Guest Post by Willis Eschenbach
I was saddened to read this morning that a train with a load of crude oil derailed and caught fire in Lac-Mégantic, Canada, and I started writing this post. I heard during the afternoon there was one person killed, and more may still be found. In addition, the oil spilled into the Chaudière River. And most curiously, the derailment wasn’t from overspeed or failed brakes or a crash or the usual stuff. Instead, the train took off on its own and committed suicide … go figure.
The train had been parked and the conductor was not aboard when “somehow, the train got released,” Montreal, Maine and Atlantic Railway, Inc Vice President Joseph McGonigle said on Saturday.
“We’re not sure what happened, but the engineer did everything by the book. He had parked the train and was waiting for his relief,” McGonigle said. The Star
Figure 1. Derailed tank cars, Canada SOURCE
In addition to the human compassion we all feel for the folks to whom these tragedies occur, plus hoping that no train workers or hobos were hurt, the crash sparked off a boatload of thoughts about the absolute need for storable transportable energy; about the inherent dangers of concentrated stored energy; and about how we move stored energy around the planet.
First, energy is synonymous with development. Our civilization requires huge amounts of it. Without the ability to extract, move, and store immense amounts of energy, we’re literally back to the Bronze Age, where wood melted the bronze and cooked the food. I’ve tried living at that level, it’s not my idea of a good party. Plus, if everyone burns wood for energy the world will look like Haiti … so we’ll take the need for some kind of storable energy as a given.
Next, stored energy is inherently dangerous. If you accidentally drop a wrench across the terminals of a car battery, it could cost you your life … and that’s just a car battery, not a railroad tank car full of crude oil. If stored energy gets loose, it is immensely dangerous.
The materials in which the energy is stored are also often, as in this case, a danger to the environment. If you think electricity solves the problem, crack open a car battery and consider the toxicity of the chemicals and heavy metals involved.
Finally, there are more dangerous and less dangerous ways to transport energy.
Arguably the least dangerous way to transport energy is in the form of electricity. We move unimaginably large amounts of energy around the world with only occasional injuries and fatalities. Don’t get me wrong, a 440,000 volt power line is not inherently safe. But we are able to locate our electric wires in such a way that we don’t intrude into their space, and vice versa.
But that’s just moving electrons. If you have to move the molecules, the actual substance itself, things get more hazardous.
In terms of danger, railroads aren’t the most dangerous. That’d be the fuel trucks carrying gasoline, diesel, kerosene, and propane on the highways. Plus of course the stored energy in the fuel tanks of the cars and trucks involved in every crash. If you consider an electric power line transporting energy running alongside a freeway, with each vehicle transporting stored energy in the form of liquid fuel, and how often lives are lost or damage done from the power lines, versus how much damage the stored energy does when a tanker truck crashes and catches fire on the freeway, you’ll get a sense of what I’m talking about.
I’d put railroads as the second most dangerous way to move energy. This for a couple reasons. One is because people built along the railroad tracks, and cities grew up around the rail hubs. This means you’re moving things like crude oil and gasoline, each of which stores huge amounts of what was originally solar energy, through highly populated areas.
Another is that a railroad tank car stores a huge amount of energy. A tank full of crude oil hold about 820 barrels of oil, which conveniently has about the same energy as a thousand tons of TNT. Of course, normally this energy is released slowly, over time. Even if the tank ruptures and the fuel pours out, the release of energy occurs over tens of minutes.
However, the fuel is contained in enclosed tanks. As in this case, if fire is raging around an intact tank car, it heats the tank until the contents start boiling. Depending on the fuel involved, if the vapor pressure of the contents is high enough, the tank can rupture in what is called a BLEVE. That stands for “Boiling Liquid Expanding Vapor Explosion”, and it was the cause of death in boiler explosions in old-time Mississippi steamships. When a boiling liquid under pressure suddenly experiences an instantaneous pressure drop, the entire body of the liquid can directly flash into vapor. With a steam engine the liquid is water, and the resulting steam from an exploding boiler was incredibly lethal and destructive. Now, consider a BLEVE of a flammable liquid … instead of making an expanding ball of steam, you get an expanding ball of fire.
At that point, the “kilotonnes of TNT” is no longer a metaphor.
So what is safer than a railroad? Well, on land there are pipelines, and at sea there are tankers. The tankers are dangerous for the environment, but given the amount of energy moved per year, the spills are not numerous. Obviously, as a sailor and a commercial fisherman I’d prefer there’d be no spills … but energy is synonymous with development, and stored energy is inherently dangerous. So all we can do is continue to improve the safety of the tankers, and stay aware of the dangers. Having worked in the industry, I know the many safety regulations surrounding tanker ships. These regulations are indeed numerous and cover the situation well … and despite that, there is always more to learn.
On land, pipelines have an excellent safety record. People are generally unaware of how many pipelines there are in the US. Here are the trunklines that just move crude oil, including from Canada:
Figure 2. Crude oil trunklines SOURCE
Figure 3 shows the major pipelines for “refined products”, meaning gasoline, diesel, and the like:
Figure 3. Pipelines carrying refined products. SOURCE
Finally, Figure 4 shows the pipelines carrying gas, both within and between the states:
Figure 4. Gas pipelines, from the EIA
Considering the very large number and length of the pipelines, the number of accidents per year is very, very small. Like electrical lines, we generally don’t notice (or even know) that these pipelines exist, but they move huge amounts of many kinds of both crude and refined products all over the US.
Which brings me to the final thought brought up by the Canadian train derailment.
There is a proposed expansion of the KeystoneXL Pipeline, to handle an increased amount of heavy crude from Alberta. Opponents of the expansion think that stopping the pipeline expansion will somehow stop the flow of Canadian heavy crude into the US. This is not true for two reasons.
First, the existing Keystone pipeline is already bringing Alberta heavy crude into the US. The expansion will just, well, expand that amount.
More to the point, however, is the fact that large amounts of Alberta heavy crude is also being moved into the US by railroad. And not by just any railroad. It’s mostly coming in on the Burlington Northern Railway.
And by what can only be considered an amazing coincidence, the Burlington Northern Railway is owned by a major Obama donor. And by an even more amazing coincidence, the major donor bought the BNR just three years ago.
And this was not just any major Obama donor, but Mr. Warren Buffett, a key money supplier for the Obama re-election effort …
Now of course, the longer that Mr. Obama can delay approving the Keystone Pipeline, the longer the oil will be moved by Mr. Buffet’s railroad. I’m sure you can predict what Mr. Buffet wanted for his investment in the Obama campaign, those guys don’t pitch in the big bucks without wanting something …
And very likely Buffett learned early on, during Obama’s first administration, that Obama would block the pipeline, which is probably why he bought it. Buffett is many things but he’s no fool. Will we ever be able to prove that chain of events? Don’t be naive, Buffett is immensely wealthy for a reason. He doesn’t leave tracks, he doesn’t show his cards, he plays everything close to the vest. We won’t find any smoking guns on this one.
I find it quite amazing. In the late 1800s, the railroads were major players in the political scene, and no one made an important decision without first kissing the rings of the railroad barons.
And now, more than a hundred years later, we still have a President kissing the ring of a railroad baron before making his decision.
So … don’t expect any quick resolution by President Obama of the Keystone Pipeline issue. Every day it is delayed, hundreds of thousands of dollars flow into Warren Buffet’s pockets.
And US politics continues to fashion in the old, time-tested way … money talks. And even in this modern time of emails and smartphones, I’m glad to know some of the most valuable hoary, ancient US political traditions have been kept alive.
And when I say valuable traditions … I mean very, very valuable. These days, being a friend of Obama is worth big bucks.
Finally, we see that the claims by the opponents of the pipeline that they are trying to “protect the environment” are simply not true. If they were really concerned about the environment, they’d want the KeystoneXL pipeline expansion. It is much more dangerous to the environment to move the Alberta heavy crude by railroad tank car than by pipeline … and the tragedy in Canada is an excellent example of why.
And a happy Independence Day weekend to all,
w.
PS—In any case, if the pipeline is blocked, the Alberta heavy crude will still be burned, either shipped to China, or shipped to the US and Buffett will be even richer, or burned in Canada, but it will be burned. That’s the crazy part—the opposition to the pipeline, even if successful, will achieve nothing … welcome to the crazy world of modern environmental NGOs and their followers …
This is why we need pipelines, instead of enriching Warren Buffett with his trains.
Avast! gave me a malware warning of the type “Malicious URL” on the header image “wuwt_header9.jpg”. Is that a false positive?
Actually, I stand corrected: 46 different error reports.
If Keystone XL is rejected then a slightly reduced Keystone XL will be proposed and built. It will stop just short of the border on both sides in a location where rail access is available. Since it does not cross the border no federal permission is required.
Two or three unit trains will simply shunt the oil 20-50 km from the north side of the border to the south side. Again no federal permission is required to shunt oil by rail.
That gets things going. Slightly more expensive but certainly doable. And at some point the bridging section will be OK’d and built.
There is simply no circumstance short of the apocalypse where the oil sands don’t get dug out and used.
It appears the train was on fire near where it was parked and 10 km from where it crashed. I suspect this is more than an unfortunate accident.
You can add susceptibility to sabotage/terrorism to your list of risks.
Hi Willis,I too have had experience dealing with large amounts of energy being transported.Mainly by ships.We also have gas transported around NZ by pipeline.In my 45 years there has been only one minor spill from an FPSO,and the rules are very strict.I’m afraid I don’t totally agree with you if KXL is blocked,you say it will gain nothing.I say it will lead to more problems,accidents,suffering by workers through accidents etc.with the probability of more tragidies as we have seen here.So I think it will lead to more than nothing in the way of lost lives,spills,contamination etc.Why do the greens,powers that be want it stopped?you probably hit the nail on the head.Mr Buffett being one.
Pipelines have always,and will always be the safest way to shift huge quantities of oil/gas/condensate etc.Probably the most economic as well,but then,I’m not an expert.Thanks for that.
Willis,
Every time I hear of a train wreck and dumping things into rivers I can’t help but remember a tank car of Metamsodium dumped into the Sacramento river above Dunsmuir, California. Every living thing in the river and part of the lake below died. The river of my grandfather and my father was wiped out.
We must transport, but it is imperative to do it as safely as possible. Hauling oil by rail is criminally stupid and handsomely profitable. Forget Obama. We need to become F.O.O fighters if we have any hope of surviving over the next few years. (FOO = Friends of Obama)
pbh
old = oil
Apparently, the train was stopped for a driver change, but rolled away and crashed.
Philip Bradley says:
July 6, 2013 at 11:30 pm
Thanks, Philip, plus the possibility of kids getting into the locomotive … lots of dangers.
w.
McComber Boy says:
July 6, 2013 at 11:44 pm
Fixed.
w.
Don’t forget Warren’s good buddy and an investor lead the Nebraska opposition to the pipeline which provided cover to delay the decision until after the election. Shocked. Shocked. Happy 4th. Freedom is rare and precious.
This is a nit, but I believe it’s not Burlington Northern Railway. it’s BNSF, or Burlington Northern Santa Fe.
McComber Boyc says:
July 6, 2013 at 11:43 pm
Thanks, McComber Boy. I’ve ridden that section of track in a boxcar, it’s called the Cantara Loop. It’s a strange corner, a long sweeping bend where the train starts by going up a long valley, then it has to turn around by the river. It’s a tight bend, and in 1991, seven tank cars went over the edge. One landed in the Sacramento, and cracked.

The train stopped, and they checked to see if there were toxic chemicals in the tanks. The manifest didn’t mention the little fact that metam sodium, a potent pesticide, was hazardous. So they left it there, and went in and reported it with no urgency attached.
As a result, the contents of the tank leaked into the river, and killed a couple hundred thousand fish and killed basically, well, every thing in the river. Later, they found that the EPA didn’t list metam sodium as “Hazardous” …
The only good news is that nature is infinitely bountiful, and eventually the grass grows and covers the scars of war. The river now is back to its original bounty, I stopped in Dunsmuir last winter and walked along the river.
I just found a good retrospective of the ecological disaster in the blog of my old employer, the Redding Record-Searchlight. I worked for them when I was in high school, running the photolathe and the Fairchild half-tone machine. I hadn’t thought of the Record-Searchlight in a while, so I’m glad to see they’re still in business at the old stand.
w.
“I suspect this is more than an unfortunate accident.” [P. Bradley 11:30PM, 7/6/13]
I do too. It reminded me of an article by E. D. Fales, Jr. in Popular Science Monthly (October, 1961) — (look it up to read a story of unforgettable heroism) — about a runaway locomotive on Nov. 12, 1959 that took off from the Jersey Central Railroad at 10:29PM (Note: The MM & A runaway engine event also happened after dark). As far as I know the mystery was never solved. The starting procedure was so complicated that only an expert could start the locomotive. The veteran crew testified that they had carefully gone through the 8-step shutdown routine.
I think that in both cases it was intentional:
Only a person familiar with starting locomotives can start one once it is properly secured. Accidental engine departure is virtually impossible. Unless there was some highly improbable (but, of course, possible) mechanical failure (including the throttle stuck open) or the engineer was grossly incompetent
(“Drivin’ that train, high on cocaine”, perhaps? — that will be quickly known, for the Transportation Safety Commission(?) will have had the man give them a sample to drug test ASAP),
it almost certainly was deliberate. That engine was either: 1) not properly secured (no chalk and brakes not secured) AND the throttle stuck on (i.e., the safety measure of the “deadman” pedal bypassed); or 2) started and the throttle set to “GO” by a train-saavy saboteur.
I do not believe the saboteur(s) intended to murder anyone, for the engine was nearly 7 miles outside the town, around 1AM, when it started to roll along with no crew aboard. That the engine derailed before the town indicates they planned the “accident” to not harm anyone (some of the cars, however, didn’t cooperate and kept on going right into town). They are, nevertheless, guilty (if my guess is correct) of reckless homicide for intentionally incurring a known risk of deadly harm.
I doubt they will ever be caught. Unless…. a defector from the co-conspirators decides to talk. We shall see!
My point (v. a v. the TOPIC, ahem): EVERYTHING is susceptible to terrorism. While a pipeline may be safer, trains are not inherently (nor unacceptably) super-dangerous. They are simply, like anything, vulnerable to human evil.
I think it was sabotage you no what nutters the greens are.i would not put something like this past them.
On figure 2, that red circle underneath the arrowhead for “Rangeland”… that’s where I live (don’t come to my house, please).
I actually watched them build quite a lot of that pipeline. Today I could drive you along beside it and you’d never be able to tell. Not unless you follow the lines from the stations.
Now, the railroads are a different thing. I can show you the tracks, where you have to wait for multi-kilometer long trains of oil tankers. And I’m not exaggerating, one of my friends drives trains.
And Janice, it’s probably a bit soon to be talking about sabotage, but the anti-oil people are certainly capable of it.
All technology is vulnerable at some level to sabotage and human error, including otherwise reliable Boeing 777’s.
LOL, Codetech, while I would love to see your pretty lake and all the birds……. AS IF I could find my way to your house from that map. Don’t worry, It’s-never-too-soon-to-talk-conspiracy-Janice, heh, heh, heh, won’t be driving up your driveway anytime soon.
Re: The tragic Boeing 777 crash landing (pilot error, IMO), at San Francisco today —
While the drive-by media has been trumpeting that it’s the first time anyone has died in a 777 crash (and that is, indeed terrible), I would like (since my family has a long history with Boeing (“or I’m not going” — smile)) to say…………….. OUT OF ABOUT 350 CREW AND PASSENGERS, ONLY TWO DIED.
The old girl managed to land despite crashing into the sea wall on her way in. Way to go, Boeing, you still build the finest planes in the world.
Janice, what I find suspicious is the train both ran away and was seen to be on fire shortly afterwards. Heck of a coincidence.
Willis … I agree with all of your comments regarding the pipelines and efficacy and safety of using them. And that those blocking Keystone and similar are outright nutjobs with no basis in fact for their silly positions.
That said I think we need some perspective here. I do not have the statistics, but from a pure gut level (and from some past research) it seems train, and even truck, transport of flammable and/or hazardous materials is pretty darn safe considering the volume of material moved and the huge numbers of miles covered in the various methods of transport.
We transport massive amounts of goods of all types back and forth across the country, including large amounts of flammable and or hazardous materials. Accidents are pretty rare. Significant accidents are extremely rare.
A Boeing 777 crashed today at SFO – with miraculously almost all passengers walking away. As a pilot it seems pretty clear what likely happened – a low approach with it appearing the aircraft either hit the sea wall at end of runway or touched down early. There was pretty clearly a heavy tail strike, hitting the sea wall or runway threshold – shearing the tail but leaving rest of fuselage largely intact. The weather was excellent. There is no apparent reasonable explanation why the aircraft would get so far outside normal operations as this.This photo, and condition of the fuselage post crash seems to confirm the tail strike at the sea wall.
http://theori.st/take_away/random/ktvu_ss_20130706_1240.jpg
It looks like and is a bad accident – and it is truly amazing there was not a large loss of life. However this is reported as only the 2nd hull loss for 777’s since introduction in 1995. This crash would in reality seem to show the overall high safety record of these aircraft.
Again – I don’t disagree with any of your comments – just think we need to be careful about conflating a single isolated event into something more than what it is – a single event. No mater how horrendous, and acknowledging the extreme impact to the community and people where this occurred, it just seems we should be careful not to use it, without supporting data (which may well be there) on what the safety aspect/comparison really is.
Over the road and train transport are two critical components of our transportation system – we can shift some of their work to pipelines – but certainly we cannot shift all hazardous or flammable materials to pipes. IF we smear these methods as unsafe in this instance how do we justify claiming they are safe for what we continue to need them for ….
“You can say that again, Mr. Bradley,” Janice replied.
“Heck of a coincidence,” he said, nodding gravely.
A. Scott says:
July 7, 2013 at 1:34 am”
You are correct. The first was in 2008, London Heathrow. Iced fuel lines, all passengers walked away.
BBC interviewed an eyewitness about 90 minutes ago (BBC World Service-Weekend). This man said he and his friends saw the train hurtling down the hill towards the town at around 100 km (60 mi) an hour. He screamed to his friends to run like hell for safety. The man mused that it didn’t make sense that the conductor would not have secured the brakes on the parked train at the top of the hill, and if I am remembering the radio report correctly, said that he had heard subsequently that the train wasn’t braked. Other reports said that the conductor was signing off for another conductor/driver to take over. My question, then, is, how soon after the first guy left the train did the runaway action happen? If it wasn’t braked, then did it roll away immediately, and if so, wouldn’t the first conductor notice it? Did it happen an hour after the first conductor parked the train? When? This is either driver error or sabotage, that’s all it can be. We just have to wait for the investigation to finish.
Janice, I assume your comment was held in moderation… funny, since you’re welcome to come visit. We’ll find some wine… lol
Anyway, watching the SFO coverage today I’m not thinking pilot error. My prediction is that when all the facts are out the pilot will be seen as a hero for bringing it in with whatever issue the plane had. We’ll see. It’s purely conjecture on my part.
My friend who drives for CP Rail tells me there’s no big secret getting a loco started, the info is freely available online and even in a manual in the cab. He also told me that, as I’m sure most people won’t be surprised by, that often safety procedures are not followed. I still think if we find out some anti-oil activist did this it wouldn’t surprise many. But I think it’s more likely driver error. Again, purely conjecture on my part.
In Britain we are currently remmember the 25 year aniversary of the Piper Alpha oil Disater .167 killed cost billions and i heard argued actually caused the 1990s reccession.
Suppose the Enviromentalists are making much play that renewable energy is safer than fossil fuel.Unfortunatley you need fossil fuel to back up renewables.
If the politicians realised that fossil fuel is not some dirty little shameful secret industry they are desperatly trying to get rid of.They would properly invest in it and spend on inproved safety.