Another Train Derailment Raises New Concerns About The Safety Of Transporting Crude Oil.

[elleng]

audio, Diane Rehm Show, with Ed Hamburger of Association of American Railroads and others.

http://thedianerehmshow.org/shows/2015-03-09/another-oil-train-derailment-raises-new-concerns-about-the-safety-of-transporting-crude?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed:+WAMU885DianeRehm+(The+Diane+Rehm+Show+from+WAMU+and+NPR)&sf36830420=1

[TreasonousBastard]

1. I heard most of that today...

Face it-- pipelines are safer than trains.

[Petrushka]

2. Are pipelines really safer than trains?

http://www.gaswellsiteinjury.com/2015/02/w-va-pipeline-explosion-marks-fifth-failure-for-january-in-us.shtml


Edited to add: List of pipeline accidents (2000-2015) . . . just in the United States --->

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_pipeline_accidents_in_the_United_States_in_the_21st_century

[TreasonousBastard]

3. Nothing's perfect, but...

glancing through that list, most of those incidents seem to be at local facilities which wouldn't be in this discussion. And many are gas leaks, not oil-- not that that makes too much difference, since gas is also transported by rail.

Since we're not going to stop using oil any time in the near future, the calculation would be along the lines of damage caused per barrel transported.

A pipeline has, or can have, scheduled maintenance by known companies. Rail has a number of components-- the rails themselves, the rail company, the tank cars, and the terminal operators and switch yards. All of these are built and run to different standards and by different operators and, assuming they all do a decent job, have a much larger potential for error built into the system.

Rail also has the unique problem of liquid in hundreds of tanks sloshing around up and down grades and around curves. If any piece of rail or train can't handle the forces, failure is imminent. And, rail goes through central cities. In the wee hours you can be waiting for a Jersey Transit train at Jersey City station and it count a hundred tank cars creeping past at the other platform.

[elleng]

4. Not easy to quantify, I expect.

# accidents in each mode > extent of damage?

[Petrushka]

5. Pipelines vs trains: "...depends on what you're worried about — cost, CO2 emissions, safety, or

the environment.", according to the article at the following link--->

http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/pipelines-vs-trains-which-is-better-for-moving-oil-1.2988407


In West Virginia, however, some people are also worried about their property/land rights being taken (unlawfully?) through eminent domain for the benefit of private corporations to install pipelines. If I understand correctly, there's one company that's now suing (or threatening to sue?) land owners who refuse access to survey their property for a pipeline.

Oh, well . . .

[mahatmakanejeeves]

6. I saw this comment:

Last edited Thu Mar 12, 2015, 08:29 AM - Edit history (2)

Shrdlu42 > rsbsail • 2 days ago

Funny thing, that West Virginia disaster is one I've discussed before. Since you're such an "expert", maybe you can explain something about it. The caption for the picture to this show mentions "the shale oil boom in North Dakota". Recently All Things Considered had a story about that, and about the dangers of transporting that oil by rail.

http://www.npr.org/2015/03/04/...

In the course of that the "guest expert" (Mr. Gold from the Wall Street Journal) opined that "Pipelines tend to be safer." As you'd expect, I was a tad skeptical when it came to the kind of oil in question (highly volatile).

I wish Mr. Gold had explained just how it is that "Pipelines tend to be safer". As I understand this, the problem is that the oil being transported is dangerous. Pray tell how the method of transport changes that? Would a pipeline necessarily be "safer" than a train when transporting nitroglycerin? I don't think so.

What's your answer to that question?

And note something else in that caption: "Shippers argue that stricter measures are costly and risks are exaggerated." A perfect example of "conservative" philosophy: The costs are always too high when they have to pay them, but the risks are always "exaggerated" when someone else has to face them!

As I said on the All Things Considered site:

Meanwhile, for all those whose knee-jerk response is to blame "big government", and scream about "Washington Bureaucrats" and their "oppressive regulations", this sounds like a perfect example of a crying need for the Federal government to do what the Constitution expressly gives it the power (some might also say duty) to do: regulate commerce between the States! North Dakotans shouldn't be allowed to ship their explosive oil anywhere! Let them fix it or blow up their own State!

The same principle applies to making transport by rail safer.

Here is the linked National Public Radio broadcast, complete with transcript:

West Virginia Derailment Raises Concerns About Volatility Of Bakken Oil

As for "Mr. Gold from the Wall Street Journal," I have linked to an article or two of his here at DU. I'll be adding those links to the "Oil Train Safety Links" post.

[Fuddnik]

7. In other words, it's all bullshit.

When it comes right down to it, pipeline companies don't want to spend the money to test and maintain their pipelines. And Railroads don't want to spend all that money inspecting and maintaining their roadbeds.

They're transporting some cargo, that should never be allowed across the border in the first place. Not to mention the amount of increased pollution along the gulf where they're going to refine it. And we all know how safe refineries are.