[Plantagenet]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('ROCKMAN', 'T')he POTUS isn’t holding back a permit for the Keystone Pipeline.

[Keith_McClary]

There are varying reports (you can Google) but it seems that this was ND oil shipped to the Irving refinery in St. John NB Canada, which is a major terminal for ME and African oil. A bit strange, because oil is shipped in the opposite direction via the Portland (Maine) - Montreal Pipeline and the St. Lawrence. Maybe there is a reason for this because of light/heavy/sulphur capabilities of refineries?

Large Map of Canadian and US Oil Pipelines

[ROCKMAN]

Keith – “You seem to imply moral superiority in quoting this.” You completely missed the point I was making. Over the last decade+ New Zealand has needlessly transported 100+ million bo and products in ocean going tankers. Tankers that have more than a few times produced significant oil spills at sea. They produce all the oil they need in their country. But they are able to maximize the value of that oil by exporting it and then importing products from other countries. Other countries that have to deal with any refinery pollution while NZ doesn’t.

I was responding to what I viewed as an underserved moral superiority position taken by a kiwi who felt the Albertan desire for oil sand export revenue was immoral. A very obvious case of kettle/pot IMHO.

Keith – “Maybe there is a reason for this because of light/heavy/sulphur capabilities of refineries?” Exactly. That’s why there are 50,000+ bbls per day of Eagle Ford Shale production is being shipped past the refineries on the Texas coast to Canadian refineries on their east coast. Just think about that: they are shipping oil thousands of miles via takers past some of the most densely populated areas along the eastern US from Texas oil terminals just a few miles away from the most concentrated refinery complex in the country. Gives some idea about the economics involved in the refining industry, eh?

[agramante]

The train derailment has now become a criminal investigation:

http://occupyamerica.crooksandliars.com ... iminal-inv

[Graeme]

Train explosion in Quebec stokes debate about oil transport

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')he disaster plunged the media into debate: Is it safer to move oil through underground pipelines (à la Mayflower, Kalamazoo, and Keystone XL), or to move it by rail?

Frackers and tar-sands miners are extracting record amounts of oil in America and Canada. Existing pipelines can’t carry the whopping bounty to refineries, so energy companies are seeking to lay lattices of new pipes. Meanwhile, the glut of liquid hydrocarbons is being loaded onto trains, which are being sent vast distances — and are triggering high-profile spills and accidents.

The Toronto Globe and Mail argues in the wake of the Lac-Mégantic disaster that “[p]ipelines are the safest way of transporting oil and natural gas, and we need more of them, without delay.” The New York Times considers the pipeline-vs.-train question more impartially, quoting environmental experts:


But the comparison obfuscates an obvious reality: The oil can’t be moved safely at all. (Same goes for natural gas.)

After a string of pipeline and rail accidents in recent years, it’s clear that letting the energy industry move incendiary bulk fluids around the continent is like tossing a book of matches into the crib to keep little Johnny happy while his folks stare at the television. And that’s without even considering the climate impacts of the fossil-fuel mining binge, or the many hazards of fracking.

The weekend tragedy is a reminder that the energy industry can’t be trusted to do anything safely, let alone transport oil.

[Tanada]

http://www.railroadfan.com/phpbb/viewto ... 7&start=20

Based on the last post in the thread above the accident was caused inadvertently by a crew of volunteer fire fighters. The locomotive maintaining the air pressure in the brake lines on the train had an engine fire, the fire fighters extinguished the fire and shut the engine off. A few hours later the air pressure fell far enough that the brakes released and the train rolled down hill into a rail yard where it collided with a propane storage tank.

It looks as though it was a simple case of miscommunication, the railroad did not get an engineer to the site of the parked train to start one of the undamaged engines to maintain the brake pressure in the air lines because they were either not notified or the message was misunderstood.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', ' ')Air brakes that would have prevented the disaster failed because they were powered by an engine that was shut down by firefighters as they dealt with a fire shortly before the calamity occurred, the head of the railway that operated the train said on Monday.

The train had been parked at a siding on a slope near the town of Nantes, which is 12 kilometers (8 miles) west of Lac-Megantic. The volunteer Nantes fire service was called out late on Friday night to deal with an engine fire on one of the train's locomotives

[Graeme]

According to Grist, the train was driverless.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')he train, which did not have an engineer aboard when it derailed, was hauling 72 tanker cars of crude from North Dakota to eastern Canada. It rolled downhill from an overnight parking spot, gathered speed and derailed on a curve in the small town of Lac-Megantic at 1 a.m. on Saturday.

[Keith_McClary]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Tanada', 'T')he locomotive maintaining the air pressure in the brake lines on the train had an engine fire, the fire fighters extinguished the fire and shut the engine off. A few hours later the air pressure fell far enough that the brakes released and the train rolled down hill into a rail yard where it collided with a propane storage tank.

[ROCKMAN]

Keith – It would be easy to be accused of being clever in hindsight but being dependent upon breaking as they were seems to border on negligence. The train is on a grade that guarantees it will roll uncontrollably if the engine loses power for any reason. Engine failure isn’t just a possibility but an eventuality in time. And the system is designed to be unmanned? Unmanned so the conductor or engineer can sleep in a motel instead of a sleeper on the train?

Who would want to stand in front of the families of the dead and explain how this was a reasonable protocol? Unlike many unsafe operations it doesn’t even sound like it was done to save money. Not only did it cost the price of a motel room but also the value of the fuel burned to run the engine as well as adding maintenance for the engine. And all done for the sake of a failsafe mechanism that mechanically keeps the wheels from rolling…a system that would cost almost nothing. It's difficult to imagine any train company not putting in cheap failsafe systems in the future. This society loves to sue folks even when liability is questionable. So again, exactly what argument would the train company’s lawyer present to a jury to justify the protocol? It might be a stretch but I can imagine manslaughter charges being filed by an aggressive prosecutor looking for his 15 minutes of fame. And possibly getting a conviction.

Picture a similar scenario: A Deep Water drilling rig that costs $750 million to build is drilling a well I the DW GOM. The well is at 30,000’ and costs $100 million to reach this point. To add the next joint of drill pipe the drill string is disconnected from the system that keeps it from falling to the bottom of the well and possible causing the loss of that $100 million investment. So why doesn’t the drill string fall? Like your illustration: a chock that costs less than $1,000 is placed against the drill pipe. This has been SOP since the dawn of the oil age.

But it can be very difficult to eliminate the human portion of “human error”. I've seen more than one drill string dropped in a hole because the drill pipe was released before the chock was in place. Despite all the sophisticated safety equipment on the Macondo drill rig had one hand just been watching the end of the pipe that the drill fluid returned to the surface and seen the mud keep flowing when the pumps were turned off the well would have been shut in and the blowout would not have occurred. Abd despite the fact that several hands were responsible for “checking for flow” no one was doing it. One could argue whether BP’s protocol to save money justified the risk of a blowout. But there’s zero excuse for not catching the well kick. Other than the unfortunate human error pitch.

[Tanada]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('ROCKMAN', 'K')eith – It would be easy to be accused of being clever in hindsight but being dependent upon breaking as they were seems to border on negligence. The train is on a grade that guarantees it will roll uncontrollably if the engine loses power for any reason. Engine failure isn’t just a possibility but an eventuality in time. And the system is designed to be unmanned? Unmanned so the conductor or engineer can sleep in a motel instead of a sleeper on the train?

Who would want to stand in front of the families of the dead and explain how this was a reasonable protocol? Unlike many unsafe operations it doesn’t even sound like it was done to save money. Not only did it cost the price of a motel room but also the value of the fuel burned to run the engine as well as adding maintenance for the engine. And all done for the sake of a failsafe mechanism that mechanically keeps the wheels from rolling…a system that would cost almost nothing. It's difficult to imagine any train company not putting in cheap failsafe systems in the future. This society loves to sue folks even when liability is questionable. So again, exactly what argument would the train company’s lawyer present to a jury to justify the protocol? It might be a stretch but I can imagine manslaughter charges being filed by an aggressive prosecutor looking for his 15 minutes of fame. And possibly getting a conviction.

Picture a similar scenario: A Deep Water drilling rig that costs $750 million to build is drilling a well I the DW GOM. The well is at 30,000’ and costs $100 million to reach this point. To add the next joint of drill pipe the drill string is disconnected from the system that keeps it from falling to the bottom of the well and possible causing the loss of that $100 million investment. So why doesn’t the drill string fall? Like your illustration: a chock that costs less than $1,000 is placed against the drill pipe. This has been SOP since the dawn of the oil age.

But it can be very difficult to eliminate the human portion of “human error”. I've seen more than one drill string dropped in a hole because the drill pipe was released before the chock was in place. Despite all the sophisticated safety equipment on the Macondo drill rig had one hand just been watching the end of the pipe that the drill fluid returned to the surface and seen the mud keep flowing when the pumps were turned off the well would have been shut in and the blowout would not have occurred. Abd despite the fact that several hands were responsible for “checking for flow” no one was doing it. One could argue whether BP’s protocol to save money justified the risk of a blowout. But there’s zero excuse for not catching the well kick. Other than the unfortunate human error pitch.

[dolanbaker]

In the UK most sidings that are uphill of the running lines have a set of points that are switched to derail (at low speed) any wagons that roll out of the sidings, they're linked to the signalling system and are only closed when a train is clear to leave the siding.



I'm surprised that such a system isn't used over there.

[John_A]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('dolanbaker', 'I')n the UK most sidings that are uphill of the running lines have a set of points that are switched to derail (at low speed) any wagons that roll out of the sidings, they're linked to the signalling system and are only closed when a train is clear to leave the siding.



I'm surprised that such a system isn't used over there.

[dolanbaker]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('John_A', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('dolanbaker', 'I')n the UK most sidings that are uphill of the running lines have a set of points that are switched to derail (at low speed) any wagons that roll out of the sidings, they're linked to the signalling system and are only closed when a train is clear to leave the siding.



I'm surprised that such a system isn't used over there.

[C8]

from Bloomberg:

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')he rate of hazardous-material spills by railroads is about 2.7 times higher than pipelines, the Washington-based Association of American Railroads said in a report this year.

Along with higher risks, rail transport costs three times as much as pipeline shipments, Enbridge CEO Al Monaco said at a March conference in Houston.

Jean Cloutier, interim leader of the Green Party of Quebec, said the province needs rules to ease the danger of train disasters.

“It is also important that we act quickly to better monitor and regulate corporations” that transport hazardous cargoes by rail, road, water or pipelines, Cloutier said yesterday in an e-mailed statement.

Safety Rates

Railroads and pipelines both deliver more than 99 percent of products without incident. U.S. pipelines carried 474.6 billion gallons of crude and petroleum products in 2012 and reported 2.3 million gallons spilled, an effective rate of 0.0005 percent, according to the Association of Oil Pipelines.

Over the decade ending in 2012, railroads hauled 11.2 billion gallons of crude with 95,256 gallons spilled, the majority from just one 2008 accident in Oklahoma that accounted for 81,103 gallons, according to the rail association.

“I’m not sure this accident is the tipping point yet,” said University of Calgary’s Schulz, referring to the disaster in Quebec. “We probably need to see a barge sink in the Mississippi River or a major derailment in British Columbia before people really change their minds about moving oil by rail.”

[John_A]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('dolanbaker', '
')Of course it's safer than letting it runaway! We're talking about a low speed derailment that may at most drop a couple of wheels off before the whole train is stopped (in its tracks, so to speak) just how much momentum could a runaway train gain in the 50 or so metres before reaching the derailer.

[ROCKMAN]

Tanada - Simple solution: hire more personnel. Cost more? Sure. And when the law suite are done how many thousands of hands could have been hired by the train company for that amount. What you describe does sound like a law written by govt safety experts but by the unions. My hands work 12 hour tours.

Chocks - Sorry...doesn't wash IMHO. I read all your posts and know just how clever you are. I haven't the slightest doubt you could design a foolproof safety system. And the proof will be when the law requires it and the train companies comply. Our engineer base put men on the moon multiple times decades ago. And they can't design a foolproof brake system to keep a train from rolling down hill? Did all the competent one retire or die?

[Subjectivist]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('ROCKMAN', 'T')anada - Simple solution: hire more personnel. Cost more? Sure. And when the law suite are done how many thousands of hands could have been hired by the train company for that amount. What you describe does sound like a law written by govt safety experts but by the unions. My hands work 12 hour tours.

Chocks - Sorry...doesn't wash IMHO. I read all your posts and know just how clever you are. I haven't the slightest doubt you could design a foolproof safety system. And the proof will be when the law requires it and the train companies comply. Our engineer base put men on the moon multiple times decades ago. And they can't design a foolproof brake system to keep a train from rolling down hill? Did all the competent one retire or die?

[ROCKMAN]

P –Sorry for the late response. Thought I had sent one earlier.

The POTUS isn’t holding back a permit for the Keystone Pipeline. You said: “Of course he is”
.
It’s impossible for him to hold back the permit for a pipeline that was built 3 years ago and currently has a capacity of almost 600k bopd. From: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keystone_Pipeline

“The operational Keystone Pipeline system currently has the capacity to deliver up to 590,000 barrels per day of Canadian crude oil into the Mid-West refining markets. In the summer of 2010 Phase 1 of the Keystone Pipeline was completed, delivering crude oil from Hardisty, Alberta to Steele City, Nebraska, and then east through Missouri to Wood River refineries and Patoka, Illinois.”

Yes: the Keystone Pipeline section crossing the US/Canada border was built during President Obama’s first term. That’s what I meant to say…got a little sloppy. Sorry about that chief.

“The Phase 2 of the Keystone-Cushing extension was completed in February 2011 with the pipeline from Steele City, Nebraska to storage and distribution facilities at Cushing, Oklahoma, a major crude oil marketing/refining and pipeline hub.”

The Keystone XL Pipeline is a completely different line. And while the POTUS hasn’t approved the permit for that very short section crossing the border here are his own actions and words regarding the rest of the Keystone XL Pipeline:

“On March 22, 2012, Obama endorsed the building of its southern half (of the Keystone XL P/L) that begins in Cushing, Oklahoma. The President said in Cushing, Oklahoma on March 22, “Today, I’m directing my administration to cut through the red tape, break through the bureaucratic hurdles, and make this project a priority, to go ahead and get it done.”

Just in case you weren’t reading closely President Obama said: “…make this project (a section of the Keystone XL P/L) a priority, to go ahead and get it done.”

And just in case every freaking person here has forgotten what has been posted a hundred times: THE BOTTLE NECK holding back the development of the oil sands was the lack of a p/l from Cushing to the Texas Gulf Coast. Which is why President Obama so forcefully supported this section of the Keystone XL P/L: to allows a faster development of the oil sands. After all, the transport system without the crossing permit easily delivers the oil to Cushing.

The president knows that not signing the border crossing permit does nothing to hinder the development of the oil sands. Just amazing how so many folks are in a state of denial I would more expect from a 4 yo child.

As you say: “It makes one wonder why Obama has delayed making a decision on the Keystone Pipeline for so long.” No it doesn’t once one realizes that the delay in signing that permit does nothing to hinder the oil sands development.

“Is he just trying to fool all the environmentalists into thinking he is stopping oil from the tar sands from reaching the US?” If he is then he must have a very low opinion of the intelligence of most environmentalists. Do you know of one environmentalist incapable of understand the facts I just presented?

Except for Graeme, of course. LOL. Sorry buddy...a cheap shot but you do deserve it.

[Tanada]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('ROCKMAN', 'T')anada - Simple solution: hire more personnel. Cost more? Sure. And when the law suite are done how many thousands of hands could have been hired by the train company for that amount. What you describe does sound like a law written by govt safety experts but by the unions. My hands work 12 hour tours.

Chocks - Sorry...doesn't wash IMHO. I read all your posts and know just how clever you are. I haven't the slightest doubt you could design a foolproof safety system. And the proof will be when the law requires it and the train companies comply. Our engineer base put men on the moon multiple times decades ago. And they can't design a foolproof brake system to keep a train from rolling down hill? Did all the competent one retire or die?

[Keith_McClary]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Tanada', 'T')he chocks comment was sarcasm, someone put up a picture of a single set of chocks as if that would have solved the problem.

I don't know who constructed the rules/laws, no doubt the Union had a lot of influence in the set up. Either way hiring more workers is only a partial solution, trains get delayed in transit frequently and can not always tie down in a siding where a relief crew can meet them easily. If they were to set up a system where every eight hours a new crew starts their shift and they get sent to relieve whatever crew has accumulated the most hours already that might work, but you would have to know exactly where every crew was at any given time and you would have to coordinate things to deliver the relief crew to the next location they could reach. Picture it, the relief crew jumps in the rail company car and races down the expressway to meet the train at its next available relief spot. All sounds well and good, but trains do not always parallel expressways and getting a crew from your closest rail yard facility to the tie down location could take hours.