Two trains carrying crude oil derailed in the US this month, making headlines that garnered more attention to a recent debate over the in-vogue shipping method’s environmental impact.
The popularity of crude by rail shipments has opponents of major proposed crude pipeline projects (like Transcanada’s Keystone XL) asking the question: is rail transport safe?
Massive crude production growth in the US and Canada has forced shippers with limited pipeline capacity to move crude by rail to destination markets. On Wednesday, a Canadian Pacific Railway train heading to Chicago with crude from Alberta, Canada, derailed in western Minnesota, spilling less than 360 barrels. Early estimates were that about 475 to 715 barrels of oil were spilled.
On Thursday, the activist group Tar Sands Blockade released a statement calling the spill “massive” and expressing concerns about shipping tar sands crude by rail.
The first crude-carrying train to derail this month jumped the tracks in Maine while carrying Bakken crude to Canada. But no oil leaked during the incident.
Blog entry continues below…
|
|
||||
| Request a free trial of: Oilgram News |  |
|||
 |
Oilgram News brings fast-breaking global petroleum and gas news to your desktop every day. Our extensive global network of correspondents report on supply and demand trends, corporate news, government actions, exploration, technology, and much more. | |||
 |
||||
|
|
||||
Nearly 70% of the crude moving out of the prolific Bakken Shale in North Dakota does so on a rail car. Production there is expected to reach over 1 million b/d by the end of this year. Heavy crude shippers in Canada have taken note of Bakken shippers’ success, and are sending an increasing amount of oil sands by train.
Crude from the Eagle Ford shale and Permian Basin in Texas and the Mississippian Lime in Kansas and Oklahoma is also moving on tracks.
Crude by rail shippers are in it for the long-haul, sources have said.
Forecasts that crude by rail will stay a viable piping alternative through the decade beg questions about the probability of clogged railways, more derailments and spills. With this in mind, I asked Association of American Railroads spokeswoman Holly Arthur to discuss crude by rail’s impact on the US.
The reliability of railing crude, “is a topic receiving much attention because of the explosive growth in the movement of crude by rail, however crude oil represents less than 1% of all rail traffic,” Arthur said. “Railroads have ample capacity to meet the demand to move more crude, as well as other types of growing rail traffic around the US”
This year railroads are expected to spend about $24.5 billion to maintain, build and upgrade their networks. “Many of those investments include projects and facilities that will help facilitate service to crude-oil related customers,” she said.
As far as safety goes, railroads have a superb track record, she said.
Historically, more than 99.99% of hazardous material, including oil, shipments have reached their destination without a release caused by a train accident.
“Hazmat incident release rates have dropped 33% since 2000 and 73% since 1980 (including non-accident releases as well as releases in train accidents),” she said, noting that most spills that occur happen during the loading or unloading of products.
While both railroads and pipelines have strong safety records, AAR analysis shows that railroads spill less hazardous liquid product than pipelines, she said. Railroads spilled 9% less “per billion barrel miles between 1990 and 2009 than pipelines,” Arthur said.
And, should there be a hazardous railroad spill, tens of thousands of emergency responders in the US receive free hazmat training from railroads each year.
This is “to help ensure that local emergency personnel will be prepared in the event of an accident,” she said. The movement of crude oil is highly regulated by the federal government, she said.