TORQ to build 168,000 bpd Western Canada crude-by-rail terminal
[ http://business.financialpost.com/2013/ ... -terminal/ ]
Reuters | 13/08/15 8:58 AM ET
Midstream oil company TORQ Transloading Inc said on Wednesday it plans to build a $100 million crude-by-rail terminal in Kerrobert, Saskatchewan, that will be able to load 168,000 barrels per day of oil.
It is the latest, and largest, in a recent rush of Western Canadian crude-by-rail projects as producers seek alternatives to congested pipelines to transport their crude to U.S. refining markets.
The Kerrobert Rail Terminal, to be served by Canadian Pacific Railway, will load two 120-car unit trains per day that will each carry both light and heavy crude.
TORQ Chief Executive Jarrett Zielinski said the location of the terminal in the southeast end of the oil sands region means shippers will be able to save about $5 a barrel on transporting crude to the U.S. Gulf Coast and to the East Coast, compared with shipping crude by rail out of northern Alberta, the center of the oil sands region.
Gibson Energy Inc, another midstream oil services company investing in train terminals to ship crude, has said it costs $14-$17 per barrel to transport crude from Hardisty, Alberta, to the U.S. Gulf Coast.
“Kerrobert, Saskatchewan, is geographically as close to the heavy crude’s natural destination markets as possible by rail, minimizing transportation costs relative to similar crude types to be shipped by rail originating further north and west in Alberta,” Zielinski said.
Privately owned TORQ is negotiating pipeline connections to deliver crude to the terminal, which will also take deliveries by truck.
The project will include storage tanks with up to 50,000 barrels of capacity, including heated storage that can handle undiluted conventional heavy oil from the Lloydminster region on the Alberta-Saskatchewan border, which is too viscous to flow through pipelines unless it is diluted with condensate.
An increasing number of Canadian producers are starting to transport heavy oil and raw bitumen in heated rail cars, to save on the cost of adding condensate.
The Kerrobert terminal has been designed to also accept inbound condensate deliveries by rail.
MORE:
[ http://business.financialpost.com/2013/ ... -terminal/ ]
= = = = = =
ARNEY: New Democrats on tragedy at Lac-Mégantic
----- Original Message -----
From: Elaine Hughes
To: CBC Morning Edition
Cc: SK Premier Wall ; Sask Environmental Society ; Peter Prebble
Sent: Friday, August 23, 2013 8:03 AM
Subject: ARNEY: New Democrats on tragedy at Lac-Mégantic
Interesting comments from Mr. Arney . . .
Can hardly wait for Kerrobert terminal to get going full steam, eh?
Elaine Hughes
Archerwill, SK
- - - - -
----- Original Message -----
From: Jeremy Arney
Sent: Thursday, August 22, 2013 8:59 PM
Subject: Fwd: New Democrats on tragedy at Lac-Mégantic
There are so many unanswered questions about this crash, and I am sure that most of them will be swept under the rug in the foyer of the HOC, but I still maintain that there is no way a train with brakes that will apparently will bleed off and release should be left unattended, when the safety factor of a few wheel chocks would have kept it immobile indefinitely.
Naturally the MMA railroad has asked for bankruptcy protection and we, the Canadian people, will be left holding Harper's corporate expenses again. Remember Abatibi Bowater? - a Canadian company that Harper paid $130 milllion to under NAFTA without any argument, hearing or questions in parliament. This was actually larger than the Liberal sponsorship scandal and almost no one heard of it.
These people are amazing in their zeal to better the bottom line of the corporate world at our expense.
Jeremy
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Jeremy Arney <iamjema@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, Aug 22, 2013 at 10:58 AM
Subject: Fwd: New Democrats on tragedy at Lac-Mégantic
To: "Mulcair, Thomas" <thomas.mulcair@parl.gc.ca>
To the Leader of the NDP and the official Opposition to the Administration currently dismantling Canada.
Dear Mr. Mulcair,
I am writing to respond to your email of Aug 15th concerning Lac Megantic
I am of the understanding that regulations concerning transportation of anything by rail have been relaxed to the point where they almost no longer exist. Thus to blame the recent crash at Lac Megantic as anything except indifference to public safety by both this particular railroad, the MMA - which I understand, and expected, has now declared bankruptcy in order to avoid costs to themselves - and the regulators under the administration of the current PM.
There is ample proof that this PM cares not one whit for the interests, safety or concerns of any Canadian citizen who does not subscribe to his corporate party of Canada, and as such any corporation can do as they please and he supports their right to do so over the safety of Canadians. The events at Lac Megantic are a perfect example of the direct actions towards the safety of Canadians by this corporate robot we have as a PM.
Where does the NDP stand in this?
You talk a good talk and Ms.Chow tried to get the 90-minute farce of an emergency meeting of the HOC Transportation Committee on July 23rd to do more than just meet and pass a motion by a PMO puppet to do nothing. What a waste of time and money and such an insult to the people of Canada, but, of course, Harper doesn't care about that. The fact they met is of more propaganda value than the cost and completely ridiculous ineffectiveness of the meeting.
There have been numerous recommendations to Transport Canada over the last 10 years and more, all of which have been deliberately ignored and now in this latest crash all we hear is "too bad". Harper initially told the people of Lac Megantic that money will not be forthcoming until agreed upon by parliament. That too was a farce because he then reversed and promised $60 million. Trouble is not in promising that help but in how to pay for it when this administration is financially clueless.
Why have the Unions allowed this reduction in both operators and assistants upon the trains, and the abandoning of basic safety rules? Imagine, if you will, that the one man who left the train had blocked even three wheels of the entire train it would have stayed where it was for days whether the brakes bled off or not, and how in the name of all that is sensible could train systems have brakes that bleed off anyway? As an ex-long haul truck driver I fail to understand this.
When are you going to really get all this to the attention of all Canadians?
Whilst I appreciate hearing from you, I have to tell you that I am not reassured that the NDP are going to bat for us on this. To allow this and other derailments, all of which could probably have been prevented through basic safety measures, to be a window to the so-called "better safety" of pipe lines needs to be debunked by you now, not in a month or two or three when questions in the House will be rebuffed as they have been since 2006.
Action, Mr. Mulcair, is what we want and expect, and not just words in an email although that helps reassure some I suppose.
Jeremy Arney
CAP member and past candidate for SGI
#6, 2931 Craigowan Rd
Victoria BC
V9B 1N1
250-216-5400
- - - - - -
On Thu, Aug 15, 2013 at 1:09 PM, <thomas.mulcair@parl.gc.ca> wrote:
Thank you for writing me about the recent tragedy in Lac-Mégantic, Quebec. Like all Canadians, I was horrified by this catastrophe.
There has been a substantial increase in the use of rail to transport crude oil and there are significant risks associated with that practice. Regulations must be designed to protect Canadians who live near rail lines. That is why we support the Transportation Safety Board's decision to conduct a thorough investigation. We hope that the investigation will provide answers about the cause of this terrible tragedy and make recommendations on how to prevent similar accidents.
I believe that the primary role of a government is to ensure public safety. When an event of this magnitude occurs, we need to find answers to difficult questions. In particular, we need to determine how this could have happened and who is responsible. We also need to examine the federal government's role in protecting the people, and we need to push the government to tighten rules governing rail transportation. The following press release sets out the recommendations proposed by the NDP the day after the tragedy:
[ http://www.ndp.ca/news/new-democrats-de ... -solutions ].
Further, New Democrats believe that the transportation of oil must adhere to the highest possible safety and environmental standards consistent with the principles of sustainable development. Core principles of sustainable development include proper community consultation and strong environmental assessments. That is why we are disappointed that Canadian citizens have had to resort to taking the Conservative government to court to enforce their fundamental right to speak out on issues that impact us all. You can read more about our concerns over the Conservative attacks on environmental protections by visiting the following links:
[ http://www.ndp.ca/news/statement-ndp-co ... ergy-rules ]
[ http://www.ndp.ca/news/highest-possible ... sed-energy ]
The NDP will continue to work hard to ensure the safety of our communities.
I would like to thank you again for contacting me.
Sincerely,
Thomas Mulcair, M.P. (Outremont)
Leader of the Official Opposition
New Democratic Party of Canada
Follow Tom on Facebook, Twitter, and Flickr
www.facebook.com/ThomasMulcair
www.twitter.com/ThomasMulcair
www.flickr.com/photos/ndpcanada
Coming to a town near you: Crude-by-Rail
18 posts
• Page 1 of 2 • 1, 2
Coming to a town near you: Crude-by-Rail
by Oscar » Fri Aug 23, 2013 8:22 am
- Oscar
- Site Admin
- Posts: 9965
- Joined: Wed May 03, 2006 3:23 pm
Safety alert issued over dangers of fracked oil
by Oscar » Wed Jan 15, 2014 4:26 pm
Safety alert issued over dangers of fracked oil
[ http://thetyee.ca/Blogs/TheHook/2014/01 ... Oil-Alert/]
By Andrew Nikiforuk Published January 6, 2014 08:20 am |
The U.S. Department of Transportation has issued an unprecedented safety alert [ http://thetyee.ca/Blogs/TheHook/2014/01 ... Oil-Alert/ ] on the transport of hydraulically fractured oil from North Dakota's booming Bakken oil fields that could also cool Canada's unconventional oil rush.
"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," says the alert from the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA).
The frantic movement of fracked Bakken oil on Canada's poorly regulated rail system resulted in a catastrophic explosion that incinerated 47 citizens in Lac Megantic, Quebec, last summer.
Major derailments of Bakken crude have terrified rural communities in North Dakota and Alabama. "It is imperative that offerors (shippers) properly classify and describe hazardous materials being offered for transportation," adds the alert.
Due to the unusual properties of fracked oil, PHMSA has undertaken a series of tests (Operation Classification) to determine "the gas content, corrosivity, toxicity, flammability and certain other characteristics of the Bakken crude oil, which should more clearly inform the proper characterization of the material."
Hydraulic fracturing releases oil from deep and shallow rock formations by creating webs of non-linear cracks that resemble a shattered windshield.
The controversial and poorly studied technology then pumps high volumes of water (two to 10 million gallons per frack), toxic chemicals and various sizes of sand or ceramic particles called proppants used to "prop" the fractures open.
Scientists have linked the technology, which industry describes as "proven" and "safe", to methane leaks, earthquakes, and groundwater contamination.
Bakken crude's explosive flammability may, in part, be related to the large number of volatile chemicals or frack fluids such as diesel and kerosene used to release the oil from deep shale formations.
Bakken crude can also have a high hydrogen sulfide content. It's a potent neurotoxin as deadly as cyanide that has killed scores of oil and gas workers.
It can contain such perilous amounts of hydrogen sulfide that Enbridge recently applied [ http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/05/ ... SU20130529 ] to restrict shipments of Bakken crude on its pipelines due to concerns about worker safety.
The safety alert, which resulted in an immediate plunge in the value of shares of Bakken oil producers, could have serious ramifications for Alberta and Saskatchewan where the industry is also fracking shale formations for light oil.
Horizontal multi-stage fracking has boosted Alberta's oil production to 1.2 million barrels a year and accounted for much of Saskatchewan's 470,000 barrel a day production in 2012.
Much of that oil, similar in character to the Bakken crude, is transported by rail to the United States.
According to Statistics Canada data, industry loaded 12,989 rail cars with 1.1 million tonnes of fracked oil or heavy bitumen in February 2013 -- a 60 per cent growth from February 2012.
Critics say that the regulation of hazardous goods by rail hasn't kept up with the fracking boom, just as the regulation of diluted bitumen by pipelines hasn't kept pace with Canada's frantic oil development.
Last November, Canada's auditor general lambasted [ http://www.oag-bvg.gc.ca/internet/Engli ... .html#hd5c ] Transport Canada for lax oversight of rail safety.
In particular, it found that "the Department's level of oversight was not sufficient to obtain assurance that federal railways have implemented adequate and effective safety management systems."
Award-winning journalist Andrew Nikiforuk writes about energy for The Tyee and others.
[ http://thetyee.ca/Blogs/TheHook/2014/01 ... Oil-Alert/]
By Andrew Nikiforuk Published January 6, 2014 08:20 am |
The U.S. Department of Transportation has issued an unprecedented safety alert [ http://thetyee.ca/Blogs/TheHook/2014/01 ... Oil-Alert/ ] on the transport of hydraulically fractured oil from North Dakota's booming Bakken oil fields that could also cool Canada's unconventional oil rush.
"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," says the alert from the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA).
The frantic movement of fracked Bakken oil on Canada's poorly regulated rail system resulted in a catastrophic explosion that incinerated 47 citizens in Lac Megantic, Quebec, last summer.
Major derailments of Bakken crude have terrified rural communities in North Dakota and Alabama. "It is imperative that offerors (shippers) properly classify and describe hazardous materials being offered for transportation," adds the alert.
Due to the unusual properties of fracked oil, PHMSA has undertaken a series of tests (Operation Classification) to determine "the gas content, corrosivity, toxicity, flammability and certain other characteristics of the Bakken crude oil, which should more clearly inform the proper characterization of the material."
Hydraulic fracturing releases oil from deep and shallow rock formations by creating webs of non-linear cracks that resemble a shattered windshield.
The controversial and poorly studied technology then pumps high volumes of water (two to 10 million gallons per frack), toxic chemicals and various sizes of sand or ceramic particles called proppants used to "prop" the fractures open.
Scientists have linked the technology, which industry describes as "proven" and "safe", to methane leaks, earthquakes, and groundwater contamination.
Bakken crude's explosive flammability may, in part, be related to the large number of volatile chemicals or frack fluids such as diesel and kerosene used to release the oil from deep shale formations.
Bakken crude can also have a high hydrogen sulfide content. It's a potent neurotoxin as deadly as cyanide that has killed scores of oil and gas workers.
It can contain such perilous amounts of hydrogen sulfide that Enbridge recently applied [ http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/05/ ... SU20130529 ] to restrict shipments of Bakken crude on its pipelines due to concerns about worker safety.
The safety alert, which resulted in an immediate plunge in the value of shares of Bakken oil producers, could have serious ramifications for Alberta and Saskatchewan where the industry is also fracking shale formations for light oil.
Horizontal multi-stage fracking has boosted Alberta's oil production to 1.2 million barrels a year and accounted for much of Saskatchewan's 470,000 barrel a day production in 2012.
Much of that oil, similar in character to the Bakken crude, is transported by rail to the United States.
According to Statistics Canada data, industry loaded 12,989 rail cars with 1.1 million tonnes of fracked oil or heavy bitumen in February 2013 -- a 60 per cent growth from February 2012.
Critics say that the regulation of hazardous goods by rail hasn't kept up with the fracking boom, just as the regulation of diluted bitumen by pipelines hasn't kept pace with Canada's frantic oil development.
Last November, Canada's auditor general lambasted [ http://www.oag-bvg.gc.ca/internet/Engli ... .html#hd5c ] Transport Canada for lax oversight of rail safety.
In particular, it found that "the Department's level of oversight was not sufficient to obtain assurance that federal railways have implemented adequate and effective safety management systems."
Award-winning journalist Andrew Nikiforuk writes about energy for The Tyee and others.
- Oscar
- Site Admin
- Posts: 9965
- Joined: Wed May 03, 2006 3:23 pm
FCM wants ‘polluter pay’ system
by Oscar » Thu Jan 23, 2014 3:54 pm
FCM wants ‘polluter pay’ system
[ http://www.reddeeradvocate.com/news/nat ... 74801.html ]
- - - -
QUOTE: "“Municipalities are 100 per cent united in the sense that it’s not our responsibility to pay for those clean-ups,” said Atchison. “It’s not our responsibility to have to buy insurance for that.”"
- - - - -
By The Canadian Press - Red Deer Advocate
Published: January 22, 2014 6:30 PM
OTTAWA — Municipal leaders emerged from a meeting with Transport Minister Lisa Raitt on Wednesday determined to see railways, shippers and producers of dangerous goods assume full liability for accidents and spills.
Ensuring rail companies are properly insured for even catastrophic events like the devastating crash in Lac-Megantic, Que., is the next major hurdle in fixing the system, Claude Dauphin, president of the Federation of Canadian Municipalities, said.
“It’s on the table. That’s our third key area — to make sure that any accident, incident or catastrophe won’t be downloaded to our taxpayers.”
That could include a fund that spreads the liability for major disasters — currently shouldered largely by railways — across the full supply chain, from producers to consumers.
Dauphin and others are quick to praise Transport Canada and the minister for regulatory changes made since the July 6 derailment, explosions and fire in Lac-Megantic that claimed 47 lives, Canada’s worst rail disaster in more than 100 years.
Municipalities are now being notified about the types of freight shipped through their precincts. Increasingly common oil shipments are to be classified as dangerous goods, which will require railways to develop emergency assistance response plans.
Raitt met for more than an hour Wednesday with the federation’s rail safety working group, where she was told the FCM wants all flammable liquids, including ethanol, classified as dangerous.
It was the third such meeting since the municipal working group was formed after Lac-Megantic, and it came the day after the Canadian Transportation Agency wrapped up a consultation on revamping insurance for rail carriers.
Dauphin said current rules gauge each railway’s “adequate” liability coverage on a case-by-case basis.
“We want more meat around the bone,” said Dauphin, the mayor of Laval, Que. “What does ’adequate’ insurance mean? We had a lot of discussion with the minister about that, not only today but in the past.”
Raitt issued a news release following Wednesday’s meeting that called rail safety a “shared responsibility amongst international partners, provinces, territories, municipalities and industry.”
On Thursday, the Transportation Safety Board will issue three new recommendations from its preliminary report on the accident.
But more needs to be done, say municipal officials — even those who are pleased with the federal government response to date.
Saskatoon Mayor Don Atchison lauded the “tremendous amount of progress being made” on rail safety and called the speed of the federal response “breathtaking.”
But his blunt assessment of what’s next: “Who’s going to pay for what?”
“Municipalities are 100 per cent united in the sense that it’s not our responsibility to pay for those clean-ups,” said Atchison. “It’s not our responsibility to have to buy insurance for that.”
One idea in the mix is an industry fund, similar to the one for ocean shippers, that would pool resources in the event of a catastrophic accident such as Lac-Megantic.
“We didn’t discuss the details, but it’s in the air,” Dauphin said of the fund proposal.
He was being overly reticent.
In a submission to the Canadian Transportation Agency, the Federation of Canadian Municipalities stresses that the public purse is effectively the insurer when significant railway accidents occur.
“These costs must be borne by the industry in accordance with the ’polluter pay’ principle through an industry-funded comprehensive liability insurance regime which provides full coverage for catastrophes,” states the federation brief.
The federation argues it is unlikely railways could obtain enough liability insurance on the open market to cover the worst events.
It calls for a national mechanism, financed through contributions from everyone involved in transportation of dangerous goods by rail: carriers, importers, brokers, producers and industrial purchasers. The fund would be accessible to anyone who has suffered a loss.
The Railway Association of Canada also raises the idea of a common fund. It says in many cases dangerous goods are essential to Canadians’ quality of life and the operation of industry, but railways absorb the risk of carrying them.
“It is our view that other members of the supply chain such as producers and end users must play a larger role in addressing risk and resulting liability,” says the association’s submission.
Its U.S. counterpart, the Association of American Railroads, agrees, saying that “where the government mandates railroads to move dangerous commodities for the public interest, it is not unreasonable for the risks of transporting such commodities to be shared by shippers and receivers who control the decision to ship.”
MORE:
[ http://www.reddeeradvocate.com/news/nat ... 74801.html ]
[ http://www.reddeeradvocate.com/news/nat ... 74801.html ]
- - - -
QUOTE: "“Municipalities are 100 per cent united in the sense that it’s not our responsibility to pay for those clean-ups,” said Atchison. “It’s not our responsibility to have to buy insurance for that.”"
- - - - -
By The Canadian Press - Red Deer Advocate
Published: January 22, 2014 6:30 PM
OTTAWA — Municipal leaders emerged from a meeting with Transport Minister Lisa Raitt on Wednesday determined to see railways, shippers and producers of dangerous goods assume full liability for accidents and spills.
Ensuring rail companies are properly insured for even catastrophic events like the devastating crash in Lac-Megantic, Que., is the next major hurdle in fixing the system, Claude Dauphin, president of the Federation of Canadian Municipalities, said.
“It’s on the table. That’s our third key area — to make sure that any accident, incident or catastrophe won’t be downloaded to our taxpayers.”
That could include a fund that spreads the liability for major disasters — currently shouldered largely by railways — across the full supply chain, from producers to consumers.
Dauphin and others are quick to praise Transport Canada and the minister for regulatory changes made since the July 6 derailment, explosions and fire in Lac-Megantic that claimed 47 lives, Canada’s worst rail disaster in more than 100 years.
Municipalities are now being notified about the types of freight shipped through their precincts. Increasingly common oil shipments are to be classified as dangerous goods, which will require railways to develop emergency assistance response plans.
Raitt met for more than an hour Wednesday with the federation’s rail safety working group, where she was told the FCM wants all flammable liquids, including ethanol, classified as dangerous.
It was the third such meeting since the municipal working group was formed after Lac-Megantic, and it came the day after the Canadian Transportation Agency wrapped up a consultation on revamping insurance for rail carriers.
Dauphin said current rules gauge each railway’s “adequate” liability coverage on a case-by-case basis.
“We want more meat around the bone,” said Dauphin, the mayor of Laval, Que. “What does ’adequate’ insurance mean? We had a lot of discussion with the minister about that, not only today but in the past.”
Raitt issued a news release following Wednesday’s meeting that called rail safety a “shared responsibility amongst international partners, provinces, territories, municipalities and industry.”
On Thursday, the Transportation Safety Board will issue three new recommendations from its preliminary report on the accident.
But more needs to be done, say municipal officials — even those who are pleased with the federal government response to date.
Saskatoon Mayor Don Atchison lauded the “tremendous amount of progress being made” on rail safety and called the speed of the federal response “breathtaking.”
But his blunt assessment of what’s next: “Who’s going to pay for what?”
“Municipalities are 100 per cent united in the sense that it’s not our responsibility to pay for those clean-ups,” said Atchison. “It’s not our responsibility to have to buy insurance for that.”
One idea in the mix is an industry fund, similar to the one for ocean shippers, that would pool resources in the event of a catastrophic accident such as Lac-Megantic.
“We didn’t discuss the details, but it’s in the air,” Dauphin said of the fund proposal.
He was being overly reticent.
In a submission to the Canadian Transportation Agency, the Federation of Canadian Municipalities stresses that the public purse is effectively the insurer when significant railway accidents occur.
“These costs must be borne by the industry in accordance with the ’polluter pay’ principle through an industry-funded comprehensive liability insurance regime which provides full coverage for catastrophes,” states the federation brief.
The federation argues it is unlikely railways could obtain enough liability insurance on the open market to cover the worst events.
It calls for a national mechanism, financed through contributions from everyone involved in transportation of dangerous goods by rail: carriers, importers, brokers, producers and industrial purchasers. The fund would be accessible to anyone who has suffered a loss.
The Railway Association of Canada also raises the idea of a common fund. It says in many cases dangerous goods are essential to Canadians’ quality of life and the operation of industry, but railways absorb the risk of carrying them.
“It is our view that other members of the supply chain such as producers and end users must play a larger role in addressing risk and resulting liability,” says the association’s submission.
Its U.S. counterpart, the Association of American Railroads, agrees, saying that “where the government mandates railroads to move dangerous commodities for the public interest, it is not unreasonable for the risks of transporting such commodities to be shared by shippers and receivers who control the decision to ship.”
MORE:
[ http://www.reddeeradvocate.com/news/nat ... 74801.html ]
- Oscar
- Site Admin
- Posts: 9965
- Joined: Wed May 03, 2006 3:23 pm
SUZUKI: Rail versus pipeline is the wrong question
by Oscar » Sat Jan 25, 2014 9:58 am
SUZUKI: Rail versus pipeline is the wrong question
[ http://www.davidsuzuki.org/blogs/scienc ... -question/ ]
By David Suzuki with contributions from Ian Hanington, Senior Editor
January 23, 2014
Debating the best way to do something we shouldn't be doing in the first place is a sure way to end up in the wrong place. That's what's happening with the "rail versus pipeline" discussion. Some say recent rail accidents mean we should build more pipelines to transport fossil fuels. Others argue that leaks, high construction costs, opposition and red tape surrounding pipelines are arguments in favour of using trains.
But the recent spate of rail accidents and pipeline leaks [ http://www.salon.com/2014/01/08/the_fal ... ystone_xl/ ] and spills doesn't provide arguments for one or the other; instead, it indicates that rapidly increasing oil and gas development and shipping ever greater amounts, by any method, will mean more accidents, spills, environmental damage — even death. The answer is to step back from this reckless plunder and consider ways to reduce our fossil fuel use.
If we were to slow down oil sands development, encourage conservation and invest in clean energy technology, we could save money, ecosystems and lives — and we'd still have valuable fossil fuel resources long into the future, perhaps until we've figured out ways to use them that aren't so wasteful. We wouldn't need to build more pipelines just to sell oil and gas as quickly as possible, mostly to foreign markets. We wouldn't have to send so many unsafe rail tankers through wilderness areas and places people live.
We may forgo some of the short-term jobs and economic opportunities the fossil fuel industry provides, but surely we can find better ways to keep people employed and the economy humming. Gambling, selling guns and drugs and encouraging people to smoke all create jobs and economic benefits, too — but we rightly try to limit those activities when the harms outweigh the benefits.
Both transportation methods come with significant risks. [ http://grist.org/climate-energy/why-exp ... ystone-xl/ ] Shipping by rail leads to more accidents and spills, but pipeline leaks usually involve much larger volumes. One of the reasons we're seeing more train accidents involving fossil fuels is the incredible boom in moving these products by rail. According to the American Association of Railroads, [ https://www.aar.org/keyissues/Documents ... y-rail.pdf ] train shipment of crude oil in the U.S. grew from 9,500 carloads in 2008 to 234,000 in 2012 — almost 25 times as many in only four years! That's expected to rise to 400,000 this year.
MORE:
[ http://www.davidsuzuki.org/blogs/scienc ... -question/ ]
[ http://www.davidsuzuki.org/blogs/scienc ... -question/ ]
By David Suzuki with contributions from Ian Hanington, Senior Editor
January 23, 2014
Debating the best way to do something we shouldn't be doing in the first place is a sure way to end up in the wrong place. That's what's happening with the "rail versus pipeline" discussion. Some say recent rail accidents mean we should build more pipelines to transport fossil fuels. Others argue that leaks, high construction costs, opposition and red tape surrounding pipelines are arguments in favour of using trains.
But the recent spate of rail accidents and pipeline leaks [ http://www.salon.com/2014/01/08/the_fal ... ystone_xl/ ] and spills doesn't provide arguments for one or the other; instead, it indicates that rapidly increasing oil and gas development and shipping ever greater amounts, by any method, will mean more accidents, spills, environmental damage — even death. The answer is to step back from this reckless plunder and consider ways to reduce our fossil fuel use.
If we were to slow down oil sands development, encourage conservation and invest in clean energy technology, we could save money, ecosystems and lives — and we'd still have valuable fossil fuel resources long into the future, perhaps until we've figured out ways to use them that aren't so wasteful. We wouldn't need to build more pipelines just to sell oil and gas as quickly as possible, mostly to foreign markets. We wouldn't have to send so many unsafe rail tankers through wilderness areas and places people live.
We may forgo some of the short-term jobs and economic opportunities the fossil fuel industry provides, but surely we can find better ways to keep people employed and the economy humming. Gambling, selling guns and drugs and encouraging people to smoke all create jobs and economic benefits, too — but we rightly try to limit those activities when the harms outweigh the benefits.
Both transportation methods come with significant risks. [ http://grist.org/climate-energy/why-exp ... ystone-xl/ ] Shipping by rail leads to more accidents and spills, but pipeline leaks usually involve much larger volumes. One of the reasons we're seeing more train accidents involving fossil fuels is the incredible boom in moving these products by rail. According to the American Association of Railroads, [ https://www.aar.org/keyissues/Documents ... y-rail.pdf ] train shipment of crude oil in the U.S. grew from 9,500 carloads in 2008 to 234,000 in 2012 — almost 25 times as many in only four years! That's expected to rise to 400,000 this year.
MORE:
[ http://www.davidsuzuki.org/blogs/scienc ... -question/ ]
- Oscar
- Site Admin
- Posts: 9965
- Joined: Wed May 03, 2006 3:23 pm
Why exploding trains are the new Keystone XL
by Oscar » Sat Jan 25, 2014 10:11 am
Why exploding trains are the new Keystone XL
[ http://grist.org/climate-energy/why-exp ... ystone-xl/ ]
By Heather Smith January 16, 2014
- - - - -
QUOTE: "And then, if activism manages to drain the profits out of rail travel, energy companies will move to another form of transportation. Until something large — a big idea, big legislation, a new technology — comes along and shifts the game entirely, Whac-A-Mole is the game as it is played."
- - - - -
EXCERPT:
But the delays in building Keystone also led to a glut in crude oil that energy companies, in their hubris, had expected to be able to load into a pipeline, and couldn’t. And so they loaded the crude onto trains.
At that point, the game of Whac-A-Mole that is modern fossil-fuel activism moved into its next phase.
The trains were three times as expensive, but they had the key advantage of existing in the present moment. Railroads had already been built, which meant they had already been approved. “A big part of the popularity of rail is that the president can’t veto it,” Eric Smith, associate director of the Tulane University Energy Institute, told the Kansas City Star. In 2008, according to the Association of American Railroads, 9,500 carloads of crude oil were shipped by train. In 2012, that number was 234,000 carloads. Last year, it was estimated to be around 400,000.
In June of this year, Kinder Morgan, one of the largest energy companies in the West, canceled plans for a pipeline from Texas to California, named “Freedom,” which they once had high hopes for. “The cancellation,” wrote the Wall Street Journal, “underscores the growing difficulty pipeline companies are having in selling new large-scale projects as oil producers and refiners increasingly rely on railroads to ship crude oil. Once seen as temporary necessities to deliver oil from emerging oil-producing regions in Alberta, Texas, and North Dakota, rail cars have become a permanent fixture of the North American energy landscape.” Warren Buffet’s investment firm, Berkshire Hathaway, which had been buying up railroads and rail car manufacturers, reported that it was doing quite well for itself.
Then trains started to crash. There were a variety of reasons for this. Rail infrastructure in both the U.S. and Canada was old and not in particularly good repair. The DOT-111, a style of tanker car that made up 70 percent of the nation’s tanker fleet, turned out to puncture easily if the cars slid off the tracks, which they did. And tank car manufacturers didn’t have the infrastructure of their own to keep up with demand — the wait for new cars was over a year long.
And then there were the explosions. The crude that was being shipped from the Bakken shale field in North Dakota, which was sent almost exclusively by rail, seemed to explode a lot. Normally, crude, for all its faults, was not prone to doing this. But crude from the Bakken Shale was implicated in explosions in Lac-Mégantic, Quebec, the Alabama wetlands, and eastern North Dakota.
It’s still not entirely clear how this has come to pass. Bakken crude is light, which means it has frisky hydrocarbons. But also, possibly, the fracking chemicals used in its extraction were making it extra-flammable and corroding train cars from within.
FULL TEXT:
[ http://grist.org/climate-energy/why-exp ... ystone-xl/ ]
[ http://grist.org/climate-energy/why-exp ... ystone-xl/ ]
By Heather Smith January 16, 2014
- - - - -
QUOTE: "And then, if activism manages to drain the profits out of rail travel, energy companies will move to another form of transportation. Until something large — a big idea, big legislation, a new technology — comes along and shifts the game entirely, Whac-A-Mole is the game as it is played."
- - - - -
EXCERPT:
But the delays in building Keystone also led to a glut in crude oil that energy companies, in their hubris, had expected to be able to load into a pipeline, and couldn’t. And so they loaded the crude onto trains.
At that point, the game of Whac-A-Mole that is modern fossil-fuel activism moved into its next phase.
The trains were three times as expensive, but they had the key advantage of existing in the present moment. Railroads had already been built, which meant they had already been approved. “A big part of the popularity of rail is that the president can’t veto it,” Eric Smith, associate director of the Tulane University Energy Institute, told the Kansas City Star. In 2008, according to the Association of American Railroads, 9,500 carloads of crude oil were shipped by train. In 2012, that number was 234,000 carloads. Last year, it was estimated to be around 400,000.
In June of this year, Kinder Morgan, one of the largest energy companies in the West, canceled plans for a pipeline from Texas to California, named “Freedom,” which they once had high hopes for. “The cancellation,” wrote the Wall Street Journal, “underscores the growing difficulty pipeline companies are having in selling new large-scale projects as oil producers and refiners increasingly rely on railroads to ship crude oil. Once seen as temporary necessities to deliver oil from emerging oil-producing regions in Alberta, Texas, and North Dakota, rail cars have become a permanent fixture of the North American energy landscape.” Warren Buffet’s investment firm, Berkshire Hathaway, which had been buying up railroads and rail car manufacturers, reported that it was doing quite well for itself.
Then trains started to crash. There were a variety of reasons for this. Rail infrastructure in both the U.S. and Canada was old and not in particularly good repair. The DOT-111, a style of tanker car that made up 70 percent of the nation’s tanker fleet, turned out to puncture easily if the cars slid off the tracks, which they did. And tank car manufacturers didn’t have the infrastructure of their own to keep up with demand — the wait for new cars was over a year long.
And then there were the explosions. The crude that was being shipped from the Bakken shale field in North Dakota, which was sent almost exclusively by rail, seemed to explode a lot. Normally, crude, for all its faults, was not prone to doing this. But crude from the Bakken Shale was implicated in explosions in Lac-Mégantic, Quebec, the Alabama wetlands, and eastern North Dakota.
It’s still not entirely clear how this has come to pass. Bakken crude is light, which means it has frisky hydrocarbons. But also, possibly, the fracking chemicals used in its extraction were making it extra-flammable and corroding train cars from within.
FULL TEXT:
[ http://grist.org/climate-energy/why-exp ... ystone-xl/ ]
- Oscar
- Site Admin
- Posts: 9965
- Joined: Wed May 03, 2006 3:23 pm
The false safety promise of Keystone XL
by Oscar » Sat Jan 25, 2014 10:18 am
The false safety promise of Keystone XL
[ http://www.salon.com/2014/01/08/the_fal ... ystone_xl/ ]
The recent spate of train derailments is concerning, but it's no reason to support a pipeline
Lindsay Abrams Wednesday, Jan 8, 2014 03:55 PM CST
(***NOTE: Numerous LINKS - go to URL above)
Tuesday night, a train in New Brunswick, Canada careened off the rail. Dozens were evacuated as the derailed cars, which carried crude oil and propane, burned well into Wednesday.
This followed an accident last week in North Dakota, where a train derailed and exploded in what was described as a “giant fireball”, along with three other incidents over the past year, one of which, in Quebec, resulted in the deaths of 47 people.
Edward McConnell, mayor of the town that narrowly avoided catastrophe last week, called the crash a “wake-up call.” In an interview with Midwest Energy News, he said, “Environmentalists are complaining that pipelines are dangerous to the environment, but if you’re going to wreck some land, it’s not as bad as blowing up a town.”
McConnell isn’t the only one to question the significant risks of rail transport – and to argue that a pipeline is the logical solution.
Yet one need only look at Mayflower, Arkansas, where a pipeline rupture spewed at least 200,000 gallons of tar sands crude into the community last April, , to know that a pipeline wouldn’t quell safety concerns. Less dramatic than a fireball (although the images of black sludge infiltrating suburban yards were plenty disturbing), its environmental impact was nonetheless severe — and the threat to Mayflower’s residents was far from negligent. In the days and months following the spill, those exposed to the oil suffered a host of devastating health problems. And this was only one example of many: between 2008 and 2012, according to the Pipeline & Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, U.S. pipelines spilled an average of over 3.1 million gallons of hazardous liquids per year.
MORE:
[ http://www.salon.com/2014/01/08/the_fal ... ystone_xl/ ]
[ http://www.salon.com/2014/01/08/the_fal ... ystone_xl/ ]
The recent spate of train derailments is concerning, but it's no reason to support a pipeline
Lindsay Abrams Wednesday, Jan 8, 2014 03:55 PM CST
(***NOTE: Numerous LINKS - go to URL above)
Tuesday night, a train in New Brunswick, Canada careened off the rail. Dozens were evacuated as the derailed cars, which carried crude oil and propane, burned well into Wednesday.
This followed an accident last week in North Dakota, where a train derailed and exploded in what was described as a “giant fireball”, along with three other incidents over the past year, one of which, in Quebec, resulted in the deaths of 47 people.
Edward McConnell, mayor of the town that narrowly avoided catastrophe last week, called the crash a “wake-up call.” In an interview with Midwest Energy News, he said, “Environmentalists are complaining that pipelines are dangerous to the environment, but if you’re going to wreck some land, it’s not as bad as blowing up a town.”
McConnell isn’t the only one to question the significant risks of rail transport – and to argue that a pipeline is the logical solution.
Yet one need only look at Mayflower, Arkansas, where a pipeline rupture spewed at least 200,000 gallons of tar sands crude into the community last April, , to know that a pipeline wouldn’t quell safety concerns. Less dramatic than a fireball (although the images of black sludge infiltrating suburban yards were plenty disturbing), its environmental impact was nonetheless severe — and the threat to Mayflower’s residents was far from negligent. In the days and months following the spill, those exposed to the oil suffered a host of devastating health problems. And this was only one example of many: between 2008 and 2012, according to the Pipeline & Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, U.S. pipelines spilled an average of over 3.1 million gallons of hazardous liquids per year.
MORE:
[ http://www.salon.com/2014/01/08/the_fal ... ystone_xl/ ]
- Oscar
- Site Admin
- Posts: 9965
- Joined: Wed May 03, 2006 3:23 pm
SUMA calls for tighter safety rules for oil shipped by rail
by Oscar » Wed Feb 05, 2014 10:07 am
SUMA calls for tighter safety rules for oil shipped by rail
[ http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/saskatche ... -1.2523647 ]
Amount of oil shipped on Saskatchewn railways increasing
By With files from CBC's Geoff Leo, CBC News
Posted: Feb 04, 2014 11:02 PM CT Last Updated: Feb 05, 2014 5:44 AM CT
CBC News has learned the amount of oil travelling by rail in Saskatchewan has grown by more than 300 per cent in the past 20 months, which has experts and community leaders calling for tighter regulations and better preparation in case of an accident.
At a Saskatchewan Urban Municipalities Association (SUMA) meeting mayors and councillors from across the province unanimously voted for tighter rail safety rules Tuesday.
They're motivated by the disaster in Lac Megantic that killed 47 people last year. Another factor is the growing amount of oil moving by rail through Saskatchewan towns.
"We have a railway going through our town, which at one time was what you wanted and now, not so much," said Jen Sedar, a town councillor in Carlyle.
"It was about once a week a train used to pass through town, now it's several trains a day," said Sedar. The trains travel past a new neighbourhood, a trailer court and a couple of schools.
"Speed is an issue, the age of the railway is an issue, cars being left in that area is an issue," said Sedar. "We do have residents that are concerned that if there was an accident it could affect their homes and perhaps even their lives."
Amount of oil moving through Saskatchewan is increasing
In recent months, the amount of oil being shipped by rail in the province has increased.
Companies started moving oil by rail in Saskatchewan in the fall of 2010, but the provincial government didn't start tracking the quantity until March, 2012, when 113,000 cubic meters were shipped.
In the most recent report, 383,000 cubic meters of oil was shipped in a month.
The head of SUMA says the industry is growing faster than safety preparations and regulations.
"Are we prepared? No I think we've been lucky over the years that there hasn't been something," said Debra Button.
Bakken oil a big concern
A 1.6 kilometre train carrying oil from the Bakken region derailed just south of the border in North Dakota late last year.
The Bakken region is where much of Saskatchewan's oil is being produced and the same place where the Lac Megantic oil came from.
MORE:
[ http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/saskatche ... -1.2523647 ]
[ http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/saskatche ... -1.2523647 ]
Amount of oil shipped on Saskatchewn railways increasing
By With files from CBC's Geoff Leo, CBC News
Posted: Feb 04, 2014 11:02 PM CT Last Updated: Feb 05, 2014 5:44 AM CT
CBC News has learned the amount of oil travelling by rail in Saskatchewan has grown by more than 300 per cent in the past 20 months, which has experts and community leaders calling for tighter regulations and better preparation in case of an accident.
At a Saskatchewan Urban Municipalities Association (SUMA) meeting mayors and councillors from across the province unanimously voted for tighter rail safety rules Tuesday.
They're motivated by the disaster in Lac Megantic that killed 47 people last year. Another factor is the growing amount of oil moving by rail through Saskatchewan towns.
"We have a railway going through our town, which at one time was what you wanted and now, not so much," said Jen Sedar, a town councillor in Carlyle.
"It was about once a week a train used to pass through town, now it's several trains a day," said Sedar. The trains travel past a new neighbourhood, a trailer court and a couple of schools.
"Speed is an issue, the age of the railway is an issue, cars being left in that area is an issue," said Sedar. "We do have residents that are concerned that if there was an accident it could affect their homes and perhaps even their lives."
Amount of oil moving through Saskatchewan is increasing
In recent months, the amount of oil being shipped by rail in the province has increased.
Companies started moving oil by rail in Saskatchewan in the fall of 2010, but the provincial government didn't start tracking the quantity until March, 2012, when 113,000 cubic meters were shipped.
In the most recent report, 383,000 cubic meters of oil was shipped in a month.
The head of SUMA says the industry is growing faster than safety preparations and regulations.
"Are we prepared? No I think we've been lucky over the years that there hasn't been something," said Debra Button.
Bakken oil a big concern
A 1.6 kilometre train carrying oil from the Bakken region derailed just south of the border in North Dakota late last year.
The Bakken region is where much of Saskatchewan's oil is being produced and the same place where the Lac Megantic oil came from.
MORE:
[ http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/saskatche ... -1.2523647 ]
- Oscar
- Site Admin
- Posts: 9965
- Joined: Wed May 03, 2006 3:23 pm
Petro Politicking With Our Communities
by Oscar » Tue Apr 29, 2014 11:07 am
Lisa Raitt and Stephen Harper Still Playing Dangerous Petro Politicking With Our Communities
[ http://canadians.org/blog/lisa-raitt-an ... ommunities ]
April 24, 2014 - 6:00pm
(***NOTE: Please check original URL above for numerous LINKS in this article.)
There was more smoke and mirrors on Canada's rail tracks yesterday when the Harper Conservative government finally announced their long awaited changes to rail safety 292 days after the Lac-Magnetic (preventable) Disaster.
Transportation Minister Lisa Raitt announced that the federal government plans to phase-out or retrofit older DOT-111 tank cars over the next three years. Further, that a certain 5,000 tank cars that are the least crash resistant will be removed within 30 days by ministerial order. Mandatory emergency response plans will be required for all crude oil shipments, some reduction in speed of trains carrying dangerous goods, and changes to insurance liability. Lets also remember both Liberal and Conservative governments have known for over 20 years that these tankers were unsafe, both made a conscious choice not to act until tragedy struck (and still could again). While some of the new measure are a slight shift in the right direction, despite the optics these are simply minimal changes that won't create the significant actions needed to overhaul current practices.
Rait stated that "Officials have advised us three years is doable ... the best saw-offbetween what industry said that they could do and what is wanted by the Transportation Safety Board." As one energy and economics commentator from Alberta pointed out, “Doable is another word for economically feasible. The directive represents a reasonable timetable for shippers to address the market-access logistics to get oil to refiners rather than create any sort of "stretch objective" for industry to quickly remove a known threat to public safety.”
Again, the Conservative government proves itself to be a master of spin and doubletalk; the media seems to have largely accepted this news with either Orwellian 'goodthink' or 'doublethink'. Headlines read like a buffet of stale semantics; 'Ottawa to phase out unsafe tank cars'; 'Canada Toughens Rules for Rail Shipment of Dangerous Goods'; 'Canada to phase rail tankers involved in Lac Megantic crash'; 'Canada to drop 'flawed' tankers after Lac-Megantic blast'; and so on, and so on.
One of the claims is that over the next three years some the older DOT-111 tank cars will be fazed out, while others retrofitted. With a working life of between 30-40 years, the DOT-111 tank car is considered the workhorse of the North American fleet. These cars, which carry between 20,000 – 30,000 gallons make up about 70 per cent of all tankers on the rails. There are currently about 228,000 DOT-111 tank cars in North America, of which 171,000 carry hazmat. Out of that approximately 94,000 carry flammable liquids such as bakkan, crude and tarsands oil, along with ethanol many other dangerous liquids. At the same time, only 14,000 carrying oil and ethanol are built to the latest 2011 safety standards. There are 5 companies manufacturing 95% of the North American oil tanker fleet (none of which will give information regarding the massive manufacturing back log) and others in the industry simply laugh at the current proposal. The RSI's year-end 2013 report showed deliveries of 28,996 tank cars, and a backlog of 55,386. With builder capacity expected to be approximately 30,000 cars per year, this backlog will take a minimum of to two years to fill if not longer. We are told there are 5,000 tanker cars that will be removed in 30 days. Where this number comes from and how many operate in Canada is anyone's guess (including Lisa Rait), but it sure looks like action. Why if they are so dangerous that they needed to be drastically taken off the tracks in 30 days was this decision not made months or years ago? This type of obfuscation distracts people from the real point that we should be asking, is the danger of shipping explosive crude by rail through our towns, communities, and farmland is worth the risk. As Brain Stevens from UNIFOR, which represents thousands of unionized rail inspectors for states, “This announcement really falls short, and lets Canadians down, these DOT-11 cars, they should be banned from carrying crude oil immediately. They can still be used to carry vegetable oil, or diesel fuel, but for carrying this dangerous crude there should be an immediate moratorium and that should have been easy enough for the minister to do and she failed to do that.”
So why no real action or a moratorium as the Council of Canadians has been calling for? According to the rail industry, there were only 500 carloads of crude oil shipped by rail in Canada in 2009, while in 2013 there were 160,000 carloads. In the U.S. there were 400,000 carloads in 2013, up from 10,800 in 2009. As well, approval for new oil-train terminals and facilities has increased drastically. So, the truth is this government would rather gamble with the safety of communities, towns, and farmland than inconvenience their friends in rapidly expanding the tar sands and fracked bakkan oil plays.
What about some of the other announcements today, like emergency response plans will be required for all crude oil shipments, some reduction in speed of trains carrying dangerous goods, and changes to insurance liability.
Nationally, while it may vary in some communities, around 10% of all products moved by each year by Canada's two major Class-1 Rail Companies are dangerous goods (Canadian National Railway and Canadian Pacific Railway, operate about 3/4s of Canada’s rail network). These traveling bombs and toxic tankers can be spotted in our communities daily. Over the last 25 years, Transport Canada has increasingly devolved the responsibility for, and management of, safety rules to the companies themselves; this is occurring at the same time as regulatory harmonization initiatives have been underway since NAFTA. Further, along with the Harper governments current cuts to, "Transport Canada’s rail safety division budget was cut by 19 per cent from 2010 to 2014 and frozen until at least 2015-16. The transportation of dangerous goods budget has been frozen since 2010." So, "this is the equivalent of one inspector for every 4,500 carloads of crude oil, up from one per 14 in 2009. By the end of this year, it will be one per 9,000 carloads."
Lets remember, in 2012 prior to the Lac Magnetic disaster the president and CEO of the Railway Association of Canada (RAC), Michael Bourque, was saying in regards to the concept of regulations that, “If today’s commercial context is replaced with a regulatory framework, it could quickly erode that trust because information that is currently shared between railways and customers... A regulatory approach could stifle the innovative solutions we have seen from the marketplace, reduce supply chain efficiency and negatively impact Canadian railways and their customers. Any new regulatory approach will not replicate the commercial marketplace- no matter how well it is written.”1 In response to yesterdays announcement, the RAC stated, “The rail sector believes rail tank cars used for transporting flammable liquids should be built to the highest standards. Today’s announcement of a three-year phase-out for legacy tank cars marks an important step toward a fleet of cars that will enhance safety.” I'm sure you can read between the lines here. While the painfully obvious step of having defined emergency response plans for crude by rail shipments is positive, it does nothing to address lowering the risk accidents in the first place with proper oversight and safety.
The minister talked about lowering speeds in some areas for unit trains carrying dangerous goods, but there was no talk of requirements for route planning and avoiding populated communities. Going around cities and populated areas might cut into the highly profitable rail industry's bottom line; they prefer the shortest routes possible and the Harper government is willing to roll the dice on your safety once again. Further, as noted previously, despite the fact that this hazardous freight continues to be shipped through many neighbourhoods across Canada, government/rail companies refuse to make this information public (citing 'security concerns'), despite a community's right to know what is moving past their homes, schools, hospitals and daycares. If a community was able to know what passes by them daily, they would surely demand rerouting which would cost the big rail and oil. Again, Lisa Raitt and Stephen Harper are playing their all to common roll as shills for corporate interest groups.
Lastly, changes to insurance rates. The Minister touts that the Government of Canada has invested $60 million to support response and recovery efforts in Lac-Mégantic and committed up to $95 million for decontamination efforts. The now bankrupt rail company responsible for the Lac Megantic tragedy only had $25 million in insurance, while costs are expected to be close to $1 billion (with Canadians left on the hook to pay the rest). Why TSBC and the Ministry of Transportation approved this company with such alarmingly low insurance is still unclear, but I am sure you can guess what the correlation is. What most people don't know is that rail companies don't own the majority of rail cars, oil companies and private shipping fleets do, but until now had the liabilities. For years the rail companies have been looking for ways to ameliorate their already substandard insurance costs without facing lawsuits from fleet suppliers. Now, much after the fact and billions of public dollars later, they will likely be handed the leverage they want from the government. At the same time, even after a difficult winter season the demand for crude by rail saw CP report a 16% year-over-year increase, a net profit of $254 million in the first quarter, and revenue in the quarter rose to $1.509 billion. At CN, there was a 12.2% increase, a net profit of $623 million in the first quarter, revenue in the quarter rose to $2.693 billion.
What is hopefully clear is that with this announcement we have the Harper government putting lips on a pig. The systemic issues and structural dangers with shipping oil by rail remain swept under the table until the next disaster and loss of life. On second thought, pigs don't deserve to be lumped in with these swindlers.
The Council of Canadians continue to support the call for an immediate moratorium on the use of DOT-111 cars for shipping oil by rail.
Further reading:
LINKS on Original URL:
[ http://canadians.org/blog/lisa-raitt-an ... ommunities ]
DOT-111 Detecting Disaster Spotters Guide
Could Toronto be the next Lac-Magnetic disaster
Oil cars on fire after train collision in North Dakota
Moving oil by rail to expand despite public concerns
Harper told no regulatory approval needed for moving tar sands oil by rail
- - - -
Michael Butler's blog
[ http://canadians.org/blogs/michael-butler ]
[ http://canadians.org/blog/lisa-raitt-an ... ommunities ]
April 24, 2014 - 6:00pm
(***NOTE: Please check original URL above for numerous LINKS in this article.)
There was more smoke and mirrors on Canada's rail tracks yesterday when the Harper Conservative government finally announced their long awaited changes to rail safety 292 days after the Lac-Magnetic (preventable) Disaster.
Transportation Minister Lisa Raitt announced that the federal government plans to phase-out or retrofit older DOT-111 tank cars over the next three years. Further, that a certain 5,000 tank cars that are the least crash resistant will be removed within 30 days by ministerial order. Mandatory emergency response plans will be required for all crude oil shipments, some reduction in speed of trains carrying dangerous goods, and changes to insurance liability. Lets also remember both Liberal and Conservative governments have known for over 20 years that these tankers were unsafe, both made a conscious choice not to act until tragedy struck (and still could again). While some of the new measure are a slight shift in the right direction, despite the optics these are simply minimal changes that won't create the significant actions needed to overhaul current practices.
Rait stated that "Officials have advised us three years is doable ... the best saw-offbetween what industry said that they could do and what is wanted by the Transportation Safety Board." As one energy and economics commentator from Alberta pointed out, “Doable is another word for economically feasible. The directive represents a reasonable timetable for shippers to address the market-access logistics to get oil to refiners rather than create any sort of "stretch objective" for industry to quickly remove a known threat to public safety.”
Again, the Conservative government proves itself to be a master of spin and doubletalk; the media seems to have largely accepted this news with either Orwellian 'goodthink' or 'doublethink'. Headlines read like a buffet of stale semantics; 'Ottawa to phase out unsafe tank cars'; 'Canada Toughens Rules for Rail Shipment of Dangerous Goods'; 'Canada to phase rail tankers involved in Lac Megantic crash'; 'Canada to drop 'flawed' tankers after Lac-Megantic blast'; and so on, and so on.
One of the claims is that over the next three years some the older DOT-111 tank cars will be fazed out, while others retrofitted. With a working life of between 30-40 years, the DOT-111 tank car is considered the workhorse of the North American fleet. These cars, which carry between 20,000 – 30,000 gallons make up about 70 per cent of all tankers on the rails. There are currently about 228,000 DOT-111 tank cars in North America, of which 171,000 carry hazmat. Out of that approximately 94,000 carry flammable liquids such as bakkan, crude and tarsands oil, along with ethanol many other dangerous liquids. At the same time, only 14,000 carrying oil and ethanol are built to the latest 2011 safety standards. There are 5 companies manufacturing 95% of the North American oil tanker fleet (none of which will give information regarding the massive manufacturing back log) and others in the industry simply laugh at the current proposal. The RSI's year-end 2013 report showed deliveries of 28,996 tank cars, and a backlog of 55,386. With builder capacity expected to be approximately 30,000 cars per year, this backlog will take a minimum of to two years to fill if not longer. We are told there are 5,000 tanker cars that will be removed in 30 days. Where this number comes from and how many operate in Canada is anyone's guess (including Lisa Rait), but it sure looks like action. Why if they are so dangerous that they needed to be drastically taken off the tracks in 30 days was this decision not made months or years ago? This type of obfuscation distracts people from the real point that we should be asking, is the danger of shipping explosive crude by rail through our towns, communities, and farmland is worth the risk. As Brain Stevens from UNIFOR, which represents thousands of unionized rail inspectors for states, “This announcement really falls short, and lets Canadians down, these DOT-11 cars, they should be banned from carrying crude oil immediately. They can still be used to carry vegetable oil, or diesel fuel, but for carrying this dangerous crude there should be an immediate moratorium and that should have been easy enough for the minister to do and she failed to do that.”
So why no real action or a moratorium as the Council of Canadians has been calling for? According to the rail industry, there were only 500 carloads of crude oil shipped by rail in Canada in 2009, while in 2013 there were 160,000 carloads. In the U.S. there were 400,000 carloads in 2013, up from 10,800 in 2009. As well, approval for new oil-train terminals and facilities has increased drastically. So, the truth is this government would rather gamble with the safety of communities, towns, and farmland than inconvenience their friends in rapidly expanding the tar sands and fracked bakkan oil plays.
What about some of the other announcements today, like emergency response plans will be required for all crude oil shipments, some reduction in speed of trains carrying dangerous goods, and changes to insurance liability.
Nationally, while it may vary in some communities, around 10% of all products moved by each year by Canada's two major Class-1 Rail Companies are dangerous goods (Canadian National Railway and Canadian Pacific Railway, operate about 3/4s of Canada’s rail network). These traveling bombs and toxic tankers can be spotted in our communities daily. Over the last 25 years, Transport Canada has increasingly devolved the responsibility for, and management of, safety rules to the companies themselves; this is occurring at the same time as regulatory harmonization initiatives have been underway since NAFTA. Further, along with the Harper governments current cuts to, "Transport Canada’s rail safety division budget was cut by 19 per cent from 2010 to 2014 and frozen until at least 2015-16. The transportation of dangerous goods budget has been frozen since 2010." So, "this is the equivalent of one inspector for every 4,500 carloads of crude oil, up from one per 14 in 2009. By the end of this year, it will be one per 9,000 carloads."
Lets remember, in 2012 prior to the Lac Magnetic disaster the president and CEO of the Railway Association of Canada (RAC), Michael Bourque, was saying in regards to the concept of regulations that, “If today’s commercial context is replaced with a regulatory framework, it could quickly erode that trust because information that is currently shared between railways and customers... A regulatory approach could stifle the innovative solutions we have seen from the marketplace, reduce supply chain efficiency and negatively impact Canadian railways and their customers. Any new regulatory approach will not replicate the commercial marketplace- no matter how well it is written.”1 In response to yesterdays announcement, the RAC stated, “The rail sector believes rail tank cars used for transporting flammable liquids should be built to the highest standards. Today’s announcement of a three-year phase-out for legacy tank cars marks an important step toward a fleet of cars that will enhance safety.” I'm sure you can read between the lines here. While the painfully obvious step of having defined emergency response plans for crude by rail shipments is positive, it does nothing to address lowering the risk accidents in the first place with proper oversight and safety.
The minister talked about lowering speeds in some areas for unit trains carrying dangerous goods, but there was no talk of requirements for route planning and avoiding populated communities. Going around cities and populated areas might cut into the highly profitable rail industry's bottom line; they prefer the shortest routes possible and the Harper government is willing to roll the dice on your safety once again. Further, as noted previously, despite the fact that this hazardous freight continues to be shipped through many neighbourhoods across Canada, government/rail companies refuse to make this information public (citing 'security concerns'), despite a community's right to know what is moving past their homes, schools, hospitals and daycares. If a community was able to know what passes by them daily, they would surely demand rerouting which would cost the big rail and oil. Again, Lisa Raitt and Stephen Harper are playing their all to common roll as shills for corporate interest groups.
Lastly, changes to insurance rates. The Minister touts that the Government of Canada has invested $60 million to support response and recovery efforts in Lac-Mégantic and committed up to $95 million for decontamination efforts. The now bankrupt rail company responsible for the Lac Megantic tragedy only had $25 million in insurance, while costs are expected to be close to $1 billion (with Canadians left on the hook to pay the rest). Why TSBC and the Ministry of Transportation approved this company with such alarmingly low insurance is still unclear, but I am sure you can guess what the correlation is. What most people don't know is that rail companies don't own the majority of rail cars, oil companies and private shipping fleets do, but until now had the liabilities. For years the rail companies have been looking for ways to ameliorate their already substandard insurance costs without facing lawsuits from fleet suppliers. Now, much after the fact and billions of public dollars later, they will likely be handed the leverage they want from the government. At the same time, even after a difficult winter season the demand for crude by rail saw CP report a 16% year-over-year increase, a net profit of $254 million in the first quarter, and revenue in the quarter rose to $1.509 billion. At CN, there was a 12.2% increase, a net profit of $623 million in the first quarter, revenue in the quarter rose to $2.693 billion.
What is hopefully clear is that with this announcement we have the Harper government putting lips on a pig. The systemic issues and structural dangers with shipping oil by rail remain swept under the table until the next disaster and loss of life. On second thought, pigs don't deserve to be lumped in with these swindlers.
The Council of Canadians continue to support the call for an immediate moratorium on the use of DOT-111 cars for shipping oil by rail.
Further reading:
LINKS on Original URL:
[ http://canadians.org/blog/lisa-raitt-an ... ommunities ]
DOT-111 Detecting Disaster Spotters Guide
Could Toronto be the next Lac-Magnetic disaster
Oil cars on fire after train collision in North Dakota
Moving oil by rail to expand despite public concerns
Harper told no regulatory approval needed for moving tar sands oil by rail
- - - -
Michael Butler's blog
[ http://canadians.org/blogs/michael-butler ]
- Oscar
- Site Admin
- Posts: 9965
- Joined: Wed May 03, 2006 3:23 pm
Safety and climate concerns as oil by rail surges forward in
by Oscar » Wed Apr 30, 2014 9:32 pm
Safety and climate concerns as oil by rail surges forward in North America
[ http://rabble.ca/blogs/bloggers/roger-a ... th-america ]
By Roger Annis | April 29, 2014
Roger Annis is a longtime socialist and trade union activist. He began his political activism with the Young Socialists of the day in Nova Scotia while at university. Since then, he has lived in most regions of Canada, including in Montreal where he became fluent in French. He is a retired aerospace worker living in Vancouver. Roger writes regularly on topics of social justice, peace, and on issues concerning Haiti. His personal blog can be found at http://www.rogerannis.com/. Roger is also an editor of the Canada Haiti Action Network website canadahaitiaction.ca . The group campaigns for Canada to break from the neo-colonial policies it has been practicing in Haiti with its U.S. and European allies and instead provide meaningful assistance for human development.
- - - - - -
QUOTE: “The danger of railway shipments in North America is illustrated by a front-page article [ http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2014/04 ... ronto.html ] appearing in the Toronto Star on April 26. It reports that in a 24-hour survey the newspaper recently conducted of one of the rail lines running through Toronto, owned by CP Rail, it counted more than 130 cars of crude oil, and tankers carrying methyl bromide and ethyl trichlorosilane -- highly poisonous chemicals rated among the world's most dangerous -- as well as radioactive material, methanol, diesel, sulphuric acid and other hazardous goods.
The article reports that the railways and the federal government cite "security" reasons for not divulging their shipments. But Fred Millar, a U.S. consultant on chemical safety and rail transport, tells the newspaper, "This security excuse is really a hoax. These are giant tank cars with placards on the sides that tell you what's in them."”
- - - - - - -
On April 23, Canada's minister of transport, Lisa Raitt, announced changes to railway transportation regulations in Canada that she says will make safe the rapidly growing transport of crude oil and Alberta tar sands bitumen in North America.
Raitt's changes come in response to citizen pressure following a string of spectacular oil train crashes in the past nine months, most particularly the crash in Lac-Mégantic, Quebec on July 6, 2013 that killed 47 people.
Raitt proposed two measures of substance: speed limits of 80 kilometres per hour must be followed henceforth by trains containing 20 or more wagons of dangerous goods (that speed can be lowered in populated or ecologically sensitive areas), and the most dangerous of the DOT-111 rail wagons used to transport oil -- those without continuous crash shields along the bottom, numbering 5,000 or so -- be withdrawn from carrying dangerous cargo within 30 days.
Otherwise, the minister says that Canada's estimated fleet of 65,000 older DOT-111s must undergo modifications within three years to improve crash resistance, and better emergency response plans must be in place for when crashes of trains carrying oil and other dangerous goods occur.
Until now, modifications to DOT-111s have been voluntary in the U.S. and Canada. As for emergency response, Canada already has a required "Emergency Response Assistance Plan" (ERAP) system on its railways for the transport of chlorine, liquid petroleum gases, explosives and other exceptionally dangerous cargo. That dates from the fallout of a 1979 rail crash and explosion of chlorine and propane in a Toronto suburb that forced the evacuation of 200,000 people from their homes. ERAPs will now be required for any train carrying crude oil or other liquid fossil fuel.
Raitt's announcement creates for the first time a divergence between Canadian and U.S. railway regulations. Cross-border harmonization has been previously assured by Canada simply following any U.S. regulatory lead. Now, for the first time, several distinct, Canadian regulations may come into place for trains that U.S. railways and shippers wish to bring across the border.
This could become a real headache in three years time if U.S. shippers and carriers take longer to modify or phase out older DOT-111s. And since Lac-Mégantic, they are showing few signs of any hurry. At a recent National Transportation Board hearing, a representative of the American Petroleum Institute said that older rail cars will be needed for at least 10 more years.
MORE:
[ http://rabble.ca/blogs/bloggers/roger-a ... th-america ]
[ http://rabble.ca/blogs/bloggers/roger-a ... th-america ]
By Roger Annis | April 29, 2014
Roger Annis is a longtime socialist and trade union activist. He began his political activism with the Young Socialists of the day in Nova Scotia while at university. Since then, he has lived in most regions of Canada, including in Montreal where he became fluent in French. He is a retired aerospace worker living in Vancouver. Roger writes regularly on topics of social justice, peace, and on issues concerning Haiti. His personal blog can be found at http://www.rogerannis.com/. Roger is also an editor of the Canada Haiti Action Network website canadahaitiaction.ca . The group campaigns for Canada to break from the neo-colonial policies it has been practicing in Haiti with its U.S. and European allies and instead provide meaningful assistance for human development.
- - - - - -
QUOTE: “The danger of railway shipments in North America is illustrated by a front-page article [ http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2014/04 ... ronto.html ] appearing in the Toronto Star on April 26. It reports that in a 24-hour survey the newspaper recently conducted of one of the rail lines running through Toronto, owned by CP Rail, it counted more than 130 cars of crude oil, and tankers carrying methyl bromide and ethyl trichlorosilane -- highly poisonous chemicals rated among the world's most dangerous -- as well as radioactive material, methanol, diesel, sulphuric acid and other hazardous goods.
The article reports that the railways and the federal government cite "security" reasons for not divulging their shipments. But Fred Millar, a U.S. consultant on chemical safety and rail transport, tells the newspaper, "This security excuse is really a hoax. These are giant tank cars with placards on the sides that tell you what's in them."”
- - - - - - -
On April 23, Canada's minister of transport, Lisa Raitt, announced changes to railway transportation regulations in Canada that she says will make safe the rapidly growing transport of crude oil and Alberta tar sands bitumen in North America.
Raitt's changes come in response to citizen pressure following a string of spectacular oil train crashes in the past nine months, most particularly the crash in Lac-Mégantic, Quebec on July 6, 2013 that killed 47 people.
Raitt proposed two measures of substance: speed limits of 80 kilometres per hour must be followed henceforth by trains containing 20 or more wagons of dangerous goods (that speed can be lowered in populated or ecologically sensitive areas), and the most dangerous of the DOT-111 rail wagons used to transport oil -- those without continuous crash shields along the bottom, numbering 5,000 or so -- be withdrawn from carrying dangerous cargo within 30 days.
Otherwise, the minister says that Canada's estimated fleet of 65,000 older DOT-111s must undergo modifications within three years to improve crash resistance, and better emergency response plans must be in place for when crashes of trains carrying oil and other dangerous goods occur.
Until now, modifications to DOT-111s have been voluntary in the U.S. and Canada. As for emergency response, Canada already has a required "Emergency Response Assistance Plan" (ERAP) system on its railways for the transport of chlorine, liquid petroleum gases, explosives and other exceptionally dangerous cargo. That dates from the fallout of a 1979 rail crash and explosion of chlorine and propane in a Toronto suburb that forced the evacuation of 200,000 people from their homes. ERAPs will now be required for any train carrying crude oil or other liquid fossil fuel.
Raitt's announcement creates for the first time a divergence between Canadian and U.S. railway regulations. Cross-border harmonization has been previously assured by Canada simply following any U.S. regulatory lead. Now, for the first time, several distinct, Canadian regulations may come into place for trains that U.S. railways and shippers wish to bring across the border.
This could become a real headache in three years time if U.S. shippers and carriers take longer to modify or phase out older DOT-111s. And since Lac-Mégantic, they are showing few signs of any hurry. At a recent National Transportation Board hearing, a representative of the American Petroleum Institute said that older rail cars will be needed for at least 10 more years.
MORE:
[ http://rabble.ca/blogs/bloggers/roger-a ... th-america ]
- Oscar
- Site Admin
- Posts: 9965
- Joined: Wed May 03, 2006 3:23 pm
Regulatory failure: Who's actually to blame for Lac-Mégantic
by Oscar » Sat May 24, 2014 7:08 am
Regulatory failure: Who's actually to blame for Lac-Mégantic disaster?
[ http://rabble.ca/news/2014/05/regulator ... c-disaster ]
May 23, 2014 | By Bruce Campbell
Prosecutors laid criminal charges against three front-line employees of Montreal Maine and Atlantic Railway. But, where does responsibility actually fall for the regulatory lapse at Lac-Mégantic?
[ http://rabble.ca/news/2014/05/regulator ... c-disaster ]
May 23, 2014 | By Bruce Campbell
Prosecutors laid criminal charges against three front-line employees of Montreal Maine and Atlantic Railway. But, where does responsibility actually fall for the regulatory lapse at Lac-Mégantic?
- Oscar
- Site Admin
- Posts: 9965
- Joined: Wed May 03, 2006 3:23 pm
Re: Coming to a town near you: Crude-by-Rail
by Oscar » Fri Oct 10, 2014 5:10 pm
LeNEVEU: Energy East Pipeline Spill, Explosion and Toxic Smoke Plume (. . . like the one we saw near Clair, SK 3 days ago?????)
[ http://www.canadianswinnipeg.org/apps/b ... moke-plume ]
By D.M. LeNeveu October 6, 2014
On July 6, 2013 the fireball from a spill of 5.7 million litres of Bakken crude oil from a train derailment destroyed the town centre, in Megantic Quebec killing 47 people (1,2). Could the same thing happen from a spill of dilbit along the Energy East pipeline? The simple answer is yes. A spill and fire could occur anywhere from Alberta to St. John New Brunswick including in heavily populated centres such as Winnipeg, Toronto and Montreal.
DILBIT IS FLAMMABLE, HOT, CORROSIVE, ABRASIVE, CONTAINS DEADLY H2S AND HAS A THOUSAND TIMES THE ENERGY CONTENT OF NATURAL GAS
MORE:
[ http://www.canadianswinnipeg.org/apps/b ... moke-plume ]
Dennis LeNeveu is a retired scientist with a passion for the truth about fracking, tar sands, and fossil fuel energy. He generously gives of his time and considerable talents to speak and write for the Winnipeg chapter, and would be happy to answer questions on the subject.
[ http://www.canadianswinnipeg.org/apps/b ... moke-plume ]
By D.M. LeNeveu October 6, 2014
On July 6, 2013 the fireball from a spill of 5.7 million litres of Bakken crude oil from a train derailment destroyed the town centre, in Megantic Quebec killing 47 people (1,2). Could the same thing happen from a spill of dilbit along the Energy East pipeline? The simple answer is yes. A spill and fire could occur anywhere from Alberta to St. John New Brunswick including in heavily populated centres such as Winnipeg, Toronto and Montreal.
DILBIT IS FLAMMABLE, HOT, CORROSIVE, ABRASIVE, CONTAINS DEADLY H2S AND HAS A THOUSAND TIMES THE ENERGY CONTENT OF NATURAL GAS
MORE:
[ http://www.canadianswinnipeg.org/apps/b ... moke-plume ]
Dennis LeNeveu is a retired scientist with a passion for the truth about fracking, tar sands, and fossil fuel energy. He generously gives of his time and considerable talents to speak and write for the Winnipeg chapter, and would be happy to answer questions on the subject.
- Oscar
- Site Admin
- Posts: 9965
- Joined: Wed May 03, 2006 3:23 pm
Re: Coming to a town near you: Crude-by-Rail
by Oscar » Fri Feb 06, 2015 11:32 am
Dangerous Bomb Trains Return to the Town That Was Devastated By One
Oil-by-rail again runs through Lac-Megantic, Quebec, the scene of a horrific explosion.
[ http://www.alternet.org/environment/dan ... 31394&t=13 ]
By Justin Mikulka / DeSmogBlog January 3, 2015
“We’re seeing strong growth. We’re seeing some large accounts come back. The future is bright.”
According to the Portland Press Herald, that was the assessment of the future by Ryan Ratledge, the current chief operating officer for Central Maine and Quebec Railway, the railroad that runs through Lac-Megantic, Quebec.
Central Maine and Quebec Railway is the new name of the railroad that was operating the train that caused the oil train disaster in Lac Megantic in July 2013 that resulted in the death of 47 people. As DeSmogBlog reported previously, cost cutting measures by the railroad were directly linked to the cause of the accident.
After the accident, the railway declared bankruptcy and the assets were purchased by Fortress Investment Group, which currently manages over $66 billion in assets.
The oil trains will start rolling through downtown Lac-Megantic again by 2016. Other “dangerous goods” are already being shipped on the railway.
While many see the tragedy in Lac-Megantic as a dire warning about what happens when the lust for profit goes unregulated with no regard for the environment or safety, for the multi-billion-dollar hedge fund Fortress, it is just another success story. Every crisis is an opportunity. Disaster capitalism works.
MORE:
[ http://www.alternet.org/environment/dan ... 31394&t=13 ]
Oil-by-rail again runs through Lac-Megantic, Quebec, the scene of a horrific explosion.
[ http://www.alternet.org/environment/dan ... 31394&t=13 ]
By Justin Mikulka / DeSmogBlog January 3, 2015
“We’re seeing strong growth. We’re seeing some large accounts come back. The future is bright.”
According to the Portland Press Herald, that was the assessment of the future by Ryan Ratledge, the current chief operating officer for Central Maine and Quebec Railway, the railroad that runs through Lac-Megantic, Quebec.
Central Maine and Quebec Railway is the new name of the railroad that was operating the train that caused the oil train disaster in Lac Megantic in July 2013 that resulted in the death of 47 people. As DeSmogBlog reported previously, cost cutting measures by the railroad were directly linked to the cause of the accident.
After the accident, the railway declared bankruptcy and the assets were purchased by Fortress Investment Group, which currently manages over $66 billion in assets.
The oil trains will start rolling through downtown Lac-Megantic again by 2016. Other “dangerous goods” are already being shipped on the railway.
While many see the tragedy in Lac-Megantic as a dire warning about what happens when the lust for profit goes unregulated with no regard for the environment or safety, for the multi-billion-dollar hedge fund Fortress, it is just another success story. Every crisis is an opportunity. Disaster capitalism works.
MORE:
[ http://www.alternet.org/environment/dan ... 31394&t=13 ]
- Oscar
- Site Admin
- Posts: 9965
- Joined: Wed May 03, 2006 3:23 pm
Re: Coming to a town near you: Crude-by-Rail
by Oscar » Sun Feb 22, 2015 5:28 pm
TransCanada has big new plans for moving oil around, and you won’t like them
[ http://grist.org/business-technology/tr ... ign=buffer ]
By John Light on 20 Feb 2015
TransCanada, the company pushing the Keystone XL plan, is cooking up some new projects. Watch out.
First: A pipeline going in the other direction. This one would move oil from North Dakota, where drilling is booming, up to Canada. The company hopes it will be particularly appealing since the alternative method of moving that volatile crude is by rail — and, unfortunately, the trains keep blowing up. [ http://grist.org/news/oil-trains-are-bl ... the-place/ ]
From the Associated Press: [ http://talkingpointsmemo.com/world-news ... ranscanada ]
TransCanada Corp.’s proposed $600 million Upland Pipeline would begin near the northwestern North Dakota oil hub of Williston and go north into Canada about 200 miles. At peak operation it would transport up to 300,000 barrels of oil daily, connecting with other pipelines including the Energy East pipeline across Canada. …
TransCanada hopes to have the Upland Pipeline operating in 2018, pending approval from the U.S. State Department, North Dakota’s Public Service Commission and Canada’s National Energy Board. The company plans to submit an application to the State Department in the second quarter of this year. …
TransCanada spokesman Davis Sheremata on Thursday said the company can’t speculate on whether it might run into similar problems with Upland [as it has with Keystone]. Company President and CEO Russ Girling last week told analysts and reporters that he hopes the drawn-out Keystone XL process is “an anomaly.”
And though the pipelines-are-safer-than-trains angle is a major selling point for this new project, the company is hedging its bets: TransCanada “will probably enter the rail business in some form or fashion in the coming months,” said its CEO, Russ Girling, in a speech earlier this month.
From the Canadian Financial Post: [ http://www.calgaryherald.com/TransCanad ... story.html ]
Facing increased pressure from rail cutting into its business, while the Keystone XL pipeline remains under unending American review, TransCanada Corp. said it is planning to diversify into the oil-by-rail business within months, improving its customers’ ability to connect to its sprawling North American pipeline and storage network. …
TransCanada’s move to include rail in its arsenal has become necessary as rail companies Canadian National Railway Co. and Canadian Pacific Railway Ltd. enjoy a windfall from the oil transportation business. TransCanada’s competitors, including Kinder Morgan Inc. and Enbridge Energy Inc., are also building rail capacity to get around pipeline infrastructure constraints.
That oil-by-rail side business would just be a temporary solution until Keystone gets built, Girling said.
Both new efforts could face heavy opposition. Environmental activists are getting good at making big oil infrastructure projects into political sinkholes, and oil trains are coming in for particularly virulent criticism these days. [ http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/won ... -pipeline/ ] Opposition to Keystone might no longer be an “anomaly,” as Girling described it; try the new normal.
[ http://grist.org/business-technology/tr ... ign=buffer ]
By John Light on 20 Feb 2015
TransCanada, the company pushing the Keystone XL plan, is cooking up some new projects. Watch out.
First: A pipeline going in the other direction. This one would move oil from North Dakota, where drilling is booming, up to Canada. The company hopes it will be particularly appealing since the alternative method of moving that volatile crude is by rail — and, unfortunately, the trains keep blowing up. [ http://grist.org/news/oil-trains-are-bl ... the-place/ ]
From the Associated Press: [ http://talkingpointsmemo.com/world-news ... ranscanada ]
TransCanada Corp.’s proposed $600 million Upland Pipeline would begin near the northwestern North Dakota oil hub of Williston and go north into Canada about 200 miles. At peak operation it would transport up to 300,000 barrels of oil daily, connecting with other pipelines including the Energy East pipeline across Canada. …
TransCanada hopes to have the Upland Pipeline operating in 2018, pending approval from the U.S. State Department, North Dakota’s Public Service Commission and Canada’s National Energy Board. The company plans to submit an application to the State Department in the second quarter of this year. …
TransCanada spokesman Davis Sheremata on Thursday said the company can’t speculate on whether it might run into similar problems with Upland [as it has with Keystone]. Company President and CEO Russ Girling last week told analysts and reporters that he hopes the drawn-out Keystone XL process is “an anomaly.”
And though the pipelines-are-safer-than-trains angle is a major selling point for this new project, the company is hedging its bets: TransCanada “will probably enter the rail business in some form or fashion in the coming months,” said its CEO, Russ Girling, in a speech earlier this month.
From the Canadian Financial Post: [ http://www.calgaryherald.com/TransCanad ... story.html ]
Facing increased pressure from rail cutting into its business, while the Keystone XL pipeline remains under unending American review, TransCanada Corp. said it is planning to diversify into the oil-by-rail business within months, improving its customers’ ability to connect to its sprawling North American pipeline and storage network. …
TransCanada’s move to include rail in its arsenal has become necessary as rail companies Canadian National Railway Co. and Canadian Pacific Railway Ltd. enjoy a windfall from the oil transportation business. TransCanada’s competitors, including Kinder Morgan Inc. and Enbridge Energy Inc., are also building rail capacity to get around pipeline infrastructure constraints.
That oil-by-rail side business would just be a temporary solution until Keystone gets built, Girling said.
Both new efforts could face heavy opposition. Environmental activists are getting good at making big oil infrastructure projects into political sinkholes, and oil trains are coming in for particularly virulent criticism these days. [ http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/won ... -pipeline/ ] Opposition to Keystone might no longer be an “anomaly,” as Girling described it; try the new normal.
- Oscar
- Site Admin
- Posts: 9965
- Joined: Wed May 03, 2006 3:23 pm
Re: Coming to a town near you: Crude-by-Rail
by Oscar » Fri Feb 27, 2015 9:49 am
Oil train wrecks increase pressure for tougher safety rules
[ http://www.delcotimes.com/general-news/ ... fety-rules ]
By JOAN LOWY, Associated Press Posted: 02/27/15, 6:38 AM EST |
- - - -
QUOTE: " A Transportation Department analysis predicts that trains hauling crude oil or ethanol will derail an average of 10 times a year over the next two decades, causing more than $4 billion in damage and possibly killing hundreds of people if an accident happens in a densely populated part of the U.S."
- - - - -
WASHINGTON >> Fiery wrecks of trains hauling crude oil have intensified pressure on the Obama administration to approve tougher standards for railroads and tank cars despite industry complaints that it could cost billions and slow freight deliveries.
On Feb. 5, the Transportation Department sent the White House draft rules that would require oil trains to use stronger tank cars and make other safety improvements.
Nine days later a 100-car train hauling crude oil and petroleum distillates derailed and caught fire in a remote part of Ontario, Canada. Less than 48 hours later, a 109-car oil train derailed and caught fire in West Virginia, leaking oil into a Kanawha River tributary and burning a house to its foundation. As the fire spread across 19 of the cars, a nearby resident said the explosions sounded like an “atomic bomb.” Both fires burned for nearly a week.
MORE:
[ http://www.delcotimes.com/general-news/ ... fety-rules ]
[ http://www.delcotimes.com/general-news/ ... fety-rules ]
By JOAN LOWY, Associated Press Posted: 02/27/15, 6:38 AM EST |
- - - -
QUOTE: " A Transportation Department analysis predicts that trains hauling crude oil or ethanol will derail an average of 10 times a year over the next two decades, causing more than $4 billion in damage and possibly killing hundreds of people if an accident happens in a densely populated part of the U.S."
- - - - -
WASHINGTON >> Fiery wrecks of trains hauling crude oil have intensified pressure on the Obama administration to approve tougher standards for railroads and tank cars despite industry complaints that it could cost billions and slow freight deliveries.
On Feb. 5, the Transportation Department sent the White House draft rules that would require oil trains to use stronger tank cars and make other safety improvements.
Nine days later a 100-car train hauling crude oil and petroleum distillates derailed and caught fire in a remote part of Ontario, Canada. Less than 48 hours later, a 109-car oil train derailed and caught fire in West Virginia, leaking oil into a Kanawha River tributary and burning a house to its foundation. As the fire spread across 19 of the cars, a nearby resident said the explosions sounded like an “atomic bomb.” Both fires burned for nearly a week.
MORE:
[ http://www.delcotimes.com/general-news/ ... fety-rules ]
- Oscar
- Site Admin
- Posts: 9965
- Joined: Wed May 03, 2006 3:23 pm
Re: Coming to a town near you: Crude-by-Rail
by Oscar » Mon Mar 16, 2015 11:07 am
Train Deaths Rise Amid Energy-Driven Rail Transformation
[ http://www.scientificamerican.com/artic ... formation/ ]
Fatalities reach seven-year high as railroads embark on a record expansion
March 16, 2015 |By Marianne Lavelle and Daily Climate
Every week in the United States in 2014, about 16 people were killed by trains—a 17 percent increase over the previous year and adding up to the highest number of rail casualties since 2007, federal government data shows.
[ http://safetydata.fra.dot.gov/OfficeofS ... fault.aspx ]
None of these victims died in fiery crude oil explosions like the ones visible for miles around train derailment sites this month in Illinois and Ontario. But in some regions, there are signs that the increasing deaths may be tied to a massive energy-driven transformation underway on U.S. railroads. (See sidebar, "Five ways energy is driving new railroad traffic.")
Ready for expansion?
Adding to risk are surging U.S. passenger railroads, which typically operate on the same tracks as freight. The number of people struck and killed by passenger trains last year, about 255, was the highest toll of non-passenger fatalities for those railroads in 40 years of record-keeping by the U.S. Department of Transportation's Federal Railroad Administration (FRA).
[ http://safetydata.fra.dot.gov/OfficeofS ... rview.aspx ]
The increase in fatalities raises questions whether the nation is prepared for the massive rail expansion already underway. Railroads plan record capital spending of $29 billion this year. They'll lay new track, double existing track, buy locomotives and build terminals.
MORE:
[ http://www.scientificamerican.com/artic ... formation/ ]
- - - -
More In This Article
Fast-Growing Railroads Will Miss Safety System Deadline
[ http://www.dailyclimate.org/tdc-newsroo ... ety-system ]
Five Ways Energy Is Transforming U.S. Railroads
[ http://www.dailyclimate.org/tdc-newsroo ... forming-us ]
[ http://www.scientificamerican.com/artic ... formation/ ]
Fatalities reach seven-year high as railroads embark on a record expansion
March 16, 2015 |By Marianne Lavelle and Daily Climate
Every week in the United States in 2014, about 16 people were killed by trains—a 17 percent increase over the previous year and adding up to the highest number of rail casualties since 2007, federal government data shows.
[ http://safetydata.fra.dot.gov/OfficeofS ... fault.aspx ]
None of these victims died in fiery crude oil explosions like the ones visible for miles around train derailment sites this month in Illinois and Ontario. But in some regions, there are signs that the increasing deaths may be tied to a massive energy-driven transformation underway on U.S. railroads. (See sidebar, "Five ways energy is driving new railroad traffic.")
Ready for expansion?
Adding to risk are surging U.S. passenger railroads, which typically operate on the same tracks as freight. The number of people struck and killed by passenger trains last year, about 255, was the highest toll of non-passenger fatalities for those railroads in 40 years of record-keeping by the U.S. Department of Transportation's Federal Railroad Administration (FRA).
[ http://safetydata.fra.dot.gov/OfficeofS ... rview.aspx ]
The increase in fatalities raises questions whether the nation is prepared for the massive rail expansion already underway. Railroads plan record capital spending of $29 billion this year. They'll lay new track, double existing track, buy locomotives and build terminals.
MORE:
[ http://www.scientificamerican.com/artic ... formation/ ]
- - - -
More In This Article
Fast-Growing Railroads Will Miss Safety System Deadline
[ http://www.dailyclimate.org/tdc-newsroo ... ety-system ]
Five Ways Energy Is Transforming U.S. Railroads
[ http://www.dailyclimate.org/tdc-newsroo ... forming-us ]
- Oscar
- Site Admin
- Posts: 9965
- Joined: Wed May 03, 2006 3:23 pm
18 posts
• Page 1 of 2 • 1, 2
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 10 guests