Donate Bitcoin

Donate Paypal


PeakOil is You

PeakOil is You

Oil via rail

General discussions of the systemic, societal and civilisational effects of depletion.

Moderator: Pops

Re: Oil via rail

Unread postby Graeme » Mon 28 Jul 2014, 18:34:32

Bomb Trains: The Crude Gamble of Oil by Rail

It’s estimated that 9 million barrels of crude oil are moving over the rail lines of North America at any given moment. Oil trains charging through Virginia, North Dakota, Alabama, and Canada’s Quebec, New Brunswick, and Alberta provinces have derailed and exploded, resulting in severe environmental damage and, in the case of Quebec, considerable human casualties.

A continental oil boom and lack of pipeline infrastructure have forced unprecedented amounts of oil onto US and Canadian railroads. With 43 times more oil being hauled along US rail lines in 2013 than in 2005, communities across North America are bracing for another catastrophe.

VICE News traveled to the Pacific Northwest to investigate the rapid expansion of oil-by-rail transport and speak with residents on the frontline of the battle over bomb trains.

Find out if you live in a "bomb train" blast zone here.


vice
Human history becomes more and more a race between education and catastrophe. H. G. Wells.
Fatih Birol's motto: leave oil before it leaves us.
User avatar
Graeme
Master
Master
 
Posts: 13257
Joined: Fri 04 Mar 2005, 03:00:00
Location: New Zealand

Re: Oil via rail

Unread postby ROCKMAN » Mon 04 Aug 2014, 13:32:52

Oki dokie...keep fighting oil pipelines and they'll just roll more of those "bomb trains" through the Toledo area and along the easy coast:

Reuters - PBF Energy Inc is taking some crude by rail at its Ohio refinery via a third party, but the company may build its own offloading facility there, Chief Executive Officer Tom Nimbley told analysts on Friday. "We are actively looking at how to effectively put in a rail unloading facility, either within the property of Toledo or very close that will be our own," he said during the company's quarterly earnings call. PBF recently finished expanding a rail-offloading infrastructure at its Delaware refinery, which now has capacity to offload up to 210,000 barrels per day - 130,000 bpd of North Dakota Bakken and 80,000 bpd Canadian heavy crude. Whether shipments reach those levels depends on crude pricing, Chairman Tom O'Malley noted. In the third and fourth quarters this year, PBF has "significant volumes" of Iraqi crude coming in that could shrink the company's appetite for Canadian oil if better priced, he said. The same applies to Bakken crude shipments. "We will take in as much as we can, provided we don't see better economics on the import side," he said. A company official said those purchases would be of Iraqi Basra crude, a type the company has bought previously, according to data from the U.S. Energy Information Administration. Sales of Basra crude are managed by Iraq's central government and are not the subject of several ongoing disputes over tankers carrying Kurdish Shaikan crude that were exported by Iraq's autonomous region of Kurdistan. Baghdad has vowed to crack down on Kurdistan's exports. Earlier this week PBF also denied having received any Kurdish Shaikan crude when asked about a shipment that arrived in early June on the U.S. East Coast.

Yep...the anti-pipeline crowd keeps piling up more hollow victories. LOL.
User avatar
ROCKMAN
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 9681
Joined: Tue 27 May 2008, 02:00:00
Location: TEXAS

Re: Oil via rail

Unread postby Graeme » Wed 06 Aug 2014, 22:05:27

Railroads don't have anywhere near enough insurance to cover cost of oil-train accidents

Damage from the Lac-Mégantic, Quebec, oil-train derailment last July, which killed 47 people and destroyed 30 major buildings in the town center, has been variously estimated, with some analysts putting the figure at $2.5 billion or more. But the railroad company hauling the oil in that train only carried $25 million in insurance coverage. It went bankrupt.
Most railroad insurance policies don't come close to covering the potential damages of a major oil-train accident and, if adopted in its current form, a newly proposed U.S. Department of Transportation rule governing the carrying of crude oil by rail won't include any help on that score.

Kathryn A. Wolfe reports:

Those conclusions come from a DOT analysis of its own rule proposed to address the series of troubling derailments across North America as shipments of oil by rail surge.
The department issued the analysis Aug. 1, the same day it published its proposed oil train safety rule that is meant to create what Transportation Secretary Anthony Foxx calls a “New World Order” in oil trains regulations, including by requiring sturdier tank cars, tightened speed limits and improved brakes for the trains carrying an ever-greater amount of crude oil through communities from Southern California to Albany, N.Y. [...]

DOT’s analysis says most of the largest railroads commonly carry around $25 million in insurance, though that can rise to as much as $50 million for trains hauling certain kinds of hazardous chemicals. Smaller railroads—such as the one in the Lac-Mégantic disaster — often carry much less than that.


Even if they could, the most insurance coverage available for such accidents tops out at $1 billion per incident. So, who ultimately pays? Taxpayers.


dailykos
Human history becomes more and more a race between education and catastrophe. H. G. Wells.
Fatih Birol's motto: leave oil before it leaves us.
User avatar
Graeme
Master
Master
 
Posts: 13257
Joined: Fri 04 Mar 2005, 03:00:00
Location: New Zealand

Re: Oil via rail

Unread postby ROCKMAN » Tue 12 Aug 2014, 07:43:28

Apparently another example of a falsehood being accepted as fact if it repeated often enough. The reality: Bakken oil is no more dangerous than any of the other light oils currently transported by train in the US:

Reuters - Bakken crude is no more dangerous than other light sweet crudes and poses no greater risk when transported by rail, according to a report prepared for the North Dakota Petroleum Council (NDPC). The NDPC report is based on laboratory tests conducted by the international inspection firm SGS, counters charges that Bakken is unusually dangerous and pushes back against assertions by U.S. government regulators that the oil is so uniquely dangerous that it requires special safety measures. The report rejects an allegation by the U.S. government that Bakken oil is more volatile than most other crudes and faults regulators for what it calls a failure to provide evidence before making such a sweeping statement. It rejects views that Bakken is unsuitable to be carried in Class 111 tank cars, which have been implicated in a recent spate of fiery derailments.

But the report agrees with regulators in recommending that Bakken crude be classified and placarded as high risk (Packing Group I) rather than medium or low risk (Packing Groups II and III) flammable liquids under federal regulations governing the transport of hazardous materials. It also accepts that "no rail car is designed to always withstand the full force of a high-speed train derailment; and once containment is breached during such an event, there are countless ignition sources" that can cause a devastating fire. In doing so, the report implicitly acknowledges the government's case for insisting on a new design for future tank cars and retrofitting old ones to reduce the probability of spills.

"The North Dakota Petroleum Council Study on Bakken Crude Properties," presented to state regulators on Wednesday, is based on an analysis of around 150 samples collected from seven rail sites and 15 wells during March and April and says it is "the most thorough and comprehensive study of crude quality from a tight oil production basin to date". Samples were tested by SGS, an independent testing firm, for gravity, sulphur and various measures of volatility - including vapour pressure, initial boiling point, flash point and proportion of light ends such as ethane, propane and butane. "Bakken crude is a light sweet crude with an API gravity between 40 and 43 degrees and a sulphur content of less than 0.2 percent by weight," according to the report. "As such it is similar to many other light sweet crude oils produced and transported in the United States."

Test results put Bakken's vapour pressure at around 11 pounds per square inch - well below the limit of 43.5 psi for flammable liquids prescribed by the hazmat regulations, and far below the 100 psi design threshold of Class 111 tank cars. By volume, Bakken contains about 5 percent light ends such as ethane, propane and butane, which can come out of solution and form explosive gases. But the light ends content is in line with other light crudes, suggesting Bakken is no more volatile than other domestic and international crude oils.

For classifying crude under the hazmat regulations, however, the two most important tests are flash point and initial boiling point. The tests found the flash point for all the samples was below 73 degrees Fahrenheit (23 degrees Celsius), so Bakken cannot be classified in the lowest-risk Packing Group III. The initial boiling point of the samples averaged 100 degrees Fahrenheit (which is just in Packing Group II). But many of the readings were around the 95-degree threshold that divides Packing Group II (medium risk) from Packing Group I (highest risk). To err on the safe side, the report recommends all crude cargoes be classified as PG I even where test results indicate they could be placarded as PG II. The test results confirm that the areas of disagreement with regulators are much narrower than is often thought. U.S. and Canadian regulators and accident investigators complained that some cargoes had been placarded as Packing Group III (which everyone accepts is clearly wrong). The only real dispute is whether tank cars carrying Bakken should be correctly placarded as Packing Group II or Packing Group I. Everyone accepts the judgment is a fine one, but it is safest to classify cargoes as PG I, if only to remind shippers and railroads of the dangers posed by oil trains and warn emergency responders of the seriousness of the potential fire hazard.

The NDPC report takes great exception to a statement in a recent federal government rulemaking which observed Bakken oil "is more volatile than most other types of crude" without providing comparative data. But even here, the difference is less than it seems. Bakken is no more volatile than other types of light crude, but of course it is considerably more volatile than medium or heavy crudes. Therein lies the problem. "Bakken is moved by rail, pipeline and truck, and has been for decades," the report notes. "In the last few years, crude-by-rail has increased rapidly as production has topped 1 million barrels per day, and as such the opportunities for incidents to occur have increased."

Bakken has not become more dangerous. But when U.S. railroads were hauling only small quantities of crude, much of it medium or heavy grades, the number of light oil cargoes was too low for the full risks to be apparent. Now the number of light crude cargoes has increased by several orders of magnitude, the true riskiness of carrying it in old tank cars has been revealed.
User avatar
ROCKMAN
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 9681
Joined: Tue 27 May 2008, 02:00:00
Location: TEXAS

Re: Oil via rail

Unread postby ROCKMAN » Fri 15 Aug 2014, 20:17:19

Once again the anti-pipelines have scored another victory...for the railroads. So what if the locals will suffer some increased risk of derailments and explosions. What's important is they won't be plagued by more buried oil pipelines. LOL.

Reuters - Royal Dutch Shell's proposal to move by rail up to 60,000 barrels per day of North American crude to its Washington state refinery will not have to undergo a lengthy environmental review, local planners said this week. The Skagit County Planning and Development Services division's decision that a full-fledged environmental review is not required eliminates what could have been a lengthy delay of up to a year. Shell's project could now start up by early 2015, but the company has not disclosed when. Shell is the last of the state's refiners to seek approvals to move cheaper U.S. and Canadian oil by train to their plants to replace more expensive imports. Tesoro Corp was the first, starting shipments of up to 50,000 bpd to its 120,000 bpd Anacortes refinery in September 2012. Shell's 145,000 bpd refinery sits right next to the Tesoro plant.

U.S. Oil & Refining and BP followed suit, and Phillips 66 aims to start up its 30,000 bpd rail offloading operation at its 101,000 bpd Ferndale plant in the fourth quarter this year. Those other projects did not have to undergo full environmental reviews on top of required permitting. Opponents concerned about crude by rail safety and environmental impacts were unaware of previous projects when they were in the permitting stages. But opponents took notice when Shell initially filed for permits late last year. Skagit County planners responded by requiring Shell to meet some additional conditions, but the overall environmental impact is not expected to be significant, eliminating the need for a full review, they said in a notice posted on their website.
User avatar
ROCKMAN
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 9681
Joined: Tue 27 May 2008, 02:00:00
Location: TEXAS

Re: Oil via rail

Unread postby Synapsid » Fri 15 Aug 2014, 21:07:52

ROCKMAN,

Note that "Opponents...were unaware of previous projects when they were in the permitting stages." This was in spite of public meetings and newspaper articles, all of which were available online and by public posting.

I have to wonder who these opponents are. I believe the Sierra Club and Greenpeace are numbered among them.
Synapsid
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 759
Joined: Tue 06 Aug 2013, 20:21:50

Re: Oil via rail

Unread postby ROCKMAN » Sat 16 Aug 2014, 17:53:35

Syn - Maybe they were to distracted by the glow of their success in delaying the permit of the Northern leg of Keystone XL. Just like they failed to provide much focus on the expansion of other pipelines moving the oil sands production as well as the rest of the expanding rail oil transport systems. Kind of like bragging about the success of one battle while all around you the war is being lost. Reminds me the orders sent to the Japanese commander on Iwo Jima - Essentially no help could be sent and he would certainly lose the battle. But his orders were to sacrifice every soldier under his command in order to inflict the most damage to the American forces. According to the official Navy Department Library website, "The 36-day Iwo Jima assault resulted in more than 26,000 American casualties, including 6,800 dead." By comparison, the much larger scale 82-day Battle for Okinawa lasting from early April until mid-June 1945 and U.S. resulted in casualties of over 62,000 of whom over 12,000 were killed or missing. Iwo Jima was also the only U.S. Marine battle where the American casualties exceeded the Japanese. Maybe if they're luck no one along the new rail lines will join the ranks of the Iwo casualties.

It's not like I haven't been warning some of the anti-KXL folks for some time.
User avatar
ROCKMAN
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 9681
Joined: Tue 27 May 2008, 02:00:00
Location: TEXAS

Re: Oil via rail

Unread postby Graeme » Tue 19 Aug 2014, 18:29:50

Report Reveals Cost Cutting Measures At Heart Of Lac-Megantic Oil Train Disaster

cToday the Transportation Safety Board of Canada (TSB) released its final report on the July 6th, 2013 train derailment in Lac-Megantic, Quebec. The report produced a strong reaction from Keith Stewart, Greenpeace Canada’s Climate and Energy Campaign coordinator.

“This report is a searing indictment of Transport Canada’s failure to protect the public from a company that they knew was cutting corners on safety despite the fact that it was carrying increasing amounts of hazardous cargo. This lax approach to safety has allowed the unsafe transport of oil by rail to continue to grow even after the Lac Megantic disaster. It is time for the federal government to finally put community safety ahead of oil and rail company profits or we will see more tragedies, Stewart said.”

Throughout the report there is ample evidence to support Stewart’s position and plenty to show why the people of Lac-Megantic want the CEO of Montreal, Maine & Atlantic Railway (MMA), the rail company responsible for the accident, held accountable in place of the engineer and other low level employees currently facing charges.

At the press conference for the release of the report the TSB representatives often noted that they had found 18 factors that contributed to the actual crash and they were not willing to assign blame to anyone, claiming that wasn’t their role.

But several critical factors stand out and they are the result of MMA putting profits ahead of safety and Transport Canada (TC), the Canadian regulators responsible for overseeing rail safety, failing to do its job.


desmogblog
Human history becomes more and more a race between education and catastrophe. H. G. Wells.
Fatih Birol's motto: leave oil before it leaves us.
User avatar
Graeme
Master
Master
 
Posts: 13257
Joined: Fri 04 Mar 2005, 03:00:00
Location: New Zealand

Re: Oil via rail

Unread postby Graeme » Tue 19 Aug 2014, 21:30:02

Do you live in the 'blast zone'? Crude oil rail lines mapped

With millions of litres of crude oil being shipped on trains throughout North America, the Lac-Megantic disaster could have struck elsewhere, including in some of the country’s most densely-populated areas.

An online tool created by environmental non-profit group ForestEthics charts oil train routes across North America, allowing Canadians and Americans to determine exactly how close they live to the “blast zone.”

The tool uses U.S. Department of Transportation data to identify an 800-metre “red zone” evacuation area in case of an oil train derailment, as well as a 1.6-kilometre “yellow zone” evacuation area in the case of an oil train fire.
The group didn’t indicate how many Canadians live in the blast zone, but the map shows several major Canadian cities are home to oil-by-rail lines, including:
Montreal
Toronto
Winnipeg
Regina
Calgary
Edmonton
Vancouver

An oil train explosion similar to the one that killed 47 people in Lac-Megantic has the potential to cause significant damage in those urban centres, where the rail lines come in close proximity to some densely populated areas. For example, according to the ForestEthics map, crude oil is shipped through midtown Toronto, downtown Calgary and downtown Vancouver.


ctvnews
Human history becomes more and more a race between education and catastrophe. H. G. Wells.
Fatih Birol's motto: leave oil before it leaves us.
User avatar
Graeme
Master
Master
 
Posts: 13257
Joined: Fri 04 Mar 2005, 03:00:00
Location: New Zealand

Re: Oil via rail

Unread postby Graeme » Thu 11 Sep 2014, 21:58:34

Green groups sue DOT over crude oil trains

Green groups filed a lawsuit against the Department of Transportation (DOT) on Thursday for not responding to calls to ban the use of older rail cars carrying flammable crude oil.

The Sierra Club, ForestEthics, and Earthjustice are suing the DOT after the department didn't respond to a legal petition filed in July.

The petition called on the department to ban the use of an older rail car model, called DOT 111, which ships a majority of the crude oil extracted from the Bakken formation in the North Dakota region.
Earlier this year, the Transportation Department sent out alerts warning railroad operators, first responders, and oil companies that crude coming from the Bakken area was highly flammable, more so than other forms of oil.

Unlike newer, more resistant models, DOT 111s are prone to puncture on impact, causing spills and resulting in fires or explosions.

The environmental groups argue that while the department proposed standards for trains carrying crude oil, the new rules would allow companies to phase out the DOT 111s over three to six years.

“The Department of Transportation agrees these tank cars create an unacceptable public risk and need to be banned for shipping Bakken crude oil," said Patti Goldman, an Earthjustice attorney. "But the department proposes to expose the public to these unacceptable risks for four more years. We can’t run the risk of another disaster like Lac-Mégantic, Quebec when 47 people died in a DOT-111 crude oil explosion."


thehill
Human history becomes more and more a race between education and catastrophe. H. G. Wells.
Fatih Birol's motto: leave oil before it leaves us.
User avatar
Graeme
Master
Master
 
Posts: 13257
Joined: Fri 04 Mar 2005, 03:00:00
Location: New Zealand

Re: Oil via rail

Unread postby ROCKMAN » Mon 20 Oct 2014, 08:02:37

It was mentioned a while ago that resistance to pipeline construction and the resultant increase in rail transport would not only increase the risk of spills but inflict financial damage on other businesses dependent upon rail transport. Finally some indication of that magnitude...a 1500%+ increase for farmers:

Reuters - The largest U.S. grain harvest in history has pushed prices to four-year lows, which usually means a sales bonanza for the world's largest food exporter. Not this year. A clogged domestic transport system has pushed rail and river freight rates sky-high. There is going to be so much corn around and no place to go with it. Rail congestion caused by soaring demand for hauling crude oil by rail sent rates from the usual $200-300 per a 100 ton rail car just little over a year ago to around $5,000 this harvest season. Barge costs for harvest time shipping hit records in some areas this year
User avatar
ROCKMAN
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 9681
Joined: Tue 27 May 2008, 02:00:00
Location: TEXAS

Re: Oil via rail

Unread postby Keith_McClary » Mon 20 Oct 2014, 10:23:43

Some oil market analyst on the radio referred to "the explosion of rail transportation".
"I could go on, but let’s veer off in another direction instead."

– The Archdruid
User avatar
Keith_McClary
Fusion
Fusion
 
Posts: 7273
Joined: Wed 21 Jul 2004, 02:00:00
Location: Suburban tar sands

Re: Oil via rail

Unread postby Tanada » Mon 20 Oct 2014, 10:47:56

ROCKMAN wrote:It was mentioned a while ago that resistance to pipeline construction and the resultant increase in rail transport would not only increase the risk of spills but inflict financial damage on other businesses dependent upon rail transport. Finally some indication of that magnitude...a 1500%+ increase for farmers:

Reuters - The largest U.S. grain harvest in history has pushed prices to four-year lows, which usually means a sales bonanza for the world's largest food exporter. Not this year. A clogged domestic transport system has pushed rail and river freight rates sky-high. There is going to be so much corn around and no place to go with it. Rail congestion caused by soaring demand for hauling crude oil by rail sent rates from the usual $200-300 per a 100 ton rail car just little over a year ago to around $5,000 this harvest season. Barge costs for harvest time shipping hit records in some areas this year


Nabisco Foods, amongst others, has a large terminal on the Maumee river in Toledo, Ohio. They have a series of large silo's and docks where they take grain off of rail cars, dump it in the silo an use silo feed systems to fill bulk grain carriers from all over the world in Seawaymax size ships. We get freighters from as far away as China going west and the Black Sea going east. If they are having a hard time getting cargo to the terminal it has not shown in ship traffic just yet, last Saturday my spouse and I went to Maumee Bay state park and watched freighter traffic both inbound and outbound, three ships in half an hour.
I should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, design a building, write, balance accounts, build a wall, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, pitch manure, program a computer, cook, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects.
User avatar
Tanada
Site Admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 13498
Joined: Thu 28 Apr 2005, 02:00:00
Location: South West shore Lake Erie, OH, USA

Re: Oil via rail

Unread postby ROCKMAN » Mon 20 Oct 2014, 11:59:53

T - "If they are having a hard time getting cargo to the terminal...". I don't think the issue at the moment is the availability of transport but the cost. There were some comments about some storage companies trying to hold corn until the price drops. Double edged sword: might see corn prices drop at the same time. The nut of that article was more focused on the low net revenue farmers are getting despite record breaking harvests.
User avatar
ROCKMAN
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 9681
Joined: Tue 27 May 2008, 02:00:00
Location: TEXAS

Re: Oil via rail

Unread postby Subjectivist » Mon 20 Oct 2014, 13:01:57

ROCKMAN wrote:T - "If they are having a hard time getting cargo to the terminal...". I don't think the issue at the moment is the availability of transport but the cost. There were some comments about some storage companies trying to hold corn until the price drops. Double edged sword: might see corn prices drop at the same time. The nut of that article was more focused on the low net revenue farmers are getting despite record breaking harvests.


Corn must have cratered pretty bad, for the first time in at least five years my neighbors planted winter wheat. They have been doing soy/yellow dent alternating years since I moved in here.
II Chronicles 7:14 if my people, who are called by my name, will humble themselves and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven, and I will forgive their sin and will heal their land.
User avatar
Subjectivist
Fission
Fission
 
Posts: 3833
Joined: Sat 28 Aug 2010, 06:38:26
Location: Northwest Ohio

Re: Oil via rail

Unread postby ROCKMAN » Mon 20 Oct 2014, 17:56:47

Yep. The article I read also expected a lot of switching to soy bean also. Wonder how badly that will hurt soil regeneration.
User avatar
ROCKMAN
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 9681
Joined: Tue 27 May 2008, 02:00:00
Location: TEXAS

Re: Oil via rail

Unread postby ROCKMAN » Wed 22 Oct 2014, 07:44:59

More problems for farmers (and every one else) trying to ship by rail:

Reuters - As fracking accelerates in North American shale fields, oilfield services providers Halliburton Co and Baker Hughes Inc are stockpiling sand to protect themselves against rising costs and are buying more railcars to transport the haul. Halliburton, the world's largest provider of fracking services, is more than doubling its railcar fleet and capacity for sand terminals - where sand is stored and transferred to truck from rail. It had about 3,500 railcars under management as of June 30. Baker Hughes, the world's No.3 oilfield services provider, said at the Barclays CEO Energy Power conference last month that it had "significantly" increased the number of its railcars and is buying more sand under contract, which helps buffer it against price rises.

Companies are pumping in as much as a trainload of frac sand into a single well to coax more oil and gas from shale rocks. But the shale rush, especially in Texas and North Dakota, coupled with a rail jam that began after last year's severe winter has resulted in shortage of sand at drilling sites. "We did experience some disruptions early in the third quarter, where work was delayed because we were waiting on sand deliveries," Halliburton's Chief Executive David Lesar said on the company's post-earnings call on Monday. Halliburton has committed about $100 million this year to upgrade its infrastructure to move frac sand.
User avatar
ROCKMAN
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 9681
Joined: Tue 27 May 2008, 02:00:00
Location: TEXAS

Re: Oil via rail

Unread postby Keith_McClary » Wed 22 Oct 2014, 12:04:50

ROCKMAN wrote:Companies are pumping in as much as a trainload of frac sand into a single well to coax more oil and gas from shale rocks.
I didn't realize it used so much sand.

Researching a bit, I find you need a ton of sand to produce ~25 barrels.

US frac sand usage = 1 Great Pyramid every 2 months.
"I could go on, but let’s veer off in another direction instead."

– The Archdruid
User avatar
Keith_McClary
Fusion
Fusion
 
Posts: 7273
Joined: Wed 21 Jul 2004, 02:00:00
Location: Suburban tar sands

Re: Oil via rail

Unread postby ROCKMAN » Wed 22 Oct 2014, 12:51:23

Keith - And that's just the sand being used. They ae also using man-made proppant in some wells instead of sand. But I have no idea how the percentages split between the two.
User avatar
ROCKMAN
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 9681
Joined: Tue 27 May 2008, 02:00:00
Location: TEXAS

Re: Oil via rail

Unread postby Graeme » Thu 01 Jan 2015, 15:04:35

Dangerous Oil Trains To Return to Lac-Megantic While Town Still Recovers

“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.

Meanwhile in Lac-Megantic, the future isn’t quite so bright. The oil that spilled there contaminated much of downtown. And while the train tracks have been rebuilt, downtown has not.


desmogblog
Human history becomes more and more a race between education and catastrophe. H. G. Wells.
Fatih Birol's motto: leave oil before it leaves us.
User avatar
Graeme
Master
Master
 
Posts: 13257
Joined: Fri 04 Mar 2005, 03:00:00
Location: New Zealand

PreviousNext

Return to Peak Oil Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 23 guests