Battle Over New Oil Train Standards Pits Safety Against Cost

[pwjohn]

The federal government's new rules aimed at preventing explosive oil train derailments are sparking a backlash from all sides.

The railroads, oil producers and shippers say some of the new safety requirements are unproven and too costly, yet some safety advocates and environmental groups say the regulations aren't strict enough and still leave too many people at risk.

Battle Over New Oil Train Standards Pits Safety Against Cost NPR

 

[WinterBorn]

The OSHA regulations stipulate that cost cannot be used as an excuse for ignoring safety. Put the rules in place and fine the shit out of those who ignore them.

 

[pwjohn]

I have no sympathy for Warren buffets trains. Hammer em.
He's the one that fought tooth & nail to help stop the pipelines construction thus allowing him to corner the crude oil transportation market. He made a killing. Bet he never saw this coming.

 

[martybegan]

The OSHA regulations stipulate that cost cannot be used as an excuse for ignoring safety. Put the rules in place and fine the shit out of those who ignore them.

Cost always has to be a consideration. You can make a car that is 10 times safer than current vehicles, but it would cost 100x as much. There is always a risk vs. cost analysis done on anything.

 

[WinterBorn]

The OSHA regulations stipulate that cost cannot be used as an excuse for ignoring safety. Put the rules in place and fine the shit out of those who ignore them.

Cost always has to be a consideration. You can make a car that is 10 times safer than current vehicles, but it would cost 100x as much. There is always a risk vs. cost analysis done on anything.

I did not make it clear. OSHA has always maintained that cost cannot be used as a reason for violating safety rules and regulations.

 

[martybegan]

The OSHA regulations stipulate that cost cannot be used as an excuse for ignoring safety. Put the rules in place and fine the shit out of those who ignore them.

Cost always has to be a consideration. You can make a car that is 10 times safer than current vehicles, but it would cost 100x as much. There is always a risk vs. cost analysis done on anything.

I did not make it clear. OSHA has always maintained that cost cannot be used as a reason for violating safety rules and regulations.

Cost is not an excuse for violations, but it has to be a consideration in the creation of the rules. If a company thinks the cost is excessive they have to petition OSHA, or at worst sue OSHA.

 

[Darkwind]

There exists an answer to train and oil fires....

They're called pipelines.

 

[pwjohn]

There exists an answer to train and oil fires....

They're called pipelines.

You're very good at connecting the dots. The blame for this lies squarely in president Obamas lap. He alone stopped the pipelines construction.

 

[Nosmo King]

The oil extracted, particularly in North Dakota, has a very high level of volatile gasses, namely butane methane and propane. These gases are supposed to be 'conditioned' out of the crude at the well head. Shipping crude by rail where such gasses are essentially removed makes that crude less susceptible to explosion should a train wreck occur.

The oil producers are playing Russian roulette with the lives and property of the American citizens living near rail lines.

In this case, the cost of conditioning the crude prior to shipment is not an excessive burden when weighed against the damage wrought by a crude oil tank car derailing.

 

[pwjohn]

The oil is in fact conditioned prior to shipment and while further conditioning may be necessary, you can never make crude oil non flammable. So exploding oil trains will remain a fact of life. Oil pipelines is the way to go when shipping crude oil in large quantities.

 

[Nosmo King]

The oil is in fact conditioned prior to shipment and while further conditioning may be necessary, you can never make crude oil non flammable. So exploding oil trains will remain a fact of life. Oil pipelines is the way to go when shipping crude oil in large quantities.

The volatile gas pressure within certain crude extractions is the problem. North Dakota crude contains volatile gasses that exert a pressure of greater than 13 psi making that crude particularly dangerous to ship by rail.

 

[martybegan]

The oil extracted, particularly in North Dakota, has a very high level of volatile gasses, namely butane methane and propane. These gases are supposed to be 'conditioned' out of the crude at the well head. Shipping crude by rail where such gasses are essentially removed makes that crude less susceptible to explosion should a train wreck occur.

The oil producers are playing Russian roulette with the lives and property of the American citizens living near rail lines.

In this case, the cost of conditioning the crude prior to shipment is not an excessive burden when weighed against the damage wrought by a crude oil tank car derailing.

The oil producers were also told to reduce flaring, and if the gases being pulled out during conditioning aren't sufficient to be recoverable, they have to be flared. The regulators need to make up their mind which one is more important.

 

[pwjohn]

The oil extracted, particularly in North Dakota, has a very high level of volatile gasses, namely butane methane and propane. These gases are supposed to be 'conditioned' out of the crude at the well head. Shipping crude by rail where such gasses are essentially removed makes that crude less susceptible to explosion should a train wreck occur.

The oil producers are playing Russian roulette with the lives and property of the American citizens living near rail lines.

In this case, the cost of conditioning the crude prior to shipment is not an excessive burden when weighed against the damage wrought by a crude oil tank car derailing.

The oil producers were also told to reduce flaring, and if the gases being pulled out during conditioning aren't sufficient to be recoverable, they have to be flared. The regulators need to make up their mind which one is more important.

Conditioning and flaring although similiar are two different things. Flaring takes place during the extraction process while conditioning takes place after extraction, prior to transport.

Flaring alone still leaves North Dakota crude oil at better than 18 psi, far above the current 13 something psi deemed safe for transport via rail, so the oil must be conditioned after extraction to the 13 something psi deemed safe for transport via rail.

 

[pwjohn]

The oil is in fact conditioned prior to shipment and while further conditioning may be necessary, you can never make crude oil non flammable. So exploding oil trains will remain a fact of life. Oil pipelines is the way to go when shipping crude oil in large quantities.

The volatile gas pressure within certain crude extractions is the problem. North Dakota crude contains volatile gasses that exert a pressure of greater than 13 psi making that crude particularly dangerous to ship by rail.

True enough. President Obama should not have stopped the pipelines construction. We're all less safe now because of that

 

[martybegan]

The oil extracted, particularly in North Dakota, has a very high level of volatile gasses, namely butane methane and propane. These gases are supposed to be 'conditioned' out of the crude at the well head. Shipping crude by rail where such gasses are essentially removed makes that crude less susceptible to explosion should a train wreck occur.

The oil producers are playing Russian roulette with the lives and property of the American citizens living near rail lines.

In this case, the cost of conditioning the crude prior to shipment is not an excessive burden when weighed against the damage wrought by a crude oil tank car derailing.

The oil producers were also told to reduce flaring, and if the gases being pulled out during conditioning aren't sufficient to be recoverable, they have to be flared. The regulators need to make up their mind which one is more important.

Conditioning and flaring although similiar are two different things. Flaring takes place during the extraction process while conditioning takes place after extraction, prior to transport.

Flaring alone still leaves North Dakota crude oil at better than 18 psi, far above the current 13 something psi deemed safe for transport via rail, so the oil must be conditioned after extraction to the 13 something psi deemed safe for transport via rail.

The question is what to do with the conditioning waste if it isn't in sufficient quantities for recovery. The only viable option is to burn the conditioning spoils. I would think the regulators would consider both "flaring".

 

[pwjohn]

The oil extracted, particularly in North Dakota, has a very high level of volatile gasses, namely butane methane and propane. These gases are supposed to be 'conditioned' out of the crude at the well head. Shipping crude by rail where such gasses are essentially removed makes that crude less susceptible to explosion should a train wreck occur.

The oil producers are playing Russian roulette with the lives and property of the American citizens living near rail lines.

In this case, the cost of conditioning the crude prior to shipment is not an excessive burden when weighed against the damage wrought by a crude oil tank car derailing.

The oil producers were also told to reduce flaring, and if the gases being pulled out during conditioning aren't sufficient to be recoverable, they have to be flared. The regulators need to make up their mind which one is more important.

Conditioning and flaring although similiar are two different things. Flaring takes place during the extraction process while conditioning takes place after extraction, prior to transport.

Flaring alone still leaves North Dakota crude oil at better than 18 psi, far above the current 13 something psi deemed safe for transport via rail, so the oil must be conditioned after extraction to the 13 something psi deemed safe for transport via rail.

The question is what to do with the conditioning waste if it isn't in sufficient quantities for recovery. The only viable option is to burn the conditioning spoils. I would think the regulators would consider both "flaring".

For the time being you're correct. Because everything is brand new up there, big oil is still building the infrastructure necessary to capture & bring to market the gases lost to flaring and conditioning. That will happen because there's value in what's being lost as a necessity at present.

 

[martybegan]

The oil extracted, particularly in North Dakota, has a very high level of volatile gasses, namely butane methane and propane. These gases are supposed to be 'conditioned' out of the crude at the well head. Shipping crude by rail where such gasses are essentially removed makes that crude less susceptible to explosion should a train wreck occur.

The oil producers are playing Russian roulette with the lives and property of the American citizens living near rail lines.

In this case, the cost of conditioning the crude prior to shipment is not an excessive burden when weighed against the damage wrought by a crude oil tank car derailing.

The oil producers were also told to reduce flaring, and if the gases being pulled out during conditioning aren't sufficient to be recoverable, they have to be flared. The regulators need to make up their mind which one is more important.

Conditioning and flaring although similiar are two different things. Flaring takes place during the extraction process while conditioning takes place after extraction, prior to transport.

Flaring alone still leaves North Dakota crude oil at better than 18 psi, far above the current 13 something psi deemed safe for transport via rail, so the oil must be conditioned after extraction to the 13 something psi deemed safe for transport via rail.

The question is what to do with the conditioning waste if it isn't in sufficient quantities for recovery. The only viable option is to burn the conditioning spoils. I would think the regulators would consider both "flaring".

For the time being you're correct. Because everything is brand new up there, big oil is still building the infrastructure necessary to capture & bring to market the gases lost to flaring and conditioning. That will happen because there's value in what's being lost as a necessity at present.

Are the wellheads close enough to each other to make it viable at the point of extraction? (FYI I have a degree in ChemE).

It's still up to the regulators to decide which they find more important in the short term.

 

[pwjohn]

The oil extracted, particularly in North Dakota, has a very high level of volatile gasses, namely butane methane and propane. These gases are supposed to be 'conditioned' out of the crude at the well head. Shipping crude by rail where such gasses are essentially removed makes that crude less susceptible to explosion should a train wreck occur.

The oil producers are playing Russian roulette with the lives and property of the American citizens living near rail lines.

In this case, the cost of conditioning the crude prior to shipment is not an excessive burden when weighed against the damage wrought by a crude oil tank car derailing.

The oil producers were also told to reduce flaring, and if the gases being pulled out during conditioning aren't sufficient to be recoverable, they have to be flared. The regulators need to make up their mind which one is more important.

Conditioning and flaring although similiar are two different things. Flaring takes place during the extraction process while conditioning takes place after extraction, prior to transport.

Flaring alone still leaves North Dakota crude oil at better than 18 psi, far above the current 13 something psi deemed safe for transport via rail, so the oil must be conditioned after extraction to the 13 something psi deemed safe for transport via rail.

The question is what to do with the conditioning waste if it isn't in sufficient quantities for recovery. The only viable option is to burn the conditioning spoils. I would think the regulators would consider both "flaring".

For the time being you're correct. Because everything is brand new up there, big oil is still building the infrastructure necessary to capture & bring to market the gases lost to flaring and conditioning. That will happen because there's value in what's being lost as a necessity at present.

Are the wellheads close enough to each other to make it viable at the point of extraction? (FYI I have a degree in ChemE).

It's still up to the regulators to decide which they find more important in the short term.

Well you claim expertise so I will rely on what you said in this thread to answer your question.
The oil in this field is very gassy which means that the answer to your question should be yes. Although extracting gas from the oil field itself is not limited to individual wellheads used to extract oil.

I claim no expertise beyond what I've read through the usual news sources.

 

[pwjohn]

The oil extracted, particularly in North Dakota, has a very high level of volatile gasses, namely butane methane and propane. These gases are supposed to be 'conditioned' out of the crude at the well head. Shipping crude by rail where such gasses are essentially removed makes that crude less susceptible to explosion should a train wreck occur.

The oil producers are playing Russian roulette with the lives and property of the American citizens living near rail lines.

In this case, the cost of conditioning the crude prior to shipment is not an excessive burden when weighed against the damage wrought by a crude oil tank car derailing.

Precisely, the high gas content of this oil makes makes it incredibly dangerous to transport by rail.

What the hell was Obama thinking?

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

It's NPR. Another opportunity for left wing anti-fossil-fuel propaganda.