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.
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
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.
There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
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.
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.
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
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.
The pipeline will kill all of the remaining pink unicorns left in the United States. Cause the sun to go supernova. Destabilize the Chinese economy to the point that thet will be forced to randomly nuke countries all over the world. And worst of all, be the sole catalyst for triggering the heat death of the universe.
Wow, that sounds really bad. I understand why people oppose it! Dirty liberal hippies.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
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.