US Energy Secretary Favors Reducing Oil Shipped By Rail

U.S. Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz supports reducing the amount of crude oil shipped by rail in favor of pipelines that are safer, cheaper and cleaner, Capital New York reported on Wednesday.

“What we probably need is more of a pipeline infrastructure and to diminish the need for rail transport over time,” he said in an interview published on the Capital New York website.

He said the infrastructure is “not there” to handle the surge in North Dakota Bakken oil production from near zero to 1 million barrels per day (bpd).

“Frankly, I think pipeline transport overall probably has overall a better record in terms of cost, in terms of emissions and in terms of safety.”

A Department of Energy spokesman was not immediately available to provide more detail on Moniz’s comments.

Link to story: http://www.capitalnewyork.com/article/albany/2014/02/8540490/energy-secretary-us-infrastructure-unready-rail-crude-boom

His comments are among the first by a senior Obama Administration official to signal an apparent preference for shipping oil from places like the Bakken shale by means other than rail lines, in the wake of a series of explosive derailments that have alarmed the public.

While pipelines are generally a much cheaper form of transport, shipping crude in mile-long trains has become a popular alternative since new terminals can be built more quickly than pipelines to serve booming remote shale patches, and offer greater flexibility for refiners.

Moniz has bemoaned the lagging pace of infrastructure development before, but has not been so blunt in backing pipelines over rail shipments.

President Barack Obama has been considering whether to greenlight construction of the Keystone XL pipeline from Canada, without which there could be a significant increase in crude moved by rail, according to a State Department report.

U.S. regulators are considering imposing tougher standards on older models of oil tank cars. Moniz said the U.S. Department of Transportation could issue new regulations this year.

“There’s been a handful of train accidents and that’s been quite troubling,” he said. “We have been transporting oil products by train with a decent safety record over time and there’s a lot of it.”

RIGZONE

6 Comments on "US Energy Secretary Favors Reducing Oil Shipped By Rail"

Davy, Hermann, MO on Wed, 19th Feb 2014 8:26 pm 



And reading between the lines “Keystone approval”

J-Gav on Wed, 19th Feb 2014 10:28 pm 



Davy – Yep, there’s that. Maybe also all the recent train-carried explosions too. Would almost make ya think they were meant to push Keystone, but let’s not be too paranoid here …

Northwest Resident on Thu, 20th Feb 2014 12:57 am 



If approved, the Keystone pipeline may one day end up being the symbol of a dying BAU, gasping and sputtering for more fuel as it slowly sinks below the surface.

Davy, Hermann, MO on Thu, 20th Feb 2014 2:20 am 



@Gav – You got an evil mind LoL!

N/R – there is going to be allot of white ellephants out there. I often think about a few generations down the road in a post industrial society (if lucky) what they will think of some of the ruins.

rollin on Thu, 20th Feb 2014 5:23 am 



“What we probably need is more of a pipeline infrastructure and to diminish the need for rail transport over time,”

What we actually need is to diminish oil use over time.

rockman on Thu, 20th Feb 2014 12:19 pm 



“What we actually need is to diminish oil use over time.” And what we’ll see is an increasing need for all fossil fuels as populations continue to grow and those on the low end of the pyramid strive to increase their lifestyles. It would appear to be inevitable IMHO. The only option would seem to be developing affordable non-fossil fuel energy sources ASAP. And yes: that will require using a lot of fossil fuel energy initially.