The disaster in Quebec has just about ensured that Keystone XL will be approved

[cali]

and given a huge boost to the Exxon Enbridge Northeast pipeline that would move tar sands oil through some of the most pristine parts of Northern New England. And the pipeline there is already built; all they have to do is reverse the flow. It currently is used to pump light crude from Portland Maine to Canada. The pipeline is over 60 years old and crosses the Connecticut River from VT to NH in the northern parts of those states.

Map of the route can be seen here:

https://www.nwf.org/What-We-Do/Energy-and-Climate/Drilling-and-Mining/Tar-Sands/The-Exxon-and-Enbridge-Tar-Sands-Pipeline.aspx

Quebec Disaster Spurs Rail-Versus-Pipelines Debate on Oil

A train disaster in Quebec promises to touch off a debate over the safety record of using railroads or pipelines such as TransCanada Corp. (TRP)’s Keystone XL to carry crude oil.

As authorities began investigating the explosion of refinery-bound tank cars hauled by Montreal, Maine & Atlantic Railway Ltd., Quebec’s Green Party demanded stricter regulations and an energy industry association predicted tough scrutiny ahead for rail carriers.

<snip>

Without the Keystone XL, designed to carry 830,000 barrels a day, rail shipments of Canadian crude would rise an additional 42 percent by 2017, according to an April 2 report by RBC Capital Markets. Cenvous Energy Inc. plans to boost rail shipments fivefold to 30,000 barrels a day by the end of 2014 to help reach coastal markets.

“Pipeline companies will use this to point out the advantages and safety records of pipelines,” said Bob Schulz, a professor at the University of Calgary’s Haskayne School of Business, in an interview. “It gives those companies an additional point to support their argument,” besides the U.S. State Department’s assertion that pipelines are safer than rail.

<snip>

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-07-07/quebec-disaster-spurs-rail-versus-pipelines-debate-on-oil.html

[RC]

1. It is my understanding that the cars were decoupled from the engines and side tracked?

How can that happen without human help?

[cali]

2. I have no idea unless the brakes weren't properly locked down (or however you say that)

Maybe some DUer with knowledge of trains could weigh in. I'm sure they're not ruling out sabotage. The entire area has been declared a crime scene.

[reformist2]

17. They're sure doing a good job not uttering the word "sabotage", or god forbid, the "t" word.

Never mind that the media just told us a couple of months ago that the government thought that terrorists in Canada were targeting railroads!

[cali]

18. well, in their defense, I think they're still focused on the immediate tasks

of putting out the fires (still burning after over 40 hours) and looking for bodies (40 people are officially missing and certainly dead).
And it's early days yet for any word to come out of the investigation as to cause.

[reformist2]

21. True, but I think it's another good example of how the press does what it's told.

[Not Sure]

37. From what I've read so far, the train was tied down according to the rules

Train air brakes are a fail safe design. That is, when air pressure is applied, the brakes are released. When the air pressure is released (such as when cars are uncoupled from the engine), the brakes are applied.

I don't know what rulebook this railroad uses, but according to the rulebook the company I work for uses, the procedure to leave the train unattended would be to apply enough handbrakes (each locomotive and each car is equipped with a handbrake) to secure the train, release the air brakes to ensure the handbrakes prevent movement, the apply the air brakes.

If that procedure was followed, then the cars uncoupled from the locomotive and were able to roll away, something had to uncouple the cars, something also had to prevent the air from escaping the train's brake line and something also had to cause the handbrakes to be released on the cars.

None of that happens on its own, and it certainly doesn't happen as a result of mechanical failure. Between all these things having to go wrong and the locomotive being reported ablaze two hours before the roll away and subsequent explosion, something doesn't sound right at all.

[cali]

40. Thanks so much for the valuable information!

it sounds more and more like sabotage. That's frightening.

[HooptieWagon]

32. Pretty common.

Non passenger or non perishable freight its not uncommon to leave a train on a side track. Could be the locomotive was needed elsewhere, or different locomotive was needed to cross a mountain or something. The brakes are supposed to hold. I don't know what happened...they could have failed, or been deliberately released. What is strange is the explosion. Crude oil burns, but doesn't explode. Something else exploded, I suspect.

[Not Sure]

36. It depends on the grade of crude

Some crude has a lower flash point than other crude. Its classification as a hazardous commodity is dependent on the grade. Some trains of crude may be classified as "Key Trains" if enough of the cars carry the more hazardous grade of crude.

[HooptieWagon]

46. Diesel fuel wont explode except under very high pressure and heat.

I don't think crude would be more explosive. I've never seen motor oil or gear lube explode either. I think perhaps burning oil set off an explosion from a gas leak or tank, or some cars on the train had something other than crude.

[maddezmom]

3. This was my first thought when I heard about the tragedy

[Ron Quixote]

4. I think Obama won't approve it

He has shown good environmental credentials

[cali]

6. well, the argument is that the pipeline is more environmentally sound than

the alternative; massive amounts of tar sands oil on trains on dilapidated infrastructure. In addition they can't build the specialized tanker cars nearly fast enough to meet demand. The wait is currently 2 years.

http://www.dallasnews.com/business/headlines/20130608-ordering-crude-oil-tank-car-from-dallas-firm-expect-long-wait-amid-north-dakota-s-oil-boom.ece

I'm not saying I agree with the argument but I do think that they are both equally bad choices.

Welcome to DU.

[Not Sure]

38. I'm going to strongly disagree

I'm going to strongly disagree that rail transport and pipeline transport are equally bad choices.

A single railcar capable of transporting crude oil carries approximately 30,000 gallons. A spill of a single car can be contained and cleaned up. Not only that, it's going to be noticed right away and action will be taken to correct the problem.

A spill of a pipeline on the other hand can continue for a long period of time before it is noticed since the pipeline is buried underground. A pipeline is also under pressure, so product will continue to be pushed out of the leak until the leak is isolated and the valves on either side of the breach are closed. The amount of oil that can be spilled from a pipeline under pressure in a short period of time is staggering compared to what is transported in a single tank car. Not only that, the spill will originate underground, where cleanup will be very difficult, especially if the spill occurs near waterways or underground water sources.

While derailments aren't exactly common, they are rarely severe enough to damage the car to cause leakage. Most derailments result in the cars remaining upright and can be corrected in a short period of time. Even when the carbody is damaged, tank car design often prohibits leakage from occurring. I don't know if you've seen the photos, but all those tank cars piled up on each other in a violent derailment and only four exploded. That's a testament to the design of the cars, in my opinion.

Roll-aways of the magnitude of this tragic event are very rare. In fact, I've never heard of something approaching this disaster. They certainly don't occur on their own. I'd very much like to see the position of the angle cock on that first car and the brake cylinders on the derailed railcars. Those two things may speak volumes about how this occurred.

[cali]

39. you are just wrong.

and Lac Megantic is the proof of it. Sure it's one disaster, but it's one major disaster with an increasing likelihood of happening again. Transport by rail has increased 20 fold just over the past year. It's being transported in unsafe tanker cars on dilapidated infrastructure through hundreds of towns and cities in the Northeast and South as well as in Canada. Furthermore rail accidents are quite common. One happened just the week before in Canada and this isn't the first time that one has burned producing the same kind of fireball. Luckily in that accident just one person was killed. So yes, more oil can be spilled via pipeline, but the immediate risk to life and property is far greater with rail. Furthermore, there is the problem of unsafe tanker cars is significant. there is only one company that produces safe tanker cars and they have a two year wait.

<snip>

The Bakken oil deposits, which are often drilled through hydrofracking, have become a major source of oil for the railroads to move because the deposits lack direct pipeline links. Canada’s oil sands producers, frustrated by a lack of pipeline capacity, are also turning to trains to ship their products.

<snip>

Keith Stewart, a climate and energy campaigner with Greenpeace Canada who has examined the increased use of oil trains, criticized railways in Canada and the United States for continuing to use older oil tank cars that he said were found to be unsafe more than 20 years ago.

A 2009 report by the National Transportation Safety Board about a Canadian National derailment in Illinois called the design of those tank cars “inadequate” and found that it “made the cars subject to damage and catastrophic loss of hazardous materials.” Television images suggested that the surviving tank cars on the Lac-Mégantic train were of the older design.

Accidents involving pipelines, Mr. Whittingham said, can be more difficult to detect and can release greater amounts of oil. Rail accidents are more frequent but generally release less oil. The intensity of the explosions and fires at Lac-Mégantic, he said, came as a “big surprise” to him and other researchers, given that the tank cars had been carrying crude oil, rather than a more volatile form like gasoline.

<snip>

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/08/world/americas/deadly-derailment-in-quebec-underlines-oil-debate.html?_r=1&

http://www.ntsb.gov/news/events/2012/cherry_valley/index.html

[Not Sure]

42. You make several points that are simply incorrect

In the interest of full disclosure, before my career as a locomotive engineer, I worked in the petroleum industry, specifically in the area of pipeline construction.

The vast majority of crude oil is transported in purpose-built cars that have been constructed recently, either specifically for this purpose or in the earlier ethanol rush, so the claim that the tank cars are outdated and unsafe is false. Additionally, there is little doubt that a tank car of even the most robust design could withstand a derailment of the scale of the Lac-Mégantic derailment, given the high speed the cars attained as they rolled away.

The two-year wait is based on the projected demand for these cars, which is contingent on more loading terminal capacity coming online. Currently, there are enough tank cars to fill the loading terminals in the Bakken Shale, but more terminal are being built as quickly as possible. Likewise, more tank cars are also being built. These aren't tank cars meant to replace other older tank cars, they represent an entirely new fleet for which no other purpose exists.

Provisions exist that allow US railroads to use cars up to 40 years old in interchange service (that is, for use between railroads) and up to 50 years provided certain modifications are made to the cars. However, tank cars generally do not fall under these provisions. Design of tank cars changed radically in the early 70s and has continued to evolve since. Older tank car designs of a similar capacity are a different type of tank car intended for pressurized gas not an unpressurized liquid such as crude oil.

One of the sources you quote said this explosion was a big surprise to him, and he is the expert? Is he unaware that all crude oil is not all the same and that some grades are more volatile than others? This specific issue came up less than a month ago for rail transportation employees, however I suspect this was news to few of us. Crude may be classified differently depending on grade and train handling rules become more strict depending on the type and quantity of hazardous materials carried.

As far as equating rail and pipeline spillage is concerned, according to the article linked below:

"Bad news for Enbridge, TransCanada and all the other companies working to build controversial pipelines across North America: Pipelines spill three times as much oil over comparative distances as rail, the International Energy Agency (IEA) says."

snip

"The study backs up research from the American Association of Railroads, released last month, which found that rail transport spills 0.38 gallons of oil per million barrels moved, compared to 0.88 gallons for pipelines."

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2013/05/14/pipeline-oil-spills-rail-spills_n_3273725.html

So, given the projection of 830,000 barrels of oil being transported per day by the Keystone XL pipeline, if my math is right, that means we could expect to see 1/3 gallon of oil spilled per day if the product were transported by rail vs. 3/4 gallon of oil spilled per day if it's transported by pipeline. Obviously, no spill should be acceptable, but how is there any choice when one method spills more than double the other method?

Furthermore, once a pipeline is installed, it cannot be upgraded easily. In fact, any upgrade to wall thickness, puncture resistance or durability in shifting soil will require complete replacement with a stronger material. Rail cars can be upgraded, but they are more likely to be replaced or built new, as they are in the case of the crude oil fleet.

The only upgrades or changes being made to pipelines are cases where flow is being reversed to handle the influx of tar sands oil from Canada, and those upgrades involve changes to pump stations and not the pipeline itself. These existing pipelines, some of which are 40, 50 or 60 years old, will soon be transporting a more corrosive product in the form of tar sands oil - which, I don't believe I have to tell anyone here is nasty stuff - and we're supposed to be okay with just under a gallon a day of it spilling, contaminating waterways, the soil or underground aquifers?

I look forward to the day I don't have to transport any of this stuff, Bakken crude or tar sands oil. But as long as it is going to be moved, I want it moved in the safest method possible. Disasters like Lac-Mégantic are obviously terrible, but they are very rare. So rare in fact, I can scarcely believe this was an act of chance.

[Jazzgirl]

47. I knew it!

A fellow railroader. I don't work on the ground but I sure work with a lot of them. The whole incident was very suspcious to me, especially after I found out it was a runaway train. That is very rare, especially if the train is properly tied down.

[Not Sure]

48. Nice to hear from another railroader!

Highball, Jazzgirl!

[Downwinder]

5. How common are run-away trains in Canada?

As common as pipe line leaks?

[cali]

9. there have been several derailments over the past year and they're increasing

as the amount of oil being transported over a decayed rail infrastructure has skyrocketed. The rail infrastructure in the Northeast U.S. is abysmal. This isn't just a Canadian problem.

I'm opposed to the tar sand oil pipelines but transport by rail is just as bad.

I have no idea what the solution is.

[Downwinder]

13. If Rail is too dangerous to transport oil,

wouldn't it also be too dangerous to transport spent nuclear fuel rods to a depository?

[cali]

19. I'm not sure how they compare or what the accident record is with spent fuel rods.

I can only tell you about my research into the rail transport of oil.

[Gravitycollapse]

29. There have been several accidents with spent fuel casks...

Derailment, drop from considerable height and other impacts.

None of then were ever compromised.

[cali]

30. thanks for the info

[Gravitycollapse]

31. The only thing that would cause the casks to fail is extreme fire for long duration.

However, the NRC evaluated multiple types of casks and simulated their exposure to a fire like that experienced in the Baltimore tunnel fire. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Howard_Street_Tunnel_fire

Temperatures in excess of 1000 degrees (peaking at up to 1800 degrees) for several days.

They concluded that not only would the casks survive, there would be no leaked radioactivity. And even in the highly unlikely event that a leak occurred, the amount of radioactivity leaked would be minimal and within regulated limits.

http://pbadupws.nrc.gov/docs/ML0905/ML090570742.pdf

The results of this evaluation also strongly indicate that neither spent nuclear fuel (SNF) particles nor
fission products would be released from a spent fuel transportation package carrying intact spent fuel
involved in a severe tunnel fire such as the Baltimore tunnel fire. None of the three package designs
analyzed for the Baltimore tunnel fire scenario (TN-68, HI-STAR 100, and NAC LWT) experienced
internal temperatures that would result in rupture of the fuel cladding. Therefore, radioactive material
(i.e., SNF particles or fission products) would be retained within the fuel rods.
There would be no release from the HI-STAR 100, because the inner welded canister remains leak tight.
While a release is unlikely, the potential releases calculated for the TN-68 rail package and the NAC
LWT truck package indicate that any release of CRUD from either package would be very small -less
than an A2 quantity (see Section 8.2).

[Gravitycollapse]

28. No. Spent fuel rods are stored in casks so strong they can survive an impact with a train.

The rods are contained within steel that can be over a foot thick and surrounded with concrete. The cask is then capped on both ends with shock absorbing materials.

Odds are very high that whatever hits one of these casks will be destroyed long before any radioactivity is leaked.

[Downwinder]

35. Thanks.

[KittyWampus]

20. improving the rail infrastructure would be more jobs.

[cali]

22. it would. but it would take a considerable amount of time

in addition, there's the problem with the specialized tanker cars; the wait is two + years and only one company builds them. more jobs there too, but the same problem with time.

And this disaster is looking so bad that that will impact thinking. People being vaporized in a small town is a terrible optic.

<snip>

Bernard Théberge received second-degree burns on his right arm while fleeing from the patio of the downtown Musi-Café, where many are thought to have died, but he said he hadn’t seen any other burn victims when he went to the hospital Saturday.

One Red Cross volunteer who asked not to be identified because he was not authorized to speak to the media put it bluntly: “You have to understand: there are no wounded. They’re all dead.”

That absence of injured is one of the most haunting signals to have emerged from the train explosion, which police says has left five people confirmed dead and about 40 people unaccounted for nearly two full days after the first blast.

The Quebec coroner’s office said that the five corpses they have hauled out of the wrecked downtown core have not been positively identified and have been taken to Montreal for forensic testing that may include DNA examination and other methods. Spokesperson Genevieve Gaudrault said the intensity of the initial blast and the flaming wagons that were still burning well into Sunday suggests that some victims may have simply been vapourized.

<snip>

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2013/07/07/lac_megantic_hospital_eerily_quiet_after_quebec_explosion.html

[Joe Shlabotnik]

23. nope

Alberta’s had an average of two crude oil spills a day, every day for the past 37 years. That makes 28,666 crude oil spills in total, plus another 31,453 spills of just about any other substance you can think of putting in a pipeline – from salt water to liquid petroleum.

But maybe more telling is what it doesn’t include: The regulatory body’s database is messy and missing data in many places; it doesn’t include any spills from some of the biggest pipelines – those crossing provincial or national borders. These fall under National Energy Board jurisdiction. For the 53 per cent of spills from somewhere other than a pipeline, such as oil wells and pumping stations, anything under 2 cubic metres (2,000 litres, or about twelve and a half barrels) doesn’t get counted.

from: http://globalnews.ca/news/571494/introduction-37-years-of-oil-spills-in-alberta/

[HooptieWagon]

33. Each car has brakes.

The brakes will stop a runaway train, and are more than enough to keep a parked train from rolling. I don't know what happened in this case.

[RobertEarl]

7. Fossil Fuel Lines' Future

They should all be ran right down the middle of interstate roadways.

[winter is coming]

8. That makes no sense, unless they have train wrecks on a monthly basis.

I'm having difficultly imagining how the amount spilled per train wreck would not be much less than that due to a pipeline rupture.

[cali]

11. Train derailments of oil tankers have become more common as the amount of oil

being transported by rail has skyrocketed. Furthermore, the wait for specialized tankers is now 2 years. And many of these transports travel through the center of towns.

the quebec train explosion was a full out disaster. The center of Lac Megantic was destroyed with over 30 buildings flattened and many others damaged. A large amount of oil was dumped into the pristine Chaudiere River. 5 are confirmed dead and 40 are officially listed as missing and almost surely have perished.

I don't know what the answer is. I'm opposed to the XL and far more firmly opposed to the much more dangerous Exxon Enbridge, but we can't afford another Lac Megantic either.

[winter is coming]

12. I agree this accident was horrific, but it's difficult to imagine that a pipeline would be better.

Every time something like this happens, we should be redoubling our efforts to switch to new energy sources.

[cali]

14. You are absolutely right. We need a Manhatten style Project

to develop new, sustainable energy sources.

As for which is better? After doing quite a bit of research I've come to the conclusion that they are both truly terrible choices.

[winter is coming]

15. Yes, we do. We can get to the moon in a decade, we can build a nuclear bomb in secret,

but we can't solve this problem? Why is sustainable energy and clean water not seen as a matter of national security?

[FarCenter]

16. What would "new, sustatainable energy sources be"?

You either burn stuff (coal, crude oil, natural gas or biomass), fission heavy atoms (uranium or thorium), flood river valleys, cover lots of real estate with solar cells, or build lots of wind towers. The latter two require lots of mining and refinings of metals, lots of construction, and in the case of some types of solar cells, some fairly toxic materials. They also require storage of energy for when the sun doesn't shine or when the wind doesn't blow. Pumped hydro is currently the most feasible storage.

[Chan790]

25. Geothermal?

Geothermal. It just works. Really, I mean the core generates and is going to continue to generate that heat anyways, might as well harness and utilize it. Boil water, turn turbine, generate electricity; haul ass, get paid. Implementable at both the home-consumer and power-plant level.

(Before you say "Oh that won't work...answer this: "If it's such a bad idea, why do Siemens, Chevron and BGE all promote it as the centerpiece of their advancing research into 'renewables' technologies?")

[wercal]

26. Large scale geothermal has been around for 80 years

Where it works....it works.

But it doeen't work everywhere...most places the hot stuff is too deep.

[FarCenter]

41. There are also tides and waves

But they, along with geothermal, are only economic in specific situations and don't produce much energy.

Global energy consumption is upwards of 400 quadrillion BTU/year.

That's the equivalent of 68,957,859,696 barrels of oil. That would be about 8 cubic kilometers of oil if it was all in the form of crude oil.

[Catherina]

24. I hope so! Rec n/t

[joshcryer]

27. No, Obama's willingness to do it has done that.

But it certainly makes a good talking point and may get it done quicker.

[gopiscrap]

34. That's fucked up

[Autumn]

43. It will be approved anyway, even if this had not occurred.

[cali]

44. Agreed, but this provides a handy excuse and what's just as bad

a pretext to push the hell out of the even worse Exxon Enbright Northeast Pipeline.

[Autumn]

45. Got that right cali.