from the I've-been-working-on-the-railroad-♩♫♪ dept.
Facing increased pressure from public concern about the safety of oil trains, one of four major refineries in the Pacific Northwest is insisting that only newer, stronger tank cars be used to deliver crude to the refinery.
ABC News expands on an article in the Bellingham Herald reporting that as of the first week of October, all oil shipped by rail to the refinery, BP Cherry Point in Washington State, must come in the new design CPC-1232 crude carriers.
The change comes amid public concern about the safety of shipping crude by train. Since 2008, derailments of oil trains in the U.S. and Canada have seen the older 70,000-gallon tank cars break open and ignite on multiple occasions, resulting in huge fireballs. A train carrying Bakken-formation crude from North Dakota in the older tanks crashed in a Quebec town last year, killing 47 people.
But Matt Krogh, of the group ForestEthics, which has sued the U.S. Department of Transportation over the shipment of volatile crude oil in older railroad tank cars, told the Associated Press on Saturday that there's little evidence the newer tank cars will truly prevent explosive spills.
"It's a marginal improvement, but it's nowhere near safe," he said. "They're essentially grasping at straws to convince people that they can do it safely. I don't think you can safely and profitably run trains of crude."
Note: ForestEthics is suing to block the use of the older tank cars. They apparently don't like the newer ones either.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 13 2014, @04:24AM
...you'd think we could come up with a better way to move oil around. Perhaps specialized tunnels?
(Score: 2) by kaszz on Monday October 13 2014, @04:41AM
Pipeline?
Heavy wagons at speed will most likely crush most things including themselfes. The best remedy is likely to secure the operation be paying attention to brakes, rails, routes etc.
If the prestige of the people in power is on the line. Then things gets fixed and gets a good budget. ;)
(Score: 2) by frojack on Monday October 13 2014, @04:59AM
Almost mentioned pipelines in the summary, but figured it would lead to a political argument about keystone.
As TFAs mention, Cherry Point use to get all their oil via pipeline.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 13 2014, @01:04PM
The US already has thousands of miles of pipelines for different things. For example there are thousands of miles for gas (both kinds). Yet for some reason crude oil is bad. Its OK to pump it around in pipes if it is refined only.
The only thing you can say about the rail version is at least it is in the open when they have a mistake.
I wouldnt be surprised if the people who own the rails are the same ones not wanting pipes. But that is wild speculation. They may be the same people...
(Score: 2) by Alfred on Monday October 13 2014, @02:02PM
For extreme reference, the trans Alaskan pipeline is 800 miles long of 48 inch pipe. More common are the less than 12" couple hundred mile long pipes. A pipeline map of Houston looks worse than a spider web and the rest of the country has plenty except in the mountains. The most pipeline free are areas where there are no people and no oil but that is not a guarantee of no pipeline being present.
Pipelines are the best and safest way to transport feedstock and product but there is a big upfront investment.
(Score: 3, Informative) by frojack on Monday October 13 2014, @04:30PM
You might be surprised how many different products flow through the same pipe, ay different times of course.
Gasoline, then a sweeper pig, then heating oil, another pig, then jet fuel, etc. What little mixing that inevitably occurs is insignificant over several million gallons.
I've also heard of gas and oil in the same pipes, and have no idea how that works.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 2) by Alfred on Monday October 13 2014, @05:37PM
Lots of money on the line (pun intended) so lots of research, innovation and clever tricks are used daily.
The oil/gas thing would be time division multiplexing, like you described for the other stuff, which is how all the pipelines operate. You would have to move it fast enough with the right phase interface to keep mixing down. It would not be a 2-phase stratified flow, gas on top oil on bottom. Water slugs are also used like pigs. Bunch of oil then a bunch of water then the next oily stuff. You fill the tank until the water arrives then switch tanks. The water/oil separates nicely since you took care to avoid a frothy mess.
Sometimes a diluent is used. When pumping something thick, like long hydrocarbons but probably not tar, you can introduce a diluent that reduces the viscosity and is easily removed at the receiving terminal.
(Score: 2) by mrchew1982 on Tuesday October 14 2014, @12:18AM
The trouble with pumping crude through pipes is that its incredibly corrosive. Corrosivity is dependant on source, but AFAIK there is quite a bit of maintenance required on the Alaskan line. Sections of pipe are removed and replaced in an ongoing basis. It's a cool process to watch sometime on YouTube, especially the x-ray inspections of the welds!
I don't know how the cost/benefit comparison stacks up, but I'm sure that it has been done somewhere in the industry. Personally I think that a pipeline leak is preferable to flying exploding tank cars, but I don't think that choice has been realized by the masses.
(Score: 2) by Reziac on Tuesday October 14 2014, @04:50AM
If you lay any metal pipe on the ground and move nothing through it at all, it will still require regular maintenance, just from exposure to the rain and to reactive compounds in the dirt.
And there is no Alkibiades to come back and save us from ourselves.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday October 13 2014, @11:32AM
"It's a marginal improvement, but it's nowhere near safe," he said. "They're essentially grasping at straws to convince people that they can do it safely. I don't think you can safely and profitably run trains of crude."
The use of that phrase in this context indicates to me, his idea of "safe" is somewhere around no accidents whatsoever, which is a ludicrous standard. Or perhaps "safe" means "unable to profitably run trains of crude". We need to keep in mind that it's in the interests of groups like "ForestEthics" to completely obstruct any sort of oil infrastructure. For example, I see they oppose [forestethics.org] exploitation of tar sands and obstruct a Canadian pipeline expansion from Alberta to Vancouver, BC.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by VLM on Monday October 13 2014, @11:36AM
Track might have been a better investment.
Derail across the street from the Sears Tower in downtown Chicago, lots of people screwed. Like those 47 people who died in Canada. New cars will derail and explode too, just less often.
Derail in some farmers corn field and unless the farmer is incredibly unlucky enough to be driving his tractor as the cars go by, nobody gets a scratch. Maybe a slight cough from the smoke.
Some new rule like "Only transport crude thru rural areas" plus some dough to build some bypasses around villages and you're all good.
(Score: 2) by Thexalon on Monday October 13 2014, @02:50PM
And there's the rub. Nobody wants to pay for the cost involved in doing this, either in terms of properly compensating the families of those 47 people, or replacing blown up cars and ripped up tracks, and so forth. The only reason that these companies would attach any kind of cost to the deaths of 47 people would be the threat of the government forcing them to pay the families something as the result of a lawsuit.
In a corporation, the lives of people not in the upper management of that corporation are considered expendable, whereas the profit margin is not.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 2) by VLM on Monday October 13 2014, @03:05PM
I donno man, you're arguing they won't spend money in an article about them spending money. Perhaps not spending money wisely, but, they are spending money.
The bubble seems to be peaking in that particular technology anyway. Once oil stops flowing on those rails the track expense is wasted, but the cars could still be used for "something" "somewhere" so they're not as much of a loss.
And of course people die laying rail, so you might save 47 innocent lives by killing 48 construction workers, and adding track around the town means two rail crossings for drivers and pedestrians to get killed at not one.
Overall I retract my life saving idea. If you take it as a given that this stuff is getting moved, by rail, more or less past these people, then its very unclear what strategy will minimize total deaths.
(Score: 2) by Reziac on Tuesday October 14 2014, @04:53AM
The problem isn't that rail was built near town. It was that town grew up around the rail, a process that's been greatly accelerated by the subdivision craze. In my lifetime I've seen rail yards and refineries go from being on the fringes or somewhat outside town, to being entirely surrounded by residential subdivisions. So whose fault is it that hazardous shipments now pass near homes??
And there is no Alkibiades to come back and save us from ourselves.
(Score: 2) by VLM on Tuesday October 14 2014, @11:14AM
The local zoning board, most likely.
(Score: 2) by Reziac on Tuesday October 14 2014, @12:38PM
Bingo!!
A few have developed good sense and have zoned such facilities "Industrial" -- which is basically "live there at your own risk" or "no residences allowed".
But most have this fantasy that more homes means more property tax, forgetting that it also means more infrastructure to support and fewer jobs per capita once the industry has been run out.
Then again, outfits like "Forest Ethics" don't want safe industry, they want NO industry, so they're all happy-joy with this.
And there is no Alkibiades to come back and save us from ourselves.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 13 2014, @03:55PM
let's have a physical lock/unlock switch on firmware and internal/external hardware devices which software cannot toggle.