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.'"

26 of 144 comments (clear)

  1. why carry crude to in tanks on moving vehicles? by raymorris · · Score: 2

    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?

    1. Re:why carry crude to in tanks on moving vehicles? by Phydeaux314 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Pipelines have their own share of problems: Leaks, maintenance access, property arguments, security difficulties, animal migrations, the list goes on. They're definitely *a* solution, but not necessarily *the* solution.

      If the suspicions of the folks in the article are correct, then it's simply a case of the manufacturers trying to take advantage of the fact that contents are sold by volume, not by weight... with the minor caveat that the extra volume has a tendency to explode. The real solution, then, would be to smack the greedy bastards pulling the stunt and ensure the oil is separated enough to safely transport.

      --
      Never underestimate the stupidity inherent in all human beings.
    2. Re:why carry crude to in tanks on moving vehicles? by rossdee · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Obama can only stop the pipeline crossing the border from Canada. If they want to build it from ND to the Gulf refineries he couldn't do anything about it.

      But they should be building refineries in North Dakota, thats where the oil is, (and they could be fueled by natural gas which is also in abundance.
      Why send the oil all the way to the gulf, when the refineries there might have to shut down at times due to hurricanes (more likely due to global warming these days) and then ship it back north as refined product. Refine it in ND and then the Midwest can have sheaper gas.

      We don't need no stinking CA tar sand oil.

      Anyway the oil train that blew up was hit by another freight train that derailed due to the extreme cold.

    3. Re:why carry crude to in tanks on moving vehicles? by ArcherB · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

      Rather than move the oil from Canada to Texas via an electric powered pipeline, they are forcing the oil to be loaded onto trains, where they are transported to a port where they are loaded onto an oil tanker where they will be transported to China. All of these modes of transportation are diesel powered. Once in China, they will be refined by Chinese workers under Chinese environmental regulations into various petroleum products. Then they are loaded back onto tankers and shipped around the world, with all profits going to the Chinese government.

      Or, we could transport the oil to Texas refineries, where we have control over the emissions the refineries emit, by a pipeline using electrical pumps.

      Tell me which option makes more environmental sense (not to mention the economic sense!)

      --
      There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
    4. Re:why carry crude to in tanks on moving vehicles? by rmdingler · · Score: 4, Informative

      If the suspicions of the folks in the article are correct, then it's simply a case of the manufacturers trying to take advantage of the fact that contents are sold by volume, not by weight...

      Sure it's about wringing more profits out of each tanker load.

      FTA: The liquified gas is worth more repurposed as crude than it can be sold for as methane or propane.

      But it also lowers the API gravity measurement (think light versus heavy crude), possibly improving the value of the entire shipment.

      --
      Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.

      Ernest Hemingway

    5. Re:why carry crude to in tanks on moving vehicles? by russotto · · Score: 2, Informative

      Obama can only stop the pipeline crossing the border from Canada. If they want to build it from ND to the Gulf refineries he couldn't do anything about it.

      Of course he could. It's interstate, so it wouldn't even be at all difficult.

      But they should be building refineries in North Dakota,

      Ha ha, build a refinery? In the US? With the EPA and every environmental group in the world standing in the way?

      Anyway, you build a refinery and now you have to move the refined product, which means instead of moving one product, you have to move several. Could make a lot more sense to ship one product to where the shipping is easier.

    6. Re:why carry crude to in tanks on moving vehicles? by reboot246 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      There are already thousands of miles of oil and gas pipelines in the country. The Keystone pipeline would be much newer and safer than the older lines. It would be built with today's steel technology, not steel from the 50s or 60s. The older oil pipelines are the ones to be concerned about - they are already seeping oil into the ground. Replacing the old pipelines would indeed be a "shovel-ready" job, but nobody is talking about that.

      One of the main reasons oil from Canada is being transported by rail instead of pipelines is money. Warren Buffet is making money hand over fist transporting oil by rail, and he's one of Obama's biggest campaign contributors. THAT'S the sole reason for delaying the Keystone pipeline.

      How many more trains are going to blow up and how many lives are going to be lost before we learn?

    7. Re:why carry crude to in tanks on moving vehicles? by GrumpySteen · · Score: 4, Interesting

      But they should be building refineries in North Dakota,

      Ha ha, build a refinery? In the US? With the EPA and every environmental group in the world standing in the way?

      One is being built in North Dakota right now. It should be in operation by the end of the year.

      In other news, you and the person you responded to should take ten seconds to do a Google search before making fools of yourselves in public.

    8. Re:why carry crude to in tanks on moving vehicles? by Runaway1956 · · Score: 5, Informative

      " is it any safer to transport volatile products like gasoline?"

      Both yes and no. The vehicles designed to transport gasoline are engineered to somewhat higher standards, and they are inspected more frequently. Vehicles used for shipment of bulk crude aren't considered to be as dangerous, the standards were lower when they were built, they are aging, and they aren't inspected nearly as often. So, "no" gasoline is no safer to transport, the risks are higher. But, "yes" gasoline is safer to transport because the risks are managed better.

      --
      "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
    9. Re:why carry crude to in tanks on moving vehicles? by rhodie · · Score: 2

      Not just Obama, but the by anti-oil people.

      Not just the anti-oil people, but the people who own those railroads you speak of... Oh, right, Warren Buffet...

      http://www.bloomberg.com/news/...

    10. Re:why carry crude to in tanks on moving vehicles? by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Then they are loaded back onto tankers and shipped around the world, with all profits going to the Chinese government.

      What makes you think we hate the Chinese government so much that we would let all those profits going to the oil companies? There are no "our" oil companies. The oil companies would betray American interests and work to the detriment of America as easily as the international oil companies. In fact these oil companies have more than a century of manipulating our governments, our industries,our societies, our media. They had formed secret cartels to destroy the public transportation infrastructure of America. They have insidiously worked to increase urban sprawl to enrich themselves. They have whipped up public opinion to get us into wars.

      The oil industry saw how easily we beat Iraq in 1992 booting Saddam out of Kuwait. They salivated at the idea of throwing Saddam out, installing a puppet and get all the Iraqi oil at cheap rates for their cronies. We are still paying the price for that war in terms of money and in terms of hostility to America from the Middle East.

      Between the multinational oil companies and China, I would say the oil companies are the bigger threat. China has to fight a nuclear war to beat us. Oil companies would corrode us from inside out feeding on us like a wasp nymph feeds on a live but sedated pray.

      --
      sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
    11. Re:why carry crude to in tanks on moving vehicles? by ArcherB · · Score: 3, Insightful

      In all fairness, I haven't heard anything good coming from a pipeline. All the news about them have to do with spills and cover-ups. I'd be happy with a small headline announcing 5 years on a pipeline without a spill. Then we can talk about adding more pipelines. Until then, I'd rather the spills / fires be contained to the limited size of a shipping container.

      There is about 100,000 miles of oil carrying pipeline in the US. If they ran a story every time one went 5 years without incident, there would no time to write about anything else.

      --
      There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
    12. Re:why carry crude to in tanks on moving vehicles? by jythie · · Score: 2

      Yeah, but you forget how "personal responsibility" works in the US. You would think that the owners and operators of these plants should take personal responsibility for their actions and the damage done by them skirting the rules, but that is not the American ethos. Personal responsibility is your ability to drive your own fate, not how you impact others. Therefor the blame here lies on the people who were too poor to live further away from the tracks. The owners acted ethically since they managed to not be hurt by those pesky laws and still earned a bunch of money.

    13. Re:why carry crude to in tanks on moving vehicles? by zentec · · Score: 5, Interesting

      My experience is that anyone in favor of processing this sludge into energy has never even seen photos of the area around the Detroit Marathon refinery or the waterfront along the Detroit river where the processing by-product of coke-tar is stored. Yeah, they store that crap right on the shores of the headwaters of Lakes Erie and Ontario; the water supply for millions of people in two countries.

      It isn't about anti-oil, I don't disagree the world needs oil. I need oil. This is about a form of it that is just beyond nasty to obtain and process. No one wants the coke-tar, it is stored in huge uncovered piles around Detroit getting blown into neighborhoods on both sides of the river. The plan has been to sell that stuff to China, but so far no takers. Their "plan" to mitigate the dust is to spray with with water, and just where do you think the runoff flows? If they can't sell this waste in Detroit with quick convenient access to steel mills, cement and power plants, do you think Houston will have better luck?

      It is all fine and well to sit from my position in rural Michigan and say "hell yeah, turn that spigot on and gimme my $2 a gallon gasoline". But I can't; I've seen it and it is an ugly view into the future where we just don't care about larger swaths of land and the people that live there. I'm just done with the mentality of energy at any cost. If the BP oil disaster in the Gulf of Mexico doesn't affect your opinion, take a stroll and smell the coke-tar. This is a greedy grab of the last scraps of energy and the environment and people's health be damned in the process.

      Oil spills from pipeline problems happen, just ask the people in Grand Rapids Michigan who are still dealing with the cleanup in the Kalamazoo river from Enbridge Energy's pipeline break. This too is Canadian tar sand oil, making its safe transit through the United States for processing.

    14. Re:why carry crude to in tanks on moving vehicles? by drewsup · · Score: 2

      i think Warren Buffet may argue against you, seeing how he owns most of the train oil cars, and is known to have Obama's ear.

    15. Re:why carry crude to in tanks on moving vehicles? by SpankiMonki · · Score: 2

      But it also lowers the API gravity measurement (think light versus heavy crude), possibly improving the value of the entire shipment.

      I think you have that backwards. Higher API gravity means lighter, sweeter crude which is more valuable than heavy crudes which have API gravity measurements less than 20.

      Perhaps you were thinking of "specific gravity" instead of "API gravity".

  2. Rail car explosions probably cost more than the by oscrivellodds · · Score: 2

    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.

    1. Re:Rail car explosions probably cost more than the by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      so tell us again what world are you coming from? In this one the insurance companies interests are aligned with those of their CEOs which, because there are only few of, does not qualify as a society. I think the times of Lloyds when ship owners insured each other are long over here.

      BTW insurance is redistributing money by its design: insured people get some money from the insurance in case the insurance is triggered. But I see your point - you can further improve gains of insurance industry by making it legal not to pay for damages at all while making it illegal not to have insurance. I even think that is a good idea. It would make quite clear what this is all about instead of these little games in the dark. Well done!

    2. Re:Rail car explosions probably cost more than the by oscrivellodds · · Score: 4, Insightful

      " That's the way it usually works in a free market."

      And then you use health insurance as an example of how insurance and society's goals are in alignment? You gotta be kidding! The free market brought us to the awful state we were in before Obamacare made a poor attempt to fix it. The insurers were denying coverage to people who were most in need. Theoretically they can't do that any more, but we'll see- they have an army of lawyers working out all the loop-holes they can find and things will probably degenerate to something as bad or worse than it was before.

  3. Re:Every Rail Car Explosion by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 3, Insightful

    is an arrow in the quiver of the pipeline proponents.

    Only if you assume that the opponents are influenced by logic.

  4. Re: why carry crude to in tanks on moving vehicles by dgatwood · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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.

  5. I don't care about trains... by fostware · · Score: 3, Funny

    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
  6. Re:Incomplete calculation by ArcherB · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.
  7. But wait, there's more! (Interest groups vs. KXL) by dfenstrate · · Score: 2

    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.
  8. But wait, there's more! (Interest groups vs KXL) by dfenstrate · · Score: 2

    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.
  9. Re:But wait, there's more! (Interest groups vs. KX by ultranova · · Score: 2

    Arab oil-producing companies have been found backing environmental groups, to fight the introduction of new supply into their markets, which would depress prices.

    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.