This has the makings of a disaster

[ordnance11]

I was listening on NPR this report segment:
http://www.npr.org/2015/02/25/389008046 ... anker-cars
I believe our Canadian brethren here is very familiar with this story: Especially Lac-Megantic on July 6, 2013. Now what piques my particular interest was what the reporter said about Tuscaloosa, AL ( which is an hour away from me).  A few facts stated by the reporter:
1. The fracking oil fields in the U.S are located in areas where there are no pipelines to bring it to refineries. There are rail lines though.
2. The amount of oil transported by rail had been expanding.
3. The type of oil transported by rail is light crude with VOC's (volatile organic compounds) suspended in them. Those compounds are shaken out of the crude during the journey and forms a blanket on top of the crude. These compounds are flammable and explosive under the right conditions. They can also be deadly like hydrogen sulfide (my 2 cents).
4. The type of tanker cars being used in transport is typically the DOT-111A cars. Which was originally designed  to handle corn syrup. It's a design not originally intended to handle flammable materials.
Tuscaloosa is home to University of Alabama (home to the shrine of Bear Bryant), for those who are not into U.S. collegiate football. Interesting enough, it's the first time I'ved heard of a wooden railway trestle bridge in use to transport crude to a nearby oil refinery over there:

__________________
Into terror!,  Into valour!
Charge ahead! No! Never turn
Yes, it's into the fire we fly
And the devil will burn!
- Scarlett Pimpernell

[ordnance11]

For some reason it's eating up the second half of my post:
You can see on the first video that there's a park underneath the bridge. You can see the tankers on the second video in 1:30 or thereabouts.
Here are additional factors to consider:
1. The bridge crosses the Black Warrior river.
2. The Tuscaloosa amphitheater is right next to the railway line. New housing is sprouting up nearby.
3. The city of Tuscaloosa does not have an emergency response plan in the event of a derailment.
http://bridgehunter.com/al/tuscaloosa/bh48886/
Add all of these factors and you have the makings of a disaster. Am I being alarmist? Maybe. If it happened  once, it can happen again. So the question is not going to be if, but when. My job with the government has given me plenty of opportunity to investigate and study industrial accidents and the convergence of factors here is making me twinge. The good news is that the agency I'm in has no remote responsibility to the factors I mentioned, and thus out of the line of fire when the eventual finger pointing is going to happen.
__________________
Into terror!,  Into valour!
Charge ahead! No! Never turn
Yes, it's into the fire we fly
And the devil will burn!
- Scarlett Pimpernell

[Logan Darklighter]

This would be less of a problem if we were allowed to build any pipelines or new refineries closer to the sites of extraction. 
But we have built nothing like that in over 30 years. We haven't been allowed to. 

[Black Aeronaut]

Personally, I would love to see pipeline projects like those going on, but only so long as they were bundled with infrastructure upgrades, like replacing old railroad trestles like that one.

[ordnance11]

Logan Darklighter wrote:

---

This would be less of a problem if we were allowed to build any pipelines or new refineries closer to the sites of extraction. 
But we have built nothing like that in over 30 years. We haven't been allowed to. 

The problem with building pipelines would be NIMBY. Oil refineries built closer to the extraction sites would be more technologically feasible, but you're talking a huge capital investment.
__________________
Into terror!,  Into valour!
Charge ahead! No! Never turn
Yes, it's into the fire we fly
And the devil will burn!
- Scarlett Pimpernell

[nemonowan]

ordnance11 wrote:

---

Logan Darklighter wrote:

---

This would be less of a problem if we were allowed to build any pipelines or new refineries closer to the sites of extraction. 
But we have built nothing like that in over 30 years. We haven't been allowed to. 

The problem with building pipelines would be NIMBY. Oil refineries built closer to the extraction sites would be more technologically feasible, but you're talking a huge capital investment.

No, the problem is that all those thing take time and money to build, which would at best delay and reduce the profits from the extraction. And we can't have that, can we?
Using rail transport, there is no need to invest in any more infrastructure. And if there are 10 blasts or spills per year, like analysts predict, it's not they who pay the bill.Of course, using reinforced railcars designed for volatile liquid transport, improved brakes, regular rail maintenance and replacement, keeping to sane speed limits, all would help to reduce and mitigate accidents, but the rail companies refuse to do that, because again, it costs money.

[ordnance11]

nemonowan wrote:

---

ordnance11 wrote:

---

Logan Darklighter wrote:

---

This would be less of a problem if we were allowed to build any pipelines or new refineries closer to the sites of extraction. 
But we have built nothing like that in over 30 years. We haven't been allowed to. 

The problem with building pipelines would be NIMBY. Oil refineries built closer to the extraction sites would be more technologically feasible, but you're talking a huge capital investment.

No, the problem is that all those thing take time and money to build, which would at best delay and reduce the profits from the extraction. And we can't have that, can we?
Using rail transport, there is no need to invest in any more infrastructure. And if there are 10 blasts or spills per year, like analysts predict, it's not they who pay the bill.Of course, using reinforced railcars designed for volatile liquid transport, improved brakes, regular rail maintenance and replacement, keeping to sane speed limits, all would help to reduce and mitigate accidents, but the rail companies refuse to do that, because again, it costs money.

The railroad companies are responsible for the railroads.They're also responsible for the locomotives and the train operators. They don't have authority on what can be can be carried and how it is shipped. That responsibility falls on the shippers. So tank cars would be the shipper's responsibility and the maintenance of said cars fall under their responsibility. I am not sure about supporting infrastructure like bridges. It might fall under the state or it might not.
So when a derailment happens, you can see the finger pointing starting immediately.
And if you think this is bad, wait when Yucca Flats Nuclear Waste facility opens for business and they have to ship the waste...by rail.
__________________
Into terror!,  Into valour!
Charge ahead! No! Never turn
Yes, it's into the fire we fly
And the devil will burn!
- Scarlett Pimpernell

[robkelk]

I was listening on NPR this report segment:

http:////www.npr.org/player/embed/389008046/389023527

I believe our Canadian brethren here is very familiar with this story: Especially Lac-Megantic on July 6, 2013. ...

There was another derailment-spill-fire incident just as big, two weeks ago ... but there wasn't a town nearby, so nobody cared.

The Globe and Mail (Canada's newspaper of record), February 16: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/nat ... e23011758/

Logan Darklighter wrote:This would be less of a problem if we were allowed to build any pipelines or new refineries closer to the sites of extraction. 

But we have built nothing like that in over 30 years. We haven't been allowed to. 

The problem with building pipelines would be NIMBY. Oil refineries built closer to the extraction sites would be more technologically feasible, but you're talking a huge capital investment.

So it was NIMBY that caused Obama to veto construction of a new pipeline this month?

There's more than just one excuse to not build pipelines - which keeps the oil flowing the unsafe way.
--
Rob Kelk
"Governments have no right to question the loyalty of those who oppose
them. Adversaries remain citizens of the same state, common subjects of
the same sovereign, servants of the same law."

- Michael Ignatieff, addressing Stanford University in 2012

[ordnance11]

robkelk wrote:

---

ordnance11 wrote:

---

I was listening on NPR this report segment:
http://www.npr.org/2015/02/25/389008046 ... anker-cars

I believe our Canadian brethren here is very familiar with this story: Especially Lac-Megantic on July 6, 2013. ...

There was another derailment-spill-fire incident just as big, two weeks ago ... but there wasn't a town nearby, so nobody cared.
The Globe and Mail (Canada's newspaper of record), February 16: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/nat ... e23011758/

ordnance11 wrote:

---

Logan Darklighter wrote:This would be less of a problem if we were allowed to build any pipelines or new refineries closer to the sites of extraction. 

But we have built nothing like that in over 30 years. We haven't been allowed to. 

The problem with building pipelines would be NIMBY. Oil refineries built closer to the extraction sites would be more technologically feasible, but you're talking a huge capital investment.

So it was NIMBY that caused Obama to veto construction of a new pipeline this month?

There's more than just one excuse to not build pipelines - which keeps the oil flowing the unsafe way.

Who said running oil by pipeline is safer?
http://truth-out.org/news/item/14693-wh ... a-pipeline
Now, these problems can be managed and mitigated...provided management keeps an eye and and ear to the problems. It's when they go blind, dumb and deaf, you start getting problems. You'll not have much problems when the pipeline is less than 10 years old. You will have problems as the infrastructure starts deteriorating. And the proposed route runs across some pretty big aquifers. So, the my first question is this: If a big break in the line occurs and you have that heavy oil spilling across rivers, streams and wetlands..who is going to foot the bill? Worse, what happens if it catches on fire and you have dead people? Who are you going to be held accountable?
__________________
Into terror!,  Into valour!
Charge ahead! No! Never turn
Yes, it's into the fire we fly
And the devil will burn!
- Scarlett Pimpernell