海角大神

Is oil too dangerous to ship by rail?

In the wake of the Lac-Megantic oil train disaster, it's important to focus on how to improve rail safety, Styles writes, and not use the tragedy to advance social causes. 

Two Conversations about A Tragedy

It鈥檚 been just over a month since a train loaded with crude oil from North Dakota听听in the Canadian town of Lac-Megantic, Quebec, killing an听. In the interval since the accident, the relevant authorities听have focused听on ascertaining the cause of the accident and determining how best to improve rail safety. However, there has also been another, less-customary conversation about whether oil in general, and the specific oil on this train, might be too dangerous to transport by rail at all. That conversation would benefit from some context that appears to be absent.

Both conversations began with a tragedy听in a place听I recognized immediately. Ten years ago my wife and I passed through Lac-Megantic and drove along the Chaudi猫re river that originates there, on its way to the St. Lawrence. It鈥檚 an area of natural beauty and听historical significance. The images of destruction听and of oil spilled听听were gut-wrenching.

The investigation is still underway, but it seems significant that the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA)听of the US Deparment of Transportation has already issued an Emergency Order听听of leaving such trains unattended, pending the development of better procedures for securing them safely.听are听reviewing their regulations and enforcement, as well as revisiting questions about the specific听听in which the oil was carried. The Wall St. Journal听听that the FRA is also听 looking into the testing and classification of crude oil shipments, to ensure that the tank cars used to transport different crude oils are suited to the task.听Meanwhile, the rail operator involved in the accident has听on both sides of the border.听

Why Was That Train, in That Place, Carrying Oil?

The听, apparently based on a belief that it is possible to听cease our use of petroleum听entirely if we only have the will, is occurring in a fact vacuum. Understanding why that particular batch of crude oil was on that specific track on听that day requires unpacking a nested set of factors that starts with the fact that oil still听accounts for听, but more importantly supplies听.听Numerous forecasts, including听听from the US Department of Energy, anticipate no reduction in global oil use through 2040. Although we鈥檝e displaced much of the oil formerly used to generate electricity and have greatly improved vehicle fuel efficiency, our most successful alternative transportation fuel, ethanol 鈥� no stranger to听听鈥� accounted for just听听last year, when adjusted for its lower energy content.

Although global oil movements are dominated by pipelines, tankers and barges,听rail remains an听important mode听because of its听. It鈥檚 also usually cheaper and more efficient than trucking for all but short distances, and safer, too 鈥� despite accidents like this one. Although the rapid听recent growth of crude-oil-by-rail and听听in the Keystone XL pipeline debate have attracted significant attention, last year鈥檚听tank-car loads of crude made up less than half of total US听听and was dwarfed by over 1.5 million tank-car loads of chemicals hauled by rail in 2012.

Crude oil, especially light crudes like those produced from the Bakken and Eagle Ford shales, is flammable, and thus constitutes hazardous cargo. However, railroads routinely carry a wide variety of flammable and otherwise hazardous materials, including propane, gasoline, benzene, ethanol, chlorine gas, sulfuric acid and a variety of other chemicals. Safety is not听 determined by the cargo 鈥� if it was, none of these substances would be on trains 鈥� but by the combination of the equipment used to carry it, the rules and processes that dictate how to handle it, and the people who operate these systems. It鈥檚 no coincidence that these are the areas on which the investigations and preliminary regulatory responses have focused.

Then there are the market and logistical circumstances that resulted in a听听that supplies both听听and normally processes oil imported by tanker, purchasing oil produced in North Dakota and shipped halfway across the continent by train. North American oil production is听, with significant economic and energy security benefits. Much of this new oil is found in听places not adequately served by the large network of existing pipelines.听That situation may eventually be听, but in the meantime the mismatch between growing landlocked oil supplies and limited pipeline outlets for them has created an opportunity for rail operators reeling from the much larger听shale-gas-induced听. Serving that need keeps people and trains employed. And that, ultimately, is why a train carrying Bakken crude was on a track in Lac-Megantic this July.

Conclusions: The Right Focus Is on Improving Rail Safety

I can scarcely imagine what the survivors of the Lac-Megantic disaster and the families of the victims have been going through for the last month. Their lives will never be the same.听But whatever the cause of the accident is eventually determined to have been 鈥� human error, mechanical failure, aging infrastructure or something else 鈥� it was not听caused by the oil in those tank cars.

This accident presents us with two opportunities: One entails figuring out what happened and applying the lessons to making rail transport of all hazardous cargoes safer; the other involves using the tragedy to advance a social听cause such as 鈥�.鈥� As alluring as the latter might seem to some, the communities through which such freight travels in the course of keeping our economy running will benefit much more from the former.

Source:听