Will New LNG-by-Rail Industry Repeat the Mistakes of Oil Trains?

mikulka color
on

Over and over again, attendeesย of the 2016 Energy by Rail Conference heard that โ€œLNG by rail is ready toย go!โ€

LNG, or liquefied natural gas, is methane that has been cooled to the point of being a liquid. So, how do we know that shipping this hazardous flammable material on America’s aging rail infrastructure is โ€œready toย goโ€?

When trains carrying Bakken oil started derailing and exploding, there was a lot of head scratching about how this could happen sinceย โ€œcrude oil doesnโ€™t explode like that.โ€ But a lack of research beforehand resulted in industryย loading up unsafe rail cars with highly volatile oil in unit trains of 100 tank cars or more, stacking up the risk factors and increasing the likelihood of the accidents thatย followed.

With that knowledge in hand, will the burgeoningย LNG-by-rail industry receiveย more scrutiny prior to beingย approved?

Not if the industry has anything to say about it. And itย does.

Robert Fronczak, Assistant Vice President, Environment & Hazmat at the Association of American Railroads, a railroad industry group,ย explained the industry position to conference attendees inย October.

While the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) is researching the risks of LNG by rail, according to Fronczak, โ€œThat could take several years to do and we donโ€™t think itโ€™s necessary to wait all that long โ€ฆ We think they should allow itย immediately.โ€

Fronczak included a slide in his presentation with a summary of the planned FRA research that he doesnโ€™t think is worth the wait before proceeding with launching LNG byย rail.

And he may have aย point.

It appears the FRA is planning onlyย a โ€œsimplified engineering analysisโ€ of shipping LNG by rail,ย with a โ€œdetailed engineering analysisโ€ merely something being โ€œconsidered.โ€ย ย 

ย 

Launching a whole new industry of hazmat transport by rail without a detailed engineering analysis โ€” what could possibly goย wrong?

DeSmog asked the Federal Railroad Administration about the planned testing, but the response provided fewย details:

โ€œThe testing is still ongoing โ€ฆ thereโ€™s no prediction yet on a completionย date.โ€ย 

And when asked whether transporting LNG-by-rail could receive approval before the the FRA had done things like โ€œanalyze crashworthiness performance,โ€ the answer was, โ€œThere is no determinationย yet.โ€ย 

While federal regulators may not have a clear vision forย moving forward,ย Fronczak of the Association of American Railroads had no problem delvingย into the details. Fronczak explainedย precisely what the industry wanted fromย federal regulators, starting with approval for LNG to be moved in large tank cars like Bakken oil is, with a weight limit of 286,000ย pounds.

Additionally, the industry group will petition for the allowance of LNG unit trains. Unit trains are those that would only carry one type of cargo, in this case, LNG, and would have no regulation regarding train length, or the number of cars on a singleย train.

Other thanย LNG requiring a different type of tank car than Bakken oil (in order to keep the natural gas cooled to liquid form), this would essentially pushย the limits on several risk factors, such as train weight and train length,ย which may increase the rates ofย derailment.ย 

Fracked Gas Surplus Needs To Goย Somewhere

Just as the fracked oil revolution in theย Bakken Formationย led to the meteoric rise of oilย trains, fracking is at the heart of the issue with LNG-by-rail asย well.

The fracking boom brought us the dangers of explosive oil trains whenย Bakken oil production overwhelmed pipeline capacity and required producers to either cut production or put the highly volatile oil in the unsafe rail tank cars that were available at the time. There were no regulations regarding the length of these trains, which meant they were much longer than the average freight trains. Longer trains make more money for theย railroads.

And the same thing isย happening with fracked gas as it takes liquidย form.ย 

There is too much LNG and too many places the industry wants to move it to for pipelines to handle the current supply of LNG. As a result, the rail industry and tank car manufacturers are asking federal regulators to allow LNG transportation byย rail โ€” as soon asย possible.ย 

โ€œLNG Doesnโ€™tย Explodeโ€

At the Energy by Rail Conference, Robert Fronczac was followed on the LNG-by-railย panel by Scott Nason,ย a product manager for the rail products group at Chart Industries โ€” makers of pretty much anything that has to do with LNG processing and storage, including rail tankย cars.ย 

Nason, whose employer is heavily invested in the success of LNG transport by rail, not only assured the audience that LNG by rail was ready to go but also made the claims that โ€œLNG doesnโ€™t explodeโ€ and that a train carrying the productย โ€œis not a bomb onย wheels.โ€ย 

Technically the first statement is true. Liquid natural gas does not explode. Just like liquid gasoline does not explode. Or liquid Bakkenย oil.

But when an LNG storage container is compromised, and the liquid leavesย cryogenic storage and hits the atmosphere, is does not remain a liquid. And there is no doubt that at the right concentration with atmospheric conditions, natural gas โ€” in vapor form โ€” will explode when ignited.ย ย 

Then, Nason is makingย a similar argument to the one the oil industry has made in the past about Bakken oil. If the trains stay on the tracks and the oil stays in the tank cars โ€” there is no risk ofย explosion.

However, when there is a derailment and a tank car is punctured, there is considerableย risk.ย 

In 2014 there was an explosion at an LNG facility in Washington state. Risks of a second larger explosion resulted in authorities evacuating everyone within a two mile radius. Reuters reported, โ€œA county fire department spokesman said authorities were concerned a second blast could level a 0.75 mile ‘lethal zone’ around theย plant.โ€ย 

The Sightline Institute reported on the explosion two years later with an article titled,ย โ€œHow Industry and Regulators Kept Public in the Dark After 2014 Explosion in Washington,โ€ which detailed slow and incomplete reporting on theย accident.ย 

A 2009 report by the U.S. Congressional Research Service warned that LNG spills can unleash explosive vapor clouds. A 2004 blast at an Algerian LNG facility killed 27 workers and injured manyย more.

Lethal zones, a public kept in the dark, explosive vapor clouds, deadly explosions: LNG‘s history to date seems to call for careful and cautious oversight, yet federal regulators areย only planning a simplified engineering analysis of LNG railย transport.ย 

After Bakken oil trains started derailing and blowing up with an uncomfortable frequency, the head of the National Transportation Safety Board asked a simple question:ย 

โ€œHow did it get missed for the last tenย years?โ€

Will we be asking the same question about LNG by rail in theย future?ย 

mikulka color
Justin Mikulka is a research fellow at New Consensus. Prior to joining New Consensus in October 2021, Justin reported for DeSmog, where he began in 2014. Justin has a degree in Civil and Environmental Engineering from Cornell University.

Related Posts

on

Victoria Hewson called the 2050 ambition a โ€œhuge own goalโ€ while working for a Tufton Street think tank.

Victoria Hewson called the 2050 ambition a โ€œhuge own goalโ€ while working for a Tufton Street think tank.
on

Ahead of a city council vote, Resource Works launched an influence campaign with stock submissions for restaurant owners, hospitality workers, and residents.

Ahead of a city council vote, Resource Works launched an influence campaign with stock submissions for restaurant owners, hospitality workers, and residents.
on

Ahead of the November 29 election, dairy producers tell Irish government to step off the โ€œtreadmillโ€ of unsustainable milk production โ€“ and share a more holistic vision.

Ahead of the November 29 election, dairy producers tell Irish government to step off the โ€œtreadmillโ€ of unsustainable milk production โ€“ and share a more holistic vision.
on

The head of the CO2 Coalition tells DeSmog that Wright agrees carbon dioxide is โ€œnot the demon molecule, itโ€™s the miracle molecule.โ€

The head of the CO2 Coalition tells DeSmog that Wright agrees carbon dioxide is โ€œnot the demon molecule, itโ€™s the miracle molecule.โ€