|
 Historically, most oil in the U.S. has been transported via pipeline. In 2008, the U.S. saw the rise of a new alternative for crude oil shipment - railroad. While "crude by rail" was initially seen as a temporary solution until construction of pipeline infrastructure, it has become a staple part of the U.S. energy industry. Today, no small number (~939,000 barrels a day) of oil in the U.S. is shipped by rail, about a tenth of the quantity carried in pipelines.
 Unfortunately, there have been a large number of accidents and spills related to shipping oil by rail, and that has raised concerns for Americans across the country. The biggest incident was in Lac-Megantic, where a 74-car train derailed, causing the fire and explosion of multiple tank cars that destroyed 30 buildings and killed 42 people. Other accidents, such as the accidents in Cassleton, North Dakota, and Lynchburg, Virginia, did not kill or injure anyone but did create massive explosions and oil spills. These, along with other accidents, have generated a lot of discussion about what can be done to make transporting oil by rail safer.
 It seems that the culprit in the majority of these accidents is "Bakken crude," crude oil product obtained from the Bakken formation located in North Dakota and nearby states. Some 65-70% of Bakken crude (roughly 670,000 barrels per day) is transported by rail. The biggest issue with Bakken crude (and other forms of light crude oil) is its volatility and explosive potential. Heavy crude is less dangerous to transport because it is harder to ignite due to being largely devoid of combustible "light" components.
There is a way to decrease volatility in crude oil: a process called stabilization. Stabilization is the process of removing the more volatile components of the oil (residual gases, natural gas liquids and "light" liquid components). Stabilizing Bakken oil can effectively decrease its Reid Vapor Pressure (RVP, a common measure of volatility) from 8-16 psi to between 1.5-6 psi, which is a substantial change in explosive potential.
Unfortunately, like all things, stabilization costs money. In fact, mandating stabilization would require companies to spend potentially billions on stabilizers to recover natural gas liquids (NGLs) and pipelines to transport the NGLs to a suitable market. But to address this issue of railcar safety, it may be a necessary price.
There are other factors in the equation, including the traveling speeds of trains and the condition and maintenance of the railcars. Derailing and accidents often occur because a train is moving too fast, and old and poor-condition cars and connections can also cause problems. All of these items need to be addressed at the source because once a train is on the rail it is largely free from regulation by other states it passes through. North Dakota, where most of the Bakken crude is loaded and shipped from, is thus in a unique position to make safety improvements. Other states (including New York) have recognized this and have been petitioning North Dakota to increase its oversight of the oil train industry.
 Interestingly enough, this issue literally hits close to home for me, since the office building I work in sits practically right across the road from a rail line that carries North Dakota crude cars through it every day. And while the likelihood of an accident is very small (the cars travel at <10mph in this area), it's a bit unnerving knowing that the potential for a major disaster is very real, and the costs would be much higher than the price of oversight to make things safer. These are things that I hope we consider as the use of rail for crude transport continues to grow.
Sources:
WSJ - Dangers Aside, Railways Reshape Crude Market
Reuters - Safety Debate Eyes Taming Bakken Crude Before It Hits Rails
| 
2
Re: Safety Concerns of Oil by Rail
Comments rated to be Good Answers: