Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

New regulations for oil on rail cars to come in 2015
Fuel Fix ^ | January 14, 2014 | Zain Shauk

Posted on 01/15/2014 3:09:22 AM PST by thackney

Regulations that could force oil companies to use stronger rail cars to move crude likely will be ready in 2015, according to a schedule released Tuesday by the U.S. Department of Transportation.

Oil companies have increasingly used rail cars to move crude, but recent disasters, including a derailment and massive explosions in North Dakota last month, have drawn attention to the cars’ vulnerabilities. New regulations that could force older tank cars to be upgraded or phased out are under development, but will not be proposed until Nov. 12 and will be subject to a public comment period until Jan. 12, 2015, according to the Department of Transportation.

However, that initial timeline could shift as the process continues, said Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration spokesman Gordon Delacambre.

Recent derailments and explosions, including one in Quebec that killed 47, have involved tank cars widely thought to be weak.

The National Transportation Safety Board on Monday drew more concern about the tank cars, reporting that 18 of the 20 tank cars that derailed in the North Dakota incident were punctured. The NTSB also confirmed that the tank cars involved in the incident were an aging model that has drawn scrutiny for being especially vulnerable to punctures.

Weak shells

The board has for years said the widely used DOT-111 rail tank cars are weak and should be retrofitted or phased out because they experience more serious damage in accidents than other models, such as pressure tank cars. The difference “can be attributed to the fact that pressure tank cars have thicker shells and heads,” the agency’s chairwoman, Deborah Hersman, wrote in a letter to the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration in 2009.

The Department of Transportation’s Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration sets regulations for the rail cars.

About 85 percent of the 92,000 tank cars used to transport flammable liquids in the United States are DOT-111s or other car types that need to be phased out or upgraded, according to the American Association of Railroads.

Comments and proposals

Regulators have solicited comments about the potential regulations and have begun analyzing proposals that would address concerns about the DOT-111 tank cars, Delacambre said.

Despite increased calls for updated regulations following the Dec. 30 derailment in North Dakota, the regulations will take months to develop. Railway workers and companies have been among those calling for new regulations.

Railways typically do not own the rail cars used to hold oil. The cars typically are owned or leased by the companies shipping products by rail.


TOPICS: News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: dot111; energy; oil; rail; train

1 posted on 01/15/2014 3:09:23 AM PST by thackney
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: thackney

It’s really the grace of God that we don’t get terrorist oil train assaults. Yet. When they talked about puncture resistance, I immediately thought, what might puncture it. The answer is obvious, and you’d need to be built like tanks to guard against deliberate trouble makers.


2 posted on 01/15/2014 3:12:37 AM PST by HiTech RedNeck (The Lion of Judah will roar again if you give him a big hug and a cheer and mean it. See my page.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: HiTech RedNeck
It’s really the grace of God that we don’t get terrorist oil train assaults. Yet. When they talked about puncture resistance, I immediately thought, what might puncture it. The answer is obvious, and you’d need to be built like tanks to guard against deliberate trouble makers.

Its also sounds one of those things that it would be easy to not get caught doing it.

3 posted on 01/15/2014 3:37:16 AM PST by ClaytonP
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: thackney

Long before considering the uparmoring of rail stock, I would be looking at the financial impact on rail companies, and the rise in price for refined products as a natural consequence to the demand for stronger cars by a federal government not known for fiscal responsibility.


4 posted on 01/15/2014 3:41:59 AM PST by wita
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: thackney

Let’s just make a guess that Warren Buffett already has a contract to build them


5 posted on 01/15/2014 3:45:25 AM PST by silverleaf (Age takes a toll: Please have exact change)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: thackney

This type of regulatory tyranny is designed to attach the weights of increased costs on our energy industry. A little oil spilled is little consequence compared to the increased costs to prevent it. There is more engine oil dripping out of our transportation vehicles than we can imagine.


6 posted on 01/15/2014 3:45:31 AM PST by jonrick46 (The opium of Communists: other people's money.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: thackney

Let’s be real....How many times has this happened??


7 posted on 01/15/2014 3:46:17 AM PST by Sacajaweau
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: thackney

Let’s be real....How many times has this happened??


8 posted on 01/15/2014 3:47:46 AM PST by Sacajaweau
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jonrick46
You could make the same statement about any regulation. In the case of rail cars carrying oil, I don't have a problem with treating them any differently than double-hull oil tankers that carry oil across the ocean, when it comes to enhancing the strength of the tank.

The bigger question in my mind is: How effective will the "solution" be? If the government imposes these regulations and then railcars end up spilling oil in most derailment or collision incidents anyway, then what's the point?

9 posted on 01/15/2014 4:06:01 AM PST by Alberta's Child ("I've never seen such a conclave of minstrels in my life.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: jonrick46
I would also point out that the use of the term "regulatory tyranny" when it comes to railroads is comical.

If they could get away with it, most local and county governments would (understandably) outlaw the transportation of hazardous materials by rail within their jurisdictions. They are prohibited from doing this because the railroad industry operates under the protection of Federal railroad laws that basically strip state, county and local governments from interfering with railroad commerce.

When you are an industry that operates under the protection of "regulatory tyranny" to begin with, nobody is going to take you seriously when you complain about the heavy-handed costs of government regulation.

10 posted on 01/15/2014 4:11:05 AM PST by Alberta's Child ("I've never seen such a conclave of minstrels in my life.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: silverleaf

He bought a company that builds rail tank cars.

Warren Buffett Cashes In on Railroad Tank Cars
http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2013-11-14/2014-outlook-warren-buffett-cashes-in-on-railroad-tank-cars
November 14, 2013


11 posted on 01/15/2014 4:49:42 AM PST by thackney (life is fragile, handle with prayer)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: jonrick46

Seriously? Maybe you should go to that Quebec town where half the town went up in flames. Then stand in the middle of the town where there is nothing left and say what you just wrote out loud in front of all of the surviving families. Then get back to me.

These old rail cars that have been used for way too many years need to be removed from the rails and replaced with the upgraded tanker cars. Now, I don’t care if it is industry initiative if they are willing or government oversight, but something has needed to be done for many years with these cars.


12 posted on 01/15/2014 4:55:58 AM PST by hawkaw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: jonrick46; Sacajaweau; wita
The industry already recognized the problem as real and changed the design of the tanks a few years back.

But these tanks don't wear out real quick so there are a lot of old tanks still in service.

- - - - - -

The American Association of Railroads, which initially expressed reservations about stricter tank regulations, said in November that it supports standards for upgraded tank cars.

http://fuelfix.com/blog/2014/01/13/federal-probe-details-events-in-north-dakota-train-oil-spill/?cmpid=eefl

- - - - - - - - -

Another part of the problem is past comparisons of the frequency of the accidents do not take into account the large increase in crude oil rail traffic.


13 posted on 01/15/2014 4:57:52 AM PST by thackney (life is fragile, handle with prayer)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: wita
Long before considering the uparmoring of rail stock, I would be looking at the financial impact on rail companies

Since the oil tank cars are typically owned by the oil company, and the rail company gets most of the blame in accidents, this will help the rail companies.

14 posted on 01/15/2014 4:59:48 AM PST by thackney (life is fragile, handle with prayer)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: All
The U.S. National Transportation Safety Board has issued safety guidelines on the widely used, cylindrical tank cars known as DOT-111s, including a recommendation that all tank cars used to carry ethanol and crude oil be reinforced to make them more resistant to punctures if trains derail.

The new guidelines, put forward in March 2012 but which have not yet been adopted by the Department of Transportation agency that oversees the sector, stem from a deadly ethanol train derailment and explosion in Illinois in 2009.

DOT-111 railcars ordered after October 2011 have been manufactured to the new code, but the industry has resisted spending an estimated $1 billion to retrofit nearly 300,000 existing tank cars.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/11/08/us-crude-train-explosion-idUSBRE9A70Q920131108

15 posted on 01/15/2014 5:22:36 AM PST by thackney (life is fragile, handle with prayer)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: thackney

If they mandate that 85% of all tank cars get upgraded overnight, it will cause a major spike through the energy sector.

Berkshire Hathaway (Warren Buffet) will benefit greatly if this happens as his railroads will have less risk and his rail tank car manufacturing (purchased only months before this proposed change) will boom. Win-Win.


16 posted on 01/15/2014 5:28:43 AM PST by Erik Latranyi (When religions have to beg the gov't for a waiver, we are already under socialism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Erik Latranyi
Last time I checked, a new tank car cost $100,000 or so to build.
17 posted on 01/15/2014 5:37:31 AM PST by Eric in the Ozarks ("Say Not the Struggle Naught Availeth.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: jonrick46

Your comments are stunning. The issue isn’t preventing spilled oil. It’s protecting people’s lives and property. I live in an area of about 300,000 population. Train tracks go through the middle of the west side of town. In the north side of town, the tracks are within feet of homes. There are two small cities to the north. Those same tracks bisect those towns. It’s human lives we’re talking about.

My son works in the industry which repairs and upgrades rail cars. These old tanker cars need reinforced heads. Heads are the ends of the cars right above the point where the cars link together. Sudden impacts, even sudden stops, can cause parts of one car to pierce the head of the car ahead or behind and cause an inferno. Needs fixing.


18 posted on 01/15/2014 5:38:24 AM PST by Clara Lou
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: thackney

Where is Cosmo Kramer and his bladder system when you need him?


19 posted on 01/15/2014 6:32:05 AM PST by Buckeye McFrog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: thackney

Are you sure the tanker cars are owned by the oil companies?
The reason I ask is that very few lumber mills own the flatcars or box cars that they load lumber, plywood or osb board on/in. I only know of one mill that has a lease on flatcars.

No company is going to voluntarily replace existing equipment unless either they are forced to because of government regulation or they perceive it will lessen their exposure to lawsuits.


20 posted on 01/15/2014 6:52:19 AM PST by woodbutcher1963
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: thackney

wasn’t Warren buying railroad stock as soon as Obama was elected?

what a coinky dink


21 posted on 01/15/2014 7:52:12 AM PST by silverleaf (Age takes a toll: Please have exact change)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: woodbutcher1963

While not all are owned that way, keep in mind these oil trains are often replacing pipeline. The same cars are dedicated to the same pickup and delivery and run non-stop.


22 posted on 01/15/2014 10:39:21 AM PST by thackney (life is fragile, handle with prayer)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: woodbutcher1963

Also dry freight doesn’t worry about contamination from the previous load. They need to be sure what they load in and out.


23 posted on 01/15/2014 10:41:17 AM PST by thackney (life is fragile, handle with prayer)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: woodbutcher1963

Sorry, I forgot one more piece.

From the following article:

Rail customers, like oil companies, buy or lease the tank cars that they use to ship their products.

http://fuelfix.com/blog/2014/01/13/federal-probe-details-events-in-north-dakota-train-oil-spill/?cmpid=eefl


24 posted on 01/15/2014 10:42:42 AM PST by thackney (life is fragile, handle with prayer)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Clara Lou

Remember the Keystone Pipeline? Don’t you get a feeling there is an effort by the Carbon Nuts to pinch off our distribution of domestic oil production? Michael Whatley thinks so:

Michael Whatley, executive vice president of Consumer Energy Alliance, an industry-backed group that supports Keystone, said more rail accidents can be expected with the increased use of trains to carry oil to market.

“Trains need to be a supplement, not a replacement” for pipelines, Whatley said. While both forms of transportation are safe, “we need expanded pipeline infrastructure,” he said.


25 posted on 01/15/2014 11:37:22 PM PST by jonrick46 (The opium of Communists: other people's money.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Alberta's Child

Here is an article that gives a picture of what’s going on in the pipeline vs rail debate:

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-12-31/north-dakota-train-fire-adds-fuel-to-keystone-xl-debate.html

We would have the Keystone Pipeline if it were not for the “regulatory tyranny” going on in this country. In my opinion, the pipeline is safer because they go though less populated areas, unlike trains.

You can make the train only so safe. The Casselton, North Dakota incident may have happened because of a broken axle. How do we prevent against those types of failures? Making the tank cars more resistant to punctures will be expensive and there is no guarantee such efforts will prevent all explosions. There is always the possibility of terrorist activity too. We can only be so safe and then we try to live with the things that happen out of our control. Those who play on our fears are doing so because of an agenda. The agenda is to limit our use of fossil fuels. The Regime is doing everything it can through “regulatory tyranny” to do so.


26 posted on 01/16/2014 12:21:00 AM PST by jonrick46 (The opium of Communists: other people's money.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: woodbutcher1963

One more reason for rail companies to improve their equipment: if they don’t, their insurance costs will go up. And, insurance companies will demand that the rail companies make their equipment more reliable, or they will lose their insurance coverage. You wouldn’t want to risk a huge lawsuit without insurance coverage. When the Obama Regime gets their regularity hands into the problem, I would suspect their agenda to limit fossil fuel production. Don’t you?


27 posted on 01/16/2014 12:29:44 AM PST by jonrick46 (The opium of Communists: other people's money.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: jonrick46
Remember the Keystone Pipeline? Don’t you get a feeling there is an effort by the Carbon Nuts to pinch off our distribution of domestic oil production?

While the Keystone XL would carry some domestic production, the large majority of it would be Canadian imported oil/bitumen. Of course I would rather import more from Canada and less from OPEC.

28 posted on 01/16/2014 4:44:49 AM PST by thackney (life is fragile, handle with prayer)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: jonrick46
From my original post:

“or they perceive it will lessen their exposure to lawsuits”

We have a consensus.

29 posted on 01/16/2014 10:07:43 AM PST by woodbutcher1963
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson