海角大神

Two Conversations about A Tragedy

It鈥檚 been just over a month since a train loaded with crude oil from North Dakota聽derailed and exploded聽in the Canadian town of Lac-Megantic, Quebec, killing an聽estimated 47 residents. In the interval since the accident, the relevant authorities聽have focused聽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聽in a place聽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聽historical significance. The images of destruction聽and of oil spilled聽in the river聽were gut-wrenching.

The investigation is still underway, but it seems significant that the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA)聽of the US Deparment of Transportation has already issued an Emergency Order聽banning the practice聽of leaving such trains unattended, pending the development of better procedures for securing them safely.Canadian authorities聽are聽reviewing their regulations and enforcement, as well as revisiting questions about the specific聽type of tank car聽in which the oil was carried. The Wall St. Journal聽reported聽that the FRA is also聽 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.聽Meanwhile, the rail operator involved in the accident hasfiled for bankruptcy聽on both sides of the border.聽

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

The聽second conversation, apparently based on a belief that it is possible to聽cease our use of petroleum聽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聽that day requires unpacking a nested set of factors that starts with the fact that oil still聽accounts for聽33% of total global energy consumption, but more importantly supplies聽93% of transportation energy.聽Numerous forecasts, including聽the latest聽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聽rail accidents聽鈥� accounted for just聽3% of US liquid fuel use聽last year, when adjusted for its lower energy content.

Although global oil movements are dominated by pipelines, tankers and barges,聽rail remains an聽important mode聽because of its聽flexibility. 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聽recent growth of crude-oil-by-rail and聽its role聽in the Keystone XL pipeline debate have attracted significant attention, last year鈥檚234,000聽tank-car loads of crude made up less than half of total US聽petroleum rail shipments聽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聽 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聽refinery in St. John, New Brunswick聽that supplies both聽Canadian and US consumers聽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聽expanding rapidly, with significant economic and energy security benefits. Much of this new oil is found in聽places not adequately served by the large network of existing pipelines.聽That situation may eventually be聽rectified, 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聽shale-gas-induced聽decline in coal shipments. 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.聽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聽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聽cause such as 鈥渆nding our reliance on oil.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:聽Do聽Crude Oil Shipments Make Rail Less Safe?