Peak Oil is You
Donate Bitcoins ;-) or Paypal :-)
Page added on May 10, 2014
Oil Crude Train Derail in Colorado
Crews from Union Pacific Railroad worked to clear a six-car oil train derailment that leaked some crude into a ditch Friday in northern Colorado.
State and local emergency officials determined that one car of the 100-car train was leaking after the 8 a.m. derailment near LaSalle, about 45 miles north of Denver.
The cause of the derailment was under investigation, said Micki Trost, a spokeswoman for the Colorado Division of Emergency Management. Crews had contained the spill to a ditch away from any waterways, Trost said.
The amount of oil spilled wasn’t immediately known, but a vacuum truck was brought in to suck up the spill. Tanker trucks lined up nearby to transfer the oil.
According to The Greeley Tribune ( http://tinyurl.com/m96ows9 ), the train was loaded in nearby Windsor with Niobrara crude and was bound for New York. Niobrara oil comes from the Niobrara shale formation in Colorado, Wyoming and Kansas. It’s not considered as volatile as Bakken crude from North Dakota and eastern Montana.
Public and political pressure to make oil trains safer began last summer when a runaway oil train carrying Bakken crude derailed and exploded in Lac-Megantic, Quebec, killing 47 people and incinerating much of the town. Other trains carrying Bakken crude have derailed and caught fire since then in Alabama, North Dakota, Virginia and New Brunswick, Canada.
14 Comments on "Oil Crude Train Derail in Colorado"
GregT on Sat, 10th May 2014 9:31 am
The train wrecks are coming fast and furious now. This will surely go a long ways to persuade public opinion to back pipelines expansion.
Plantagenet on Sat, 10th May 2014 11:49 am
The Obama administration policy is to block pipelines to protect the environment, but that just results in environmental damage from oil train disasters.
When will they ever learn?
GregT on Sat, 10th May 2014 12:48 pm
Plant,
The ‘administration’ is in charge of everything, they are all knowing, and all omnipotent. Who are we, as mere mortals, to question ‘their’ authority?
When will the stupid among us ever learn? Not very soon, apparently.
Plantagenet on Sat, 10th May 2014 6:03 pm
GregT
You belief that the Obama administration is in charge of everything and is all knowing and is immortal just shows that you aren’t being very rational about the obama administration.
Step back from your over-the-top hero worship and look at the facts—- the obama administration IS in charge interstate commerce and railroad regs, and they’ve done a damn poor job of it as shown by the occurrence of oil train wreck after oil train wreck.
Get it now?
GregT on Sun, 11th May 2014 2:42 am
Ya plant,
Got it now. All train wrecks are the fault of the Obama administration. Thank you for helping me to see the light.
Beery on Sun, 11th May 2014 4:40 am
It’s not the administration that’s at fault – most of them are the right color. The problem is the guy at the top. Surely by now, everyone knows that the blacker the president, the more problems we all have. What we need is an albino in the Oval Office – right Planty?
rockman on Sun, 11th May 2014 11:00 am
And now for the facts. When any type of accident draws extra attention it seems like they are happening more often. So since 2011 there’s been a huge increase in rail oil transport…so how have the stats changed? From the govt: http://safetydata.fra.dot.gov/officeofsafety/publicsite/summary.aspx
Train accidents – 2011=329…2013=274
Derailments – 2011=240…2013=187
Fatalities – 2011=50…2013=50
And how is 2014 shaping up? Here’s the first 2 months compared to the first 2 months of 2011:
Train accidents rates – 2011=2.92…2014=2.49
There’s certainly no reason to beef up the oil tankers so that accident damages are reduced. But some folks who oppose all fossil fuel production like whip up any frenzy that casts a darker view on the process the really exists. There’s certainly potential for more catastrophic accidents when an oil train derails than when a grain train derails. But the accident rate doesn’t appear to have increased. And more importantly the fatality rate hasn’t increased.
bobinget on Sun, 11th May 2014 11:18 am
According to last week’s EIA report, domestic consumption @ 18.5 million barrels PER DAY, is 200,000 barrels higher then previous week.
http://www.eia.gov/petroleum/supply/weekly/pdf/highlights.pdf
In three weeks we will be seeing 19 MB p/d with imports falling off the roof. OK, that last statement is a guess. Prove me wrong.
IMO, like it or not, Wednesday’s EIA repore is one of the more ignored but perhaps one of the best US economic indicators available at this time.
My point, concerning transporting physical oil? Train wrecks, pipeline ‘leaks’ happen elsewhere. (At least for 99% of American fuel consumers). Don’t expect any mass movements to ban moving oil by train.
How did you think 18.5 million barrels finally make it into 174,000,000 ‘gas’ tanks every day?
Interrupt that flow, then our melanin enhanced leader
will be in real trouble.
Sorta on topic: In 1944 our troops in Europe were advancing at almost 50 MILES a day. Obviously, this most highly mechanized military required tons of fuel
to keep moving. A team of Army engineers, welders, suppliers, managed to lay that much pipeline every day to keep up. Today, laying down 50 miles in one day is also known as a ‘pipe dream’.
Lets assume Keystone is a dead letter. Will Canadians simply close up shop and stop mining bitumen?
Energy East Pipeline Project
A pipeline from West to East
Called the Energy East Pipeline, the 4,600-kilometre pipeline will carry 1.1-million barrels of crude oil per day from Alberta and Saskatchewan to refineries in Eastern Canada.
Currently, the project has the following major components:
Converting an existing natural gas pipeline to an oil transportation pipeline
Constructing new pipelines in Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Eastern Ontario, Québec and New Brunswick to link up with the converted pipe
Constructing the associated facilities, pump stations and tank terminals required to move crude oil from Alberta to Québec and New Brunswick, including marine facilities that enable access to other markets by ship
While the exact route will only be determined after public and regulatory review, the planned starting point is a new tank terminal in Hardisty, Alta. Three other new terminals will be built along the pipeline’s route: One in Saskatchewan, one in the Québec City area and another in the Saint John, N.B., area. The terminals in the Québec City and Saint John areas will include facilities for marine tanker loading. The project will also deliver oil to existing Québec refineries in Montréal, near Québec City and in Saint John. New pipeline will be built in Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Eastern Ontario, Québec and New Brunswick.
The Energy East Pipeline Project involves three major components: pipeline conversion, the construction of new pipeline and the construction of new pipeline facilities. Energy East will convert an existing natural gas pipeline to oil service between Burstall, Saskatchewan and Cornwall, Ontario. New sections of pipe will also need to be constructed in Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Eastern Ontario, Québec and New Brunswick to link up with the newly converted pipe. Lastly, associated facilities like pump stations, tank terminals and marine facilities will be constructed in order to successfully move the crude oil from Alberta to New Brunswick.
Aire on Sun, 11th May 2014 11:31 am
I’m glad Rockman actually took the effort to do some actually research.
Transporting oil anyway is gonna get everything messy. Maybe we ought to localize it lol. Honestly though, the way our cities are set up won’t last to many more years I predict
antaris on Sun, 11th May 2014 9:00 pm
I think we are very fortunate to have the Rockman
toolpush on Sun, 11th May 2014 9:59 pm
The trains that have been exploding and catching everybody’s attention seem to be coming from the Bakken. I doubt Bakken oil derails more often than other oil tankers, so maybe it is time to pay more attention as to why the Bakken oil has such explosive result while oil from other regions simply leaks and makes a mess, rather than fire balls.
I surprises me to read that refineries do not test each train load for chemical composition before loading. Surely they would want to know what they are paying for, and ensure the vapour pressure is below set limits.
If the derailed trains continue to go up in fire balls (BLEVE) than lower the excepted vapour pressure. In other words look at the product being transported rather than just the fact trains fall off the rails, which they have done since rails were invented.
MKohnen on Sun, 11th May 2014 10:51 pm
It would seem to me that what is getting the most attention isn’t the increase in derailments, it’s the ferocity of the resultant fires. That would certainly have been the biggest issue with the Lac Megantic derailment. Maybe this points to different requirements for the transport of Bakken or similar oils.
rockman on Mon, 12th May 2014 8:20 am
Are – No problamo. Rail transport of any flammable liquid has a risk. But so does running tankers down the streets to keep the gas stations supplied. Safety standards should be high regardless. But obviously many jumping on the “ban the oil rail transport system” are really just anti-oil production regardless of how it’s hauled. Which is their prerogative to be against fossil fuel consumption but hyping rail accidents isn’t a valid angle IMHO.
rockman on Mon, 12th May 2014 8:33 am
Guys – All oil is flammable. There was a derailment in Mississippi not long ago with a fireball. The primary reason for the explosive nature has nothing to do with the source of the oil. Oil IS NOT explosive. In fact it’s typically not that easy to get it to burn. What is explosive are the fumes containing the light ends and methane that comes off oil while in transport. Those fumes are extremely explosive and will easily light up the spilled oil.
The Canadian accident was terrible of course. But the severity had nothing to do with the source of the oil. The tanks exploded in the middle of town and not out in the country. That’s was the great misfortune. Had a gasoline tanker had rolled over in the middle of the town it could have been as bad…or worse.