Slashdot Mirror
Exploding Oil Tank Cars: Why Trains Go Boom
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.'"
Why should crude oil be carried to the refineries on closed tank cars on trains anyway? That seems dangerous. Don't we have pipelines going to the refineries for that purpose?
is an arrow in the quiver of the pipeline proponents.
Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.
Ernest Hemingway
oil companies make by fluffing the oil with propane. The insurers will catch on, raise their rates, and the problem will correct itself. For once the insurance company interests and those of society at large are aligned.
I have a hard time believing crude in tank cars is measured by volume and not weight. By the very nature of the components of crude, with things liken propane, hydrogen, kerosene, etc, weight would make much more sense.
It all starts at 0
Saw a story yesterday that said the gas product is being refined to the minimum possible level to allow it to be exported for foreign sale. New mini-refineries are being built on the Gulf Coast for just this purpose.
So, instead of protests *for* better regulation and better technical equipment, all we'll see are protests *against* oil.
As usual, the power hungry activists will not attempt to solve the problem, but instead use the problem to gain more power for themselves. I have never seen any activist trying to solve the problem they are protesting. The protests are just their PR campaigns to get more political power. Saving people's lives? It's not about protesting against exploding tank cars, it's about protesting against oil.
Unfortunately, solving the exploding oil-car problem would legitimize the oil production, so as any self-righteous activist can easily see, you cannot allow companies to actually do something against that. Not only would the publicity and media spectacle of exploding oil tank cars go away, the company that would actually solve the problem would be ... like ... legitimate! So, screw the tanks. Let the explode! We must protest against oil!
Is that from Transport Tycoon Delux?
It seems I now can't avoid the beta. Clicking on slashdot classic at the bottom brings me back to the home page.
You're providing incomplete, one-sided calculations. So this is propaganda.
The keystone xl won't lead to cheaper gas buddy. But good job on swallowing the oil industry spin
Of this article. InsideClimateNews is known for covering one side of the story quite well, but only one side.
Another problem maybe simply be they don't want to burn off the propane at the well site since the Canadian government wants to reduce green house emissions.
fuck off. It's up to the government to proactively demand that companies don't ship oil in ways they themselves know to be hazardous. They should sue them for deliberate endangerment, and then demand they use proper equipment to transport the oil. Too bad if that means new cars will have to be designed (good for business), and if it costs money, and thus raises the cost of petrol. This cost externalization bullshit has got to stop, yet pro-corporate (R) and (D) governments will do fuck all to protect the public and the environment unless they're forced to.
Try reading the comments before commenting on the comments. There is not such thing here. The only ones being irrational here are you preemptively defensive oil shills. Please wait with being defensive only someone attacks your position.
Exactly. The right answer is to fill the tank with a pressurized inert gas like nitrogen so that there's no O2 left for combustion, similar to what they're doing to the fuel tanks in modern jets.
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
Screw trains. Tell us why American cars' petrol tanks explode when all four tyres leave the ground...
Is it static, do you need one of those rubber strips hanging off every car? Should they be a requirement for police vehicles, especially?
It must be true, I see it on TV *ALL* the time!!!
"We know what happens to people who stay in the middle of the road. They get run over." - Aneurin Bevan
First: If I was an "oil shill" I'd know about it. I'm not.
Second: If I said it *after* the protests start, then you'd say that what I said is worthless, because I said it after the fact.
I'm not being defensive. It's just activists using circular reasoning and self-defeating arguments all the time.
Also, I guess I'd be the first "oil shill" arguing for more governmental regulation. Don't you think so?
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.
There's more though. Arab oil-producing companies have been found backing environmental groups, to fight the introduction of new supply into their markets, which would depress prices. Then there's the owners of the railroads, who would lose out if the pipe network was expanded. If I remember correctly, BSNF railway ships much of the recent inland oil development, and it's owned by Warren Buffet, a notable supporter of Obama. Buffet (again IIRC) has come out in support of the Keystone XL pipeline, but who knows what deals are going on behind closed doors?.
Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms should be the name of a store, not a government agency.
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.
Don't forget that OPEC countries have been found financing anti-Keystone XL 'environmental' groups as a means to keep competition out of their oil markets and keep prices up. Then there's the railway owners, who would lose out if a pipeline was built. Much of the inland oil development is shipped by BSNF, a Berkshire-Hathaway company. Buffet is an Obama supporter who has publicly supported Keystone XL, but who knows what deals are going on behind closed doors? (my apologies if this is a repeat post, the last one didn't seem to take.)
Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms should be the name of a store, not a government agency.
Too little propane, it's in the flammable limits, if it explodes. They should dilute the airhead with nitrogen to lower the limits. But this is supposing there is something creating a spark on the interior of the tank. Which should be grounded. I would be looking for firecrackers on the tracks, rocks on the tracks and other spark producers, or "crackers" off the tracks with a grudge.
Sure, you get the light sweet crude (sweet means it doesn't have sulphur or H2S --hydrogen sulphide gas-- in it). But the propane infused within the heavier oil shakes up like an aerosol can when its rumbling down the tracks. The old style tank cars were proven to be too thin on impact and would easily rupture. Derailment means spill. If you've ever seen a train derailment, you understand the phrase "Pretty as a Train Wreck", and it inevitably involved bent metal. Bent metal very often means spark. Spark will flash propane, and in a very short time, it means really really big barbecue. Several things can (and should) be done to prevent this: 1) Stronger rail cars that won't squash like a beer can at the first rollover 2) baffles that keeps the contents from becoming an aerosol 3) Proper separation of lighter and heavier hydrocarbons, so that ethane, methane, propane go in one car, butane, hexane, heptane goes in another, then octane, nonane, decane, and much heavier hydrocarbons in another car. I understand the well site isn't a fractional distillation tower, but keeping at least the gasses and liquids separated will add a lot to safety (and no, I don't consider "Liquified Petroleum Gas" or Propane under pressure to be a natural liquid, not at pressures where a tank would explode.
I think the article is more about the oil from the Bakken fields in North Dakota, USA than any Canadian production.
A newer, safer tank car has been designed and is available but the railroads don't have any mandate to use it and are only slowly replacing the thousands of older models as they age out of the fleet.
Uncle Warren Buffet started buying up railroad companies when Obama was elected. Then he convinced Obama to block legislation on permitting the Keystone XL pipeline (never mind there is one along the Canada-US west coast that does exactly the same thing). Obama went a step further by making blocking KXL a pillar of his "Presidency." "Thank You!" uncle Warren said. Now uncle's railroad stock is sky high and will go higher with every rail "boom" disaster.
When gasoline hits $6 a gallon, french kiss Obama ass and like it.
Ha ha
Just trust the free market to correct this bad practice. You know, a 100 million dollar fine for a practice that save them a billion. Should work perfectly
Things like "fluffing" up your crude with natural gas to get a better price is just the market operating free from government interference. I thought this was supposed to be a good thing, right?
Of course, the actual effect of this is to ensure North America gets to keep its reserves until later, when both the need and price will be even higher. At the same time, higher oil prices encourage investment into alternative means of energy, possibly allowing the entire supply to be exported at that time - and thus used as a geopolitical bargaining chip.
It's best to swallow the pill of peak oil while there's still reserves to use in an emergency.
Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.
The Obama administration recently completed the THIRD environmental impact study of the pipeline. Like the first two, it concluded that piping oil is better for the environment than what's happening now - rail cars crashing, leaking , occasionally exploding , while burning tons of diesel to power the trains.
Also, no matter what makes sense, new refineries aren't allowed. Only half-billion dollar solar boondoggles are allowed. Obama's campaign contributors have to end up with the money.
It was known as Keystone. The Brakken oil play has no nearby pipeline or access to the existing line. One of the issues Keystone was to address was this lack. As I understand it the only option for moving oil from the Brakken play is rail at the present time.
I think the issue of "fluffed" crude would have impacted a pipeline anyway and would have presented even uglier issues if it exploded. The simpler solution would be to require oil loaded to go through a process like an ultrasonic vibration system that would force the gas out prior to being loaded. It would add a layer of cost, but would reduce the fires and prevent theft by the producers. I am fairly sure that all trade regulations would define selling a volume of material fluffed with a less expensive material as theft despite this product being mixed naturally. Well without a clearly written caution to the customer that the crude is adulterated with NG. If such a caution were written the buyer is responsible for all explosions and resultant damage as they willingly take delivery of a product in a form hazardous to transport.
Not just President Obama, a large percentage of the population actively oppose it. Please troll elsewhere.
Let me guess, you live in a densely populated city, in a small country. (Where small means smaller than a US state, such as Texas.) Electric makes sense when you have many trains on relatively short tracks, so that a train passes every few minutes. US commuter systems like New York's subway benefit from being electric.
North Dakota is over 2,000 kilometers from the destination, the refineries south of Houston. Between the two locations, you'll find Dallas and a bunch of cattle. Not much else, just cattle and open plains for 2,000 Km. With nothing out there, there are no commuters, so the train goes by once per day or so. Building out thousands of kilometers of third rail for one train to use each day would be really, really silly.
Besides, it wouldn't be allowed because a green-eyed, three-toe New Mexico mosquito lizard might electrocute himself.
gosgog:
All this commenttry from you IT idiots. The Oil & Pipeline companies employ some of the finest engineers in the world and for the most part HATE to LOSE product.
Unfortunately some of the contractors and some of the U.S. Gov't people theoretically in charge of enforcing Environment are about as stupid as the brains that produce the belief that when you blow yourself up there's a God with 72 Virgins on hand to make you Happy. Case in Point, at a Gov't site being built for storage of
U.S.strategic Oil storage, a major Driling site fire started...call going out to "Boots & Coots (OIL fire fighting Co.), interrupted by Fed Gov't employee..."Wait, we have to get three Bids...before authorization! DUMB yeah! Major reason for being a Gov't employee..."Very difficult to Fire one, no matter how STUPID!"
Well, I know how to get it done. Increase the rate of tanker cars blowing up.