LNG-By-Rail Hits Tracks in Alaska: What Are the Risks and Why the Secrecy?

[SecularMotion]

Source: Desmog

For the first time ever, liquefied natural gas (LNG) has been shipped by railroad in the U.S., prompting concerns about risks of accidents and a lack of state or federal regulation for the new and hazardous cargo.

The 40-foot long cryogenic tanks owned by the Japanese company Hitachi, built to be transported by rail, truck, and barge, will each carry more than 7,000 gallons of natural gas, which has been chilled down to negative 260 degrees Fahrenheit, from Anchorage to Fairbanks, Alaska. The company Alaska Railroad will do the carrying.

It's being closely watched by both the oil and gas and railroad industries, which say that shipping LNG by rail is cheaper and more efficient than hauling it by truck. Alaska Railroad points to Japan as a successful example of the robust transport of LNG-by-rail.

But it's also raised concerns among environmentalists, who argue that not only is the process potentially dangerous, but that it represents a further build-out of fossil fuel infrastructure as the climate crisis worsens.

Read more: http://www.desmogblog.com/2016/10/13/lng-rail-alaska-risks-secrecy

[tonyt53]

1. Hell, I'm concerned about vehicles traveling on our city streets carrying the stuff.

Yes, the tanks are rated to very high pressures, but they do have burst points.

[Wellstone ruled]

2. Funny how folks forget

BNSF is and has been testing and is using LNG fuel Locos for some time. When you see their Loco Power Units with a Tank Car between them,well it is one of their LNG units. Most liken will see these on the Chicago to Seattle Lines.

Propane has been shipped via rail for decades and yes there have been wrecks where a tanker will leak or explode.

[mahatmakanejeeves]

3. Secrecy? From Progressive Railroading, one year ago:

October 2015

Free to move LNG: Alaska Railroad gains FRA blessing to transport liquefied gas to interior region

By Jeff Stagl, Managing Editor

In early October, the Alaska Railroad Corp. (ARRC) obtained Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) approval to move liquefied natural gas (LNG) to points in Alaska’s interior. ... ARRC is the first U.S. railroad to receive such a federal permit, says Doug Engebretson, the regional’s chief operating officer. The railroad also is the first to take a significant step in the regulatory process, which eventually will help make LNG business available to others, he says.

ARRC sought the FRA approval to provide a rail option for moving LNG into communities within the state's interior, such as Fairbanks. Alaska’s Industrial Development and Export Authority (AIDEA), Energy Authority, Department of Commerce, Community and Economic Development, Department of Revenue and Department of Natural Resources are pursuing an Interior Energy Project (IEP) to help residents reduce high energy costs associated with oil-burning and wood heating systems. As part of the IEP, AIDEA is evaluating the logistics and costs of moving LNG via rail, truck or pipeline.
....

In November 2014, ARRC approached the FRA about obtaining approval to move LNG in portable tanks via container-on-flat car service in both unit and manifest trains. In February 2015, the FRA sought additional information from the railroad, which submitted a formal request for approval. The agency then conducted a thorough review and analysis of the proposed LNG operations. ... “This was a completely new process since there are no current regulations that allow for LNG movement by rail,” says Engebretson. "This is unchartered ground.”

The FRA approval — which remains in effect for two years — includes a number of stipulations, such as that ARRC must:
• operate only up to two trains carrying eight portable tanks of LNG per week;
• perform at least one track geometry car inspection and four internal rail-flaw inspections annually;
• provide initial training to all crews operating LNG-carrying trains and emergency responders along an LNG route;
• prohibit double stacking of the portable tanks; and
• issue a report each month to the FRA on the number of portable tank loads and other data.

From the Fairbanks News-Miner, three weeks ago:

Alaska Railroad to haul two LNG containers in cost-effectiveness test

Matt Buxton, [email protected]
Sep 20, 2016



[font size=1]Courtesy Alaska Railroad

The 40-foot cryogenic container is one of two the Alaska Railroad will be using to transport liquefied natural gas from Southcentral Alaska to Fairbanks as part of a demonstration project this month.[/font]

FAIRBANKS — This fall, the Alaska Railroad will be getting a couple of new passengers for its first ride on a U.S. railway. ... The Alaska Railroad will be running a pair of liquefied natural gas containers this month as part of a demonstration project to determine whether rail could be a low-cost way of getting natural gas from Southcentral Alaska to Fairbanks.

It’ll be the first time in the United States that liquefied natural gas has been moved by rail. In October 2015, the Alaska Railroad won approval from the Federal Railroad Association to begin hauling LNG.

“We’re really proud to be the first railroad in the country to be permitted to be able to do this,” said Tim Sullivan, the spokesman for the railroad. “While it’s done in other places of the world like Japan and Europe, moving LNG by rail is not done in the United States.”

Sullivan said the pair of 40-foot containers, which are insulated and reinforced to carry more than 7,000 gallons of LNG at a frigid 260 degrees below zero, are on loan from manufacturer Hitachi.
....

Contact staff writer Matt Buxton at 459-7544. Follow him on Twitter: @FDNMpolitics.

Reinforcing what "Wellstone ruled" said, there was this comment:

Willie Parker · Fort Lauderdale

While maybe not hauling LNG as freight, the Florida East Coast Railway has been using (carrying, and fueling the engines) LNG on a pair of their trains- Jax-Hialeah-Jax for awhile now.

Like · Reply · Oct 1, 2016 7:02pm

[FigTree]

4. Every tank represents about a 1/4 ton of TNT. nt

[former9thward]

6. And every car gas tank equals about 1260 sticks of dynamite.

One gallon of gas equals 63 sticks of dynamite in energy. What is the point?

[Thor_MN]

7. If the gasoline is vaporized to the perfect ratio in air...

Actually, internet is filled with various x amount of gasoline is y sticks of dynamite comparisons, but all of them rely on the gas being vaporized into air.

Same holds true for LNG, but the difference being that a breached container of LNG will vaporize at a much greater rate than gasoline.

LNG is vastly more likely to form an explosive mixture than gasoline.

That is the point.

[former9thward]

8. So what is your position?

Stop all LNG shipments?

[Thor_MN]

9. Right now, I'm lying down, with a laptop computer on my bed.

You asked, IMO, essentially what the difference between gasoline and LNG was. I answered.

LNG is more volatile by orders of magnitude than gasoline. Which should surprise no one since it's a gas (as opposed to a liquid) at room temperature and pressure, while gasoline is a liquid. They are both hydrocarbons that need to be in a fairly narrow fuel/air ratio to get an explosive mix. Either side of the explosive ratio, it will just burn or do nothing if ignited. The difference is LNG will spontaneously form a vapor cloud that will form an explosive mix if ignited at the proper time. Gasoline will evaporate slowly, and can form an large explosive mix in a confined space but outdoors, only a small amount of the gasoline is in an explosive mixture at any one time. LNG, big boom. Gasoline, small, if any, boom.

As usual, you desire to argue about something with anyone who responds to you with information of which you were apparently not aware.

I decline.

[truthisfreedom]

5. It's cleaner burning than coal by far

But we don't know the risks until it starts rolling. If a giant dewar were to busy open it would start off ridiculously cold get extremely cold as it evaporated, which is one problem. It's a lot of fuel. Dunno how it burns when it's liquid.

[mahatmakanejeeves]

10. Lack of state or federal regulation? FRA regulates the Alaska Railroad,

just like all the others.

FRA Hazardous Materials

Under authority delegated to FRA by the Secretary of Transportation, the Hazardous Materials Division administers a safety program that oversees the movement of hazardous materials (including dangerous goods), such as petroleum, chemical, and nuclear products, throughout the Nation’s rail transportation system, including shipments transported to and from international organizations. The Division also has authority to oversee the movement of a package marked to indicate compliance with a Federal or international hazardous materials standard, even if such a package does not contain a hazardous material.

Regulations

(Title 49 CFR)
•171-General information, regulations, and definitions
•172-Hazardous materials table, special provisions, hazardous materials comjunications, emergency reponse information, and training requirements
•173-Shippers-general requirements for shipments and packagings
•174-Carriage by rail
•178-Specifications for packagings
•179-Specifications for tank cars
•180-Continuing qualification and maintenance of packagings

Or, go to the Electronic Code of Federal Regulations.

Next, go to Title 49, for the Department of Transportation.

Then go to Parts 178 - 199, in the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration.

Bonus: download your Emergency Response Guidebook (ERG) here.

[hunter]

11. It's not as scary as a lot of other things I've seen traveling by rail.

Maybe not even as scary as ordinary crude oil.

Ammonia is a bad one, so is chlorine.

There are worse things shipped by truck and rail, some very toxic water soluble things that you wouldn't want in your waterways or groundwater.

Sadly, coal's nasty little brother "natural" gas is just as bad as other fossil fuels. What advantage it has in reduced carbon dioxide emissions when used as a fuel are lost since methane itself is a greenhouse gas 25 times more potent than carbon dioxide, and leaks in the extraction and distribution systems are common.

Alas, I haven't met many people willing abandon our high energy fossil fueled society.