Exploding Oil Tank Cars: Why Trains Go Boom 144
Hugh Pickens DOT Com writes "Marcus Stern and Sebastian Jones report on Bloomberg that as federal regulators continue investigating why tank cars on three trains carrying North Dakota crude oil have exploded in the past eight months, energy experts say part of the problem might be that some producers are deliberately leaving too much propane in their product, making the oil riskier to transport by rail. Sweet light crude from the Bakken Shale formation has long been known to be especially rich in volatile natural gas liquids like propane and while there's no way to completely eliminate natural gas liquids from crude, well operators are supposed to use separators at the wellhead to strip out gases before shipping the oil. The worry is that some producers are adjusting the pressure settings to leave in substantial amounts of natural gas liquids and purposefully selling their crude "fluffed up" with propane to maximize their profits." (Read more, below.)
"'There is a strong suspicion that a number of producers are cheating. They generally want to simply fill up the barrel and sell it—and there are some who are not overly worried about quality,' says Alan J. Troner. 'I suspect that some are cheating and this is a suspicion that at least some refiners share.' As an oil train shakes, rattles and rolls toward the refinery, the propane begins to separate from the liquid and turning into gas. If one of those cars ruptures, the propane gas inside will likely make contact with outside air. If the gas is ignited—perhaps by a spark thrown off when the car rips open or maybe a spark thrown up from steel wheels scraping over steel tracks—the car can explode. Then the burning car can act like a blowtorch on the tanker next to it and at that point, railcars can explode in domino fashion. The Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) recently issued a safety alert that recent derailments and resulting fires indicate that the type of crude oil being transported from the Bakken region may be more flammable than traditional heavy crude oil. 'It's typical of this type of oil. So it's not surprising. There's no mystery to it especially if it were in a tanker not meant to carry that type of fluid,' says Ramanan Krishnamoorti referring to the much-criticized DOT-111, a black, torpedo-shaped railcar designed in the 1960s that has become the workhorse of the crude-rail industry. Washington doesn't appear to be in a rush to address the problem. On January 23, investigators at the US National Transportation Safety Board made broad recommendations that would have big consequences: They said crude oil should meet the same restrictions as toxic chemicals, which must be routed on tracks away from population centers. 'The large-scale shipment of crude oil by rail simply didn't exist 10 years ago, and our safety regulations need to catch up,' says NTSB Chairman Deborah Hersman. 'While this energy boom is good for business, the people and the environment along rail corridors must be protected from harm.'"
Re:why carry crude to in tanks on moving vehicles? (Score:5, Insightful)
Pipelines have their own share of problems: Leaks, maintenance access, property arguments, security difficulties, animal migrations, the list goes on. They're definitely *a* solution, but not necessarily *the* solution.
If the suspicions of the folks in the article are correct, then it's simply a case of the manufacturers trying to take advantage of the fact that contents are sold by volume, not by weight... with the minor caveat that the extra volume has a tendency to explode. The real solution, then, would be to smack the greedy bastards pulling the stunt and ensure the oil is separated enough to safely transport.
Re:why carry crude to in tanks on moving vehicles? (Score:5, Insightful)
Obama can only stop the pipeline crossing the border from Canada. If they want to build it from ND to the Gulf refineries he couldn't do anything about it.
But they should be building refineries in North Dakota, thats where the oil is, (and they could be fueled by natural gas which is also in abundance.
Why send the oil all the way to the gulf, when the refineries there might have to shut down at times due to hurricanes (more likely due to global warming these days) and then ship it back north as refined product. Refine it in ND and then the Midwest can have sheaper gas.
We don't need no stinking CA tar sand oil.
Anyway the oil train that blew up was hit by another freight train that derailed due to the extreme cold.
Re:why carry crude to in tanks on moving vehicles? (Score:5, Insightful)
They've been trying to build one for years (Keystone XL) but have been stonewalled at every turn by Obama.
Not just Obama, but the by anti-oil people. They think by blocking the pipeline, they will be reducing CO2 in our atmosphere. The sad part is, they are actually INCREASING the amount of CO2 and other pollutants.
Rather than move the oil from Canada to Texas via an electric powered pipeline, they are forcing the oil to be loaded onto trains, where they are transported to a port where they are loaded onto an oil tanker where they will be transported to China. All of these modes of transportation are diesel powered. Once in China, they will be refined by Chinese workers under Chinese environmental regulations into various petroleum products. Then they are loaded back onto tankers and shipped around the world, with all profits going to the Chinese government.
Or, we could transport the oil to Texas refineries, where we have control over the emissions the refineries emit, by a pipeline using electrical pumps.
Tell me which option makes more environmental sense (not to mention the economic sense!)
Re:Every Rail Car Explosion (Score:4, Insightful)
is an arrow in the quiver of the pipeline proponents.
Only if you assume that the opponents are influenced by logic.
Re:Rail car explosions probably cost more than the (Score:2, Insightful)
so tell us again what world are you coming from? In this one the insurance companies interests are aligned with those of their CEOs which, because there are only few of, does not qualify as a society. I think the times of Lloyds when ship owners insured each other are long over here.
BTW insurance is redistributing money by its design: insured people get some money from the insurance in case the insurance is triggered. But I see your point - you can further improve gains of insurance industry by making it legal not to pay for damages at all while making it illegal not to have insurance. I even think that is a good idea. It would make quite clear what this is all about instead of these little games in the dark. Well done!
Re:Rail car explosions probably cost more than the (Score:5, Insightful)
" That's the way it usually works in a free market."
And then you use health insurance as an example of how insurance and society's goals are in alignment? You gotta be kidding! The free market brought us to the awful state we were in before Obamacare made a poor attempt to fix it. The insurers were denying coverage to people who were most in need. Theoretically they can't do that any more, but we'll see- they have an army of lawyers working out all the loop-holes they can find and things will probably degenerate to something as bad or worse than it was before.
Re:why carry crude to in tanks on moving vehicles? (Score:5, Insightful)
Then they are loaded back onto tankers and shipped around the world, with all profits going to the Chinese government.
What makes you think we hate the Chinese government so much that we would let all those profits going to the oil companies? There are no "our" oil companies. The oil companies would betray American interests and work to the detriment of America as easily as the international oil companies. In fact these oil companies have more than a century of manipulating our governments, our industries,our societies, our media. They had formed secret cartels to destroy the public transportation infrastructure of America. They have insidiously worked to increase urban sprawl to enrich themselves. They have whipped up public opinion to get us into wars.
The oil industry saw how easily we beat Iraq in 1992 booting Saddam out of Kuwait. They salivated at the idea of throwing Saddam out, installing a puppet and get all the Iraqi oil at cheap rates for their cronies. We are still paying the price for that war in terms of money and in terms of hostility to America from the Middle East.
Between the multinational oil companies and China, I would say the oil companies are the bigger threat. China has to fight a nuclear war to beat us. Oil companies would corrode us from inside out feeding on us like a wasp nymph feeds on a live but sedated pray.
Re:why carry crude to in tanks on moving vehicles? (Score:4, Insightful)
In all fairness, I haven't heard anything good coming from a pipeline. All the news about them have to do with spills and cover-ups. I'd be happy with a small headline announcing 5 years on a pipeline without a spill. Then we can talk about adding more pipelines. Until then, I'd rather the spills / fires be contained to the limited size of a shipping container.
There is about 100,000 miles of oil carrying pipeline in the US. If they ran a story every time one went 5 years without incident, there would no time to write about anything else.
Re:Incomplete calculation (Score:4, Insightful)
You're providing incomplete, one-sided calculations. So this is propaganda.
Speaking of incomplete, I notice your post has no calculations whatsoever. Don't just sit there and say, "You're wrong!" Tell me why I'm wrong and provide whatever it is you think I'm missing.