail industry for over a decade, so i don't have any insights into current rail management thinking. But I have to wonder if the railroads themselves are particularly anxious to transport this stuff. Undoubtedly, from a grand safety perspective, it's safer to transport it by rail than by truck. But the downside to a railroad if there is an accident is devastating (not to mention the downside to those in the area). Recall that some railroads tried to limit their common carrier obligation to transport chlorine some years ago, only to get shot down by STB. RE: My earlier note Here's an example of a railroad's attempt to limit its handling of high hazard hazmat traffic (chlorine) and STB's response to it (STB shot it down): https://dcms-external.s3.amazonaws.com/MPD/62491/5E59A6C2D2A853A2852575D2004B8A7B/39995.pdf
Falcon48 I've been retired from the rail industry for over a decade, so i don't have any insights into current rail management thinking. But I have to wonder if the railroads themselves are particularly anxious to transport this stuff. Undoubtedly, from a grand safety perspective, it's safer to transport it by rail than by truck. But the downside to a railroad if there is an accident is devastating (not to mention the downside to those in the area). Recall that some railroads tried to limit their common carrier obligation to transport chlorine some years ago, only to get shot down by STB.
I've been retired from the rail industry for over a decade, so i don't have any insights into current rail management thinking. But I have to wonder if the railroads themselves are particularly anxious to transport this stuff. Undoubtedly, from a grand safety perspective, it's safer to transport it by rail than by truck. But the downside to a railroad if there is an accident is devastating (not to mention the downside to those in the area). Recall that some railroads tried to limit their common carrier obligation to transport chlorine some years ago, only to get shot down by STB.
RE: My earlier note
Here's an example of a railroad's attempt to limit its handling of high hazard hazmat traffic (chlorine) and STB's response to it (STB shot it down):
https://dcms-external.s3.amazonaws.com/MPD/62491/5E59A6C2D2A853A2852575D2004B8A7B/39995.pdf
Lest we forget the explosive power of isobutane, Decatur.
https://herald-review.com/news/local/years-later-memories-of-the-decatur-rail-yard-explosion-remain/article_3d388703-f1fa-5b00-af72-df91f84cef7c.html
Convicted One Flintlock76 If they pay the bills on time they'll have nothing to worry about Was that the one where Al Capone is walking around the table carrying a baseball bat?
Flintlock76 If they pay the bills on time they'll have nothing to worry about
Was that the one where Al Capone is walking around the table carrying a baseball bat?
Huh?
The only time Capone used a baseball bat (that I know of) was when he offed a couple of rat finks. Maybe. Could be an urban legend.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.