CKA Forums
Login 
canadian forums
bottom
 
 
Canadian Forums

Author Topic Options
Offline
CKA Super Elite
CKA Super Elite
 Montreal Canadiens


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 7835
PostPosted: Mon Sep 23, 2013 5:16 pm
 


dino_bobba_renno dino_bobba_renno:
Zipperfish Zipperfish:
We've been through this already. Though the probability of a spill is higher with rail than a pipeline, the consequence is much lower (because broken rail cars spill less product than broken pipelines). The overall risk (probability times consequence) is lower for rail.


I'd have to argue with that point. Yes it's true to some degree that trail based spill are normally smaller but they are far more frequent. I quickly goggled "train oil spill" and there were a number of spills over 4000 bbls just last year. Compare that to Kalamazoo River oil spill which is one of the largest recorded on-land spills due to a pipeline rupture which released around 20,000 bbls. Or even the numbers from Lac-Mégantic are coming in as high as 35,000+ bbls.

The only reason we haven't seen the big numbers from railway spills is that historically we haven't been shipping that much by rail. Just wait until you start seeing larger amounts being moved by rail, I'll bet a 20,000 bbl spill because of a derailment isn't too far in our future.


Exactly. It's only relatively recently that any significant amounts of oil have been shipped by rail in North America, and it's quite common that oil spilled from land-based pipelines has a better chance of being recovered, compared to rail oil spill, which can lead to disastrous explosions and significant loss of life.

Zip's numbers about the amount of oil spilled by transport type comes from 2003, when crude oil shipments by rail was statistically insignificant, and even then, crude oil shipments by rail had the highest spillage rate out of road and pipeline infrastructure.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Vancouver Canucks
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 21665
PostPosted: Tue Sep 24, 2013 10:33 pm
 


dino_bobba_renno dino_bobba_renno:
Zipperfish Zipperfish:
We've been through this already. Though the probability of a spill is higher with rail than a pipeline, the consequence is much lower (because broken rail cars spill less product than broken pipelines). The overall risk (probability times consequence) is lower for rail.


I'd have to argue with that point. Yes it's true to some degree that trail based spill are normally smaller but they are far more frequent. I quickly goggled "train oil spill" and there were a number of spills over 4000 bbls just last year. Compare that to Kalamazoo River oil spill which is one of the largest recorded on-land spills due to a pipeline rupture which released around 20,000 bbls. Or even the numbers from Lac-Mégantic are coming in as high as 35,000+ bbls.

The only reason we haven't seen the big numbers from railway spills is that historically we haven't been shipping that much by rail. Just wait until you start seeing larger amounts being moved by rail, I'll bet a 20,000 bbl spill because of a derailment isn't too far in our future.


"I quickly Googled..." yeah, sure you did. You googled squat

http://www.businessinsider.com/oil-spills-by-mode-of-transport-2013-7

Image


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Vancouver Canucks
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 21665
PostPosted: Tue Sep 24, 2013 10:35 pm
 


commanderkai commanderkai:

Exactly. It's only relatively recently that any significant amounts of oil have been shipped by rail in North America, and it's quite common that oil spilled from land-based pipelines has a better chance of being recovered, compared to rail oil spill, which can lead to disastrous explosions and significant loss of life.

Zip's numbers about the amount of oil spilled by transport type comes from 2003, when crude oil shipments by rail was statistically insignificant, and even then, crude oil shipments by rail had the highest spillage rate out of road and pipeline infrastructure.


Well, those numbers stand unless you can show me some better ones. Ditto for your blind speculation that oil from trains is easier to clean up.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 42160
PostPosted: Tue Sep 24, 2013 10:39 pm
 


pretty sure he said it was harder to clean up


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Vancouver Canucks
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 21665
PostPosted: Tue Sep 24, 2013 10:46 pm
 


dino_bobba_renno dino_bobba_renno:
And we've all ready been through this point as well. Personally as someone in the industry I would argue for the opposite which I realize sounds pretty counter intuitive.


And that's the challenge the industry faces. Despite overwhelming evidence that people are very concerned with environmental impacts of the oil sands and of oil transport and oil spills, the industry simply refuses to acknoweldge it. I've seen it before with clearcutting in BC in the 80s. Evenutally, the industry simply had to to fact the fact that the customer is always right and had to change the way they do business. Same with the oil industry.

$1:
If we could start replacing some of the older corroded lines we would lessen the chance of lines breaking to begin with. The problem is right now that companies can't get approval for twinning lines (or "looping" as we call it) due to the steeped environmental regulations that they are faced with. Most lines have a life span of about 20 years depending on the product they carry but most of the larger NEB regulated lines are far older than that.


I'm not sure what the system is like provincially in Alberta, but federally, the COservatvies have greatly reduced regualtory oversight on the environment, so I just don't buy that, sorry.


$1:
On the regulation side of things; I don't think we need any more environmental regulations, we all ready have way too many to deal with at the moment to the point where we can barely even build anything. The governments time would be better spent on looking at new regulations regarding the operation and maintenance of the existing and new lines. That is what's going to prevent line breaks. More smart pigging, more inhibitor usage, more stringent guidelines on when a company has to repair a line etc etc. Establishing a new more ridiculous buffer zone for Ferruginous Hawks or Leopard Frogs isn't going to do squat.


I think what the industry needs to do is turn down the PR machine. It's actually working against them right now. Those Northern Gateway commercials are pissing people off, because they know when they are being BS'd. They are sick of being handled by communications people who just relentlessly read from their press lines. Same thing applis to the federal government right now. You don't eliminate your oil spill team in Vancouver and then go boast that you have a "world'class" oil spill response regime. Last month, leaked memos from the province of BC showed their response managers were concerend that the feds had no real response plan in place.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Vancouver Canucks
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 21665
PostPosted: Tue Sep 24, 2013 10:47 pm
 


ShepherdsDog ShepherdsDog:
pretty sure he said it was harder to clean up


Yeah--got that backward. That's what I meant. Thanks for the catch.

Regardless, it's baseless speculation, unless youhe can provide figures to back it up.

(edit)


Last edited by Zipperfish on Wed Sep 25, 2013 11:23 am, edited 1 time in total.

Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Montreal Canadiens
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 13404
PostPosted: Wed Sep 25, 2013 11:03 am
 


There was a spill of rail-borne crude today, in Saskatchewan

http://news.ca.msn.com/top-stories/cn-t ... e-oil-leak


Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 22 posts ]  Previous  1  2



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 58 guests




 
     
All logos and trademarks in this site are property of their respective owner.
The comments are property of their posters, all the rest © Canadaka.net. Powered by © phpBB.