Showing posts with label transport. Show all posts
Showing posts with label transport. Show all posts

Pipelines Reborn: They're Back Thanks to Trump

The day after Donald J Trump fired the first salvos in his war against the EPA and others, he delivered on his promise to double down on fossil fuels with the approval of two pipelines. On Tuesday, January 24th, Trump signed Executive Orders that overturn the Obama administration's decision on the Keystone XL (KXL) and the Dakota Access pipeline (DAPL). This authorizes TransCanada Pipelines to move forward with the 1,179-mile KXL and Energy Transfer Partners can also proceed with the 1,172-mile DAPL.

This is a blow for environmentalists and indigenous people who had fought hard to shut down the KXL and DAPL. Keystone was killed by President Barack Obama after years of protests and DAPL was stalled by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in the face of massive protests by indigenous people led by the Standing Rock Sioux.

Trump also signed an EO that will eliminate environmental regulations associated with the permitting process.

There are massive environmental costs associated with pipelines. They inevitably spill (click here to see a partial summary of oil spills in 2016). Even more importantly, they contribute climate change causing greenhouse gasses (GHGs) to the atmosphere at a time when we cannot afford further increases (we are currently 1.5 degrees Celsius above preindustrial norms and scientists conservatively estimate that we cannot afford to go beyond 2 degrees Celsius).

DAPL will ferry 570,000 barrels of dirty shale oil from North Dakota to the Gulf Coast. The pipeline imperils the drinking water of 17 million people. The emissions from this pipeline are equivalent to 30 coal plants. According to Oil Change International DAPL will create "101.4 million metric tons of CO2e per year. These emissions are equivalent to 29.5 typical U.S. coal plants or the average emissions of 21.4 million U.S. passenger vehicles."

Each day the KXL can transport 830,000 barrels of some of the dirtiest oil on Earth. The Friends of the Earth reports that the GHGs associated with this pipeline is equivalent to putting 5.6 million new cars on the roads.

The promised reopening of NAFTA will complicate the KXL which will ferry oil from Alberta's tar sands to Texas. Because it crosses a state boundary the permitting process is largely under state department control. However, there are questions as to the viability of the pipeline with oil prices seemingly stuck below $60 a barrel.

More protests and lawsuits can be expected to try to stop this administration from moving forward with pipelines that are harmful to this and future generations.

As explained Bill McKibben,

"This is not a done deal. The last time around, TransCanada was so confident they literally mowed the strip where they planned to build the pipeline before people power stopped them. People will mobilize again."

The DAPL protest has been called off with Sioux leaders looking to fight the decisions in the courts. It will also take time for the Army Corps of Engineers to conduct a full environmental assessment as required by law. But this could be overcome if the Army issues and easement.

Former Democratic presidential candidate Senator Bernie Sanders summed up the situation as follows:

"Millions of people came together all over this country to stop the Keystone XL and Dakota Access pipelines and say we must transform our energy system away from fossil fuels to renewable energy. Today, President Trump ignored the voices of millions and put the short-term profits of the fossil fuel industry ahead of the future of our planet."

Related
Dakota Access Pipeline Halted by Government Despite Judges Ruling (Videos)
The Dakota Access and Protest that Kills Pipelines
TransCanada's Keystone is Spewing Crude Adding Fuel to Pipeline Protests
A Brief Review of the Keystone XL Saga
Why the Keystone XL Pipedream Must Die
Republicans Keep Pushing Keystone XL Pipeline
Reasons Why the Keystone XL is a Pipedream
Keystone XL will Emit 4 Times More Pollution than Originally Thought
Buying Support for the Keystone XL
Business Leaders, Scientists, Economists and Ordinary People Reject the Keystone XL
Comparison of the Keystone XL and Renewable Energy
How Come the Keystone XL is so Hard to Kill

Oil Train Derails and Explodes in Oregon Adjacent to the Columbia River (Video)

An oil train derailment and explosion along the Columbia river in Oregon has once again highlighted the dangers of transporting oil by rail. Around noon on Friday June 2nd, 2016, at least 12 rail cars carrying Bakken oil operated by Union Pacific derailed and caught fire. The wreck occurred in the Columbia River Gorge near the community of Mosier in Oregon which is about about 70 miles east of Portland. The derailment and subsequent fire has forced the evacuation of local schools and nearby homes. The I-84 highway has also been closed to traffic. The fire burned overnight and plumes of black smoke were seen billowing from the scene.

The rail line runs adjacent to the Columbia river which is widely used for both recreation and commerce. Residents of the town of Mosier are being asked to boil their water.


"Moving oil by rail constantly puts our communities and environment at risk," said Jared Margolis, an attorney at the Center for Biological Diversity in Eugene, Oregon.

There have been a total of 26 oil trains that have derailed or caught fire in North America over the last ten years. Almost half of these accidents have involved Bakken crude.

In 2013 a derailment and explosion killed 47 people in Lac-Megantic, Quebec and cost at least $1.2 billion. With growing frequency oil trains are moving through highly populated areas and near ecologically sensitive terrain like waterways.

Throughout North America there have been a number of serious oil train derailments and fires in 2015.

Related
Summary of Fossil Fuel Spills in 2015 (Videos) 
Montana Oil Train Derailment and Spill
New Oil Train Rules Do Not Go Far Enough
Fourth Oil Train Derailment in a Month and Twelfth for the Year
The End of Oil Trains?
Oil Train Derailments: How Many Wake-Up Calls do we Need?
Event - Worldwide Oil Train Week of Action
More Oil Being Shipped by Rail = More Risks
Curtailing the Transport of Oil by Pipe and Rail
Growing Opposition to Shipping Oil by Rail
Criminal Charges Leveled Against those Responsible for the Lac Megantic Disaster
The Dangers of Transporting Fossil Fuels
Stop Old Trains from Transporting Oil
Tables - Rail Traffic in North America
Graphs - Oil Shipped by Rail

Ahead of Obama's Rejection TransCanada Fails to Suspend Ruling on KXL

Shortly after President Obama announced that he would decide the fate of the Keystone XL before the end of his term, TransCanada pipelines submitted a request to suspend their application.

With good reason TransCanada believes that Obama will not rule in their favor. Now that the Iran crisis is behind him Obama will likely use the remainder of his term to focus on climate change.

 Cancelling the KXL would make sense for a President who sees combating climate change as a legacy issue. He has already enacted a slate of actions including improved mileage mandates for American vehicles and the Clean Power Plan.

It would be very hard to marry climate action with the KXL that would ferry 830,000 barrels a day of some of the dirtiest energy on earth.

The KXL would carry tar sands, they are a major carbon bomb that could seriously undermine efforts to reign in emissions. As James Hansen has explained, exploiting the tar sands would mean "game over" for staving off climate change.

The case against the pipeline is also buoyed by massive ongoing protests. Nebraska farmers are fighting against the expropriation of their lands to build the pipeline and environmentally concerned people around the world have come out to say no to the KXL.

The President has previously questioned  the economic benefits of the pipeline. Now these benefits are further compounded by low oil prices.  

TransCanada is hoping that a Republican will win the federal election next year and approve the pipeline. All the Republican presidential candidates have shown unequivocal support for the KXL.

The Obama administration rejected TransCanada's request for suspension on November 4.

Related
Ahead of Obama's Rejection TransCanada Fails to Suspend the KXL
President Obama Vetoes KXL Legislation
Senate Passes KXL Bill
Why the Keystone XL Pipedream Must Die
Sanders Keystone XL Amendment
Video - Sen. Elizabeth Warren on the Keystone XL
Republicans trying to Force KXL on the White House
Keystone XL Loses Another Battle but the War Rages On
Republicans Keep Pushing Keystone XL Pipeline
Republican Congress to Push the Keystone XL
Reasons Why the Keystone XL is a Pipedream
Keystone XL will Emit 4 Times More Pollution than Originally Thought
Buying Support for the Keystone XL
Business Leaders, Scientists, Economists and Ordinary People Reject the Keystone XL
A Brief Review of the Keystone XL Saga
Keystone XL will Fly or Fail Depending on Who you Talk to
The Fate of the Keystone XL: The Ball is in Your Court Mr President
Refuting the Rationale for Approving the Keystone XL
Comparison of the Keystone XL and Renewable Energy
How Come the Keystone XL is so Hard to Kill

Montana Oil Train Derailment and Spill

On Tuesday July 14th, a train containing 106 oil cars derailed in eastern Montana. A total of 22 cars came off the tracks and at least two of those cars are known to have spilled their load. The derailment took place near Culbertson close to the North Dakota border. In May another oil train derailed and 10 tanker cars caught fire in an incident near Hamberg, North Dakota.

People living within a mile of the Culbertson derailment had to be evacuated and the area's main travel artery, federal highway 2 has been closed. The derailment also disrupted Amtrak service between Whitefish, Montana and Minneapolis.

This is the second train derailment in recent days in Montana. The Culbertson derailment came only 6 hours after the track had been reopened due to another train derailment near Fort Kipp. In the Fort Kipp incident 9 cars derailed, including some carrying ethyl alcohol, however no spills were reported.

Due to an increase in oil shipments in the area, the firefighters who responded to the Culbertson spill had just completed their hazardous materials training just a month prior to the derailment. To aid in the assessment and cleanup a BNSF hazardous materials team is flying in from Texas.

Related
New Oil Train Rules Do Not Go Far Enough
Fourth Oil Train Derailment in a Month and Twelfth for the Year
Mississippi Train Carrying 3 Million Gallons of Oil Derails and Catches Fire
West Virginia Oil Train Explosion Underscores the Risks of Transporting Fossil Fuels by Rail
The End of Oil Trains?
Oil Train Derailments: How Many Wake-Up Calls do we Need?
The Environmental and Emotional Legacy of the Lac-Mégantic Disaster
More Oil Being Shipped by Rail = More Risks
Curtailing the Transport of Oil by Pipe and Rail
Growing Opposition to Shipping Oil by Rail
The Dangers of Transporting Fossil Fuels
Tables - Rail Traffic in North America
Graphs - Oil Shipped by Rail

New Charges Against MMA Employees in Lac Mégantic Train Wreck

Several people have been indicted 2 years after the tragic oil train derailment that killed 47 people and decimated the town of Lac Mégantic Quebec. This includes President and CEO of the now defunct Montreal, Maine and Atlantic (MMA) rail company Robert Gindrod, managers and the train's engineer. These people face the possibility of jail terms or fines for violations of the Rail Safety Act and the Fisheries Act.

The tragic disaster spilled vast amounts of crude into the nearby lake and the Chaudière River which contravenes the Fisheries Act and the failure to apply adequate train handbrakes is in violation of the Rail Safety Act.

A total of 6 employees will face these two charges. In addition to the CEO and engineer the general manager of transportation, the director of operating practices, the manager of train operations; and the assistant transportation director will also been charged. They face fines of up to $50,000 each or six months in jail. Although the company declared bankruptcy and was sold last year, it could be fined up to $2 million.

Related
Criminal Charges Leveled Against those Responsible for the Lac Megantic Disaster
The Environmental and Emotional Legacy of the Lac-Mégantic Disaster
The Rail Company that Decimated the Town of Lac Megantic Quebec Sold at Auction
Massive Oil Spill from Train Derailment in the Town of Lac Megantic
MMA's Bankruptcy Protection is Unconscionable
CN Plans to Phase Out Rail Cars that Caused the Lac Megantic Disaster 
More Oil Being Shipped by Rail = More Risks 
Growing Opposition to Shipping Oil by Rail
The Dangers of Transporting Fossil Fuels

New Oil Train Rules Do Not Go Far Enough

Over the last few years a spate of exploding oil trains in North America has prompted politicians in the US and Canada to introduce new rules designed to make rail transportation safer. We have seen many more derailments and explosions recently due to the 4,000 percent increase in oil shipments by rail between 2008 to 2014. It is a statistical certainty that derailments increase in proportion to the amount of oil shipped by rail.

The actual number of derailments and explosions have exceeded government predictions by 20 percent. A federal government report predicted an average of 10 oil train derailments each year and at a cost of four and a half billion dollars over the next 20 years. However, in the last year alone there have been 12 oil train derailments and in the past two years there have been almost two dozen such derailments.

In 2014 a group of Democratic senators set out to improve the safety of transporting oil by rail in the US. Senators Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.), Patty Murray (D-Wash.), Tammy Baldwin (D-Wisc.), and Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) introduced the Crude-By-Rail Safety Act, which would direct the Department of Transportation's Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration to prevent the use of older, riskier types of tankers and set higher standards for tank cars (thicker shells, thermal protection and pressure relief valves). The legislation would also demand that companies have spill response plans and authorize more funding to deal with derailments (training first responders equipment and inspections).

In April 2014 Transport Canada presented oil train safety rules. On May 1, 2015 new American and Canadian regulations were announced to try to reduce the explosions associated with oil train derailments. New cars will need to be more puncture resistant and older cars will need to be retrofitted with protective shells and insulation to reduce punctures that cause explosions after derailment.

In the US oil trains will be fitted with better brakes. These enhanced “electronically controlled pneumatic” (ECP) brakes allow trains to safely come to sudden stops. Speeds will be limited to 50 mph, and 40 mph in urban areas. However it should be noted that many derailments and explosions have occurred at speeds far below the new speed limits. Route options and rail conditions will also be reviewed and that information must be shared with local officials.

Many have criticized the new rules for taking years to come into effect. In the US the DOT-111 which have been responsible for half of the oil train explosions will be around for another three years. The newer unjacketed CPC-1232 cars will be allowed to operate for another five years in the US. In Canada the situation is worse as these cars will be on the rails for the next decade.

Senator Cantwell, criticized the new rules saying they did not go far enough. “The new DOT rule is just like saying let the oil trains roll,” she said. “It does nothing to address explosive volatility, very little to reduce the threat of rail car punctures, and is too slow on the removal of the most dangerous cars.”

Although some have suggested that the problem of exploding oil trains points to the need for more pipelines, this is a false choice as there is no safe way to transport fossil fuels.

Bernie Sander's Keystone XL Amendment in the Senate

Independent Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT), has introduced an amendment to the Keystone XL bill that will force Republicans to put their climate ignorance on public display. Republicans are hell-bent on pushing through legislation in support of the Keystone XL (KXL) pipeline even if President Obama has vowed to veto it.

Here is Sander's succinct amendment:
It is the sense of Congress that Congress is in agreement with the opinion of virtually the entire worldwide scientific community that—

(1) climate change is real;

(2) climate change is caused by human activities;

(3) climate change has already caused devastating problems in the United States and around the world;

(4) a brief window of opportunity exists before the United States and the entire planet suffer irreparable harm; and

(5) it is imperative that the United States transform its energy system away from fossil fuels and toward energy efficiency and sustainable energy as rapidly as possible.

If Republicans pass the Keystone XL legislation with Sander's Rider, they are on record saying that their party's stance on climate change and the anti-environment position of many GOP supporters is a farce and a sham.

Sander's amendment is one of 20 that will be voted on this week. Even if they vote for the KXL legislation with the climate rider, it is destined to die as the Senate is currently about four votes shy of being able to override a Presidential veto.

No matter how you look at it, there are a host of good reasons why the KXL cannot be allowed to move forward.

Related
Video - Sen. Elizabeth Warren on the Keystone XL
Keystone XL Loses Another Battle but the War Rages On
Republicans Keep Pushing Keystone XL Pipeline
Republican Congress to Push the Keystone XL
Reasons Why the Keystone XL is a Pipedream
Keystone XL will Emit 4 Times More Pollution than Originally Thought
Buying Support for the Keystone XL
Business Leaders, Scientists, Economists and Ordinary People Reject the Keystone XL
A Brief Review of the Keystone XL Saga
Keystone XL will Fly or Fail Depending on Who you Talk to
The Fate of the Keystone XL: The Ball is in Your Court Mr President
Refuting the Rationale for Approving the Keystone XL
Comparison of the Keystone XL and Renewable Energy
How Come the Keystone XL is so Hard to Kill

Why the Keystone XL Pipedream Must Die Once and For All

The Republican preoccupation with the passage of the Keystone XL pipeline is emboldened by the Nebraska Supreme Court even though four of seven judges ruled the approval process was unconstitutional. No matter what happens in Congress the President has vowed to veto the legislation. As explained by White House spokesman Josh Earnest, "If the bill passes this Congress, the President won't sign it." Today, Tuesday January 13, a number of environmental groups are taking it one step further by staging rallies across North America to demand that Obama reject the pipeline once and for all.

The Senate followed the House in passing legislation approving the KXL. Senators who support the KXL profit from the oil industry's generous gifts, but they do not have the two-thirds majority (67 votes) needed in the 100-seat Senate to override a presidential veto. As far as the Presidential veto is concerned, (and contrary to the misinformation from conservatives), Obama has only vetoed two bills in his first six years in office.

There are a number of good reasons why the KXL should not be built.

Republicans are exerting a lot of pressure for a project with little economic impact.  According to a study from Cornell university, the KXL will offer between 2,500 and 4,600 for the building of the pipeline and as few as 35 long term jobs. The KXL will not reduce gas prices which are already lower than they have been for a very long time. The Cornell study suggests the pipeline would actually increase oil prices nationally by an additional $5 billion.

With the current price of oil below 47 dollars a barrel, the tar sands make no economic sense

Safety is another major concern as pipelines inevitably leak. For years now fears about leaks have added to reservations about the KXL. TransCanada, the company responsible for building the KXL has a poor safety record. The Keystone 1 pipeline, which runs from Alberta to Cushing, Oklahoma, had 14 leaks in its first two years of operation. TransCanada's poor safety record was revealed by a Canadian National Energy Board review in 2012. TransCanada failed in four of the nine safety areas reviewed: hazard identification; risk assessment and control; operational control; measurement and monitoring; and management review.

Not only is the safety record a real concern, there are serious health problems associated with the pipeline and the tar sands in general. Fossil fuel extraction poisons the air, ground and water and this is particularly true of tar sands oil. After decades of health complaints, a 2014 report by Alberta’s Energy Regulator (AER) formally linked emissions from tar sands oil production with serious health impacts in the Peace River region.

The most serious concern about the Keystone XL involves its climate change causing emissions profile. Fossil fuels are known to cause climate change and as such they are a clear and present danger. All fossil fuels contribute to global warming but the tar sands are some of the most carbon intensive energy on earth. The climate change causing impact of the tar sands has been found to be four times worse than originally thought. The KXL would increase tar sands oil extraction and according to James Hansen, expanding the exploitation of the tar sands represents "game over" for efforts to curtail climate change.

Investors see the writing on the wall, as most of the known oil reserves are unburnable and this will effectively strand assets. The day is coming when divesting from fossil fuels will be a fiduciary duty. Even oil companies are backing away from tar sands oil this includes Shell, Statoil and the French company Total.

While it has frequently been said that if the KXL does not get built the tar sands will find alternate routes. However, pipelines like the Northern Gateway and Energy East have also been stopped by protests and local governments.

The supreme court of Canada has also supported the rights of Canada's indigenous people which dis-empowers the fossil fuel industry.

A number of environmental groups are organizing to oppose Republican efforts to push the KXL forward.
What environmentally concerned people want the world to know is that the KXL is not only a political football, it is a pipeline that would deliver to market 800,000 barrels of some the most carbon rich oil on earth.

The NRDC is trying to "build a wall of opposition to KXL that is big enough to sustain a Presidential veto." Their efforts include, a "rapid-response truth squad" that will confront misinformation. They are also active in Washington -- making the case against the Keystone XL to lawmakers, thought leaders and key members of the Obama Administration. Finally they are mobilizing their supporters to show the new Congress that "the American people won’t stand by while they deepen our dependence on dirty fossil fuels and accelerate climate change."

The NRDC is far from the only environmental group focused on opposition to the KXL. On the evening of Tuesday January 13, rallies will be held coast-to-coast to tell the President that it's time to reject Keystone XL. This North America wide protest will include organizations like:
  • 350.org
  • CREDO
  • Indigenous Environmental Network
  • MoveOn.org
  • Oil Change International
  • Rainforest Action Network
  • The Sierra Club

Protests have already produced substantial results. According to a 2014 report, delays to the KXL have already prevented at least $17 billion in new tar sands investments that would have produced carbon equivalent to 735 coal-fired power plants.

While a Presidential veto will prevent the Republican sponsored legislation from moving the KXL forward there are also legal avenues that could still be pursued.

The full Senate is expected to vote on the Keystone XL bill on Friday January 16 and it could be on Mr. Obama’s desk before the end of the month.

As chief executive, President Obama has a job to do. As explained by Naomi Klein, "It's about whether the US government will throw a lifeline to a climate-destabilizing industrial project that is under a confluence of pressures that add up to a very real crisis...." 

If we are serious about curtailing climate change we must also be serious about stopping oil pipelines, particularly those that carry tar sands oil.

Related
Sanders Keystone XL Amendment
Video - Sen. Elizabeth Warren on the Keystone XL
Republicans trying to Force KXL on the White House
Keystone XL Loses Another Battle but the War Rages On
Republicans Keep Pushing Keystone XL Pipeline
Republican Congress to Push the Keystone XL
Reasons Why the Keystone XL is a Pipedream
Keystone XL will Emit 4 Times More Pollution than Originally Thought
Buying Support for the Keystone XL
Business Leaders, Scientists, Economists and Ordinary People Reject the Keystone XL
A Brief Review of the Keystone XL Saga
Keystone XL will Fly or Fail Depending on Who you Talk to
The Fate of the Keystone XL: The Ball is in Your Court Mr President
Refuting the Rationale for Approving the Keystone XL
Comparison of the Keystone XL and Renewable Energy
How Come the Keystone XL is so Hard to Kill

Republicans trying to Force KXL on the White House

The 114th Republican led Congress begins today and you can be sure that moving forward with the Keystone XL pipeline will be at the top of their agenda.

However, the GOP is starting the year off on the defensive after it was discovered that House Majority Whip Steve Scalise attended a meeting of a white supremacists group founded by David Duke in 2002, Rep. Michael Grimm pleaded guilty to tax evasion and conservatives are trying to depose House Speaker John Boehner.

On Sunday, Sen. John Barrasso (R-WY) confirmed that a KXL bill will be the first to reach Obama's desk in 2015.

It may not be as easy to advance the KXL as some had hoped. Republicans appear unlikely to secure enough Democrats to get the 60 Senate votes required to override Presidential veto.

Some Democrats like Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) are planning to introduce amendments to the Republican bill to keep the oil in the US rather than have it exported to other countries. Other Democratic amendments include a proposal that would require that the steel used in the pipeline is manufactured in teh US. Still others want to attach a rider that would provide investments in clean energy.

Even if we see such provisions, they are unlikely to garner the number of votes needed to override a veto.

Republicans are calling it a jobs bill, but the President has said the KXL will only provide a couple thousand jobs and he has previously made it clear that he will not support the KXL if it would be harmful to the environment.

Related
Keystone XL Loses Another Battle but the War Rages On
Republicans Keep Pushing Keystone XL Pipeline
Republican Congress to Push the Keystone XL
Reasons Why the Keystone XL is a Pipedream
Keystone XL will Emit 4 Times More Pollution than Originally Thought
Buying Support for the Keystone XL
A Brief Review of the Keystone XL Saga
The Fate of the Keystone XL: The Ball is in Your Court Mr President
Refuting the Rationale for Approving the Keystone XL
Business Leaders, Scientists, Economists and Ordinary People Reject the Keystone XL
Keystone XL will Fly or Fail Depending on Who you Talk to
Comparison of the Keystone XL and Renewable Energy
How Come the Keystone XL is so Hard to Kill

Keystone XL Loses Another Battle but the War Rages On

On Tuesday November 18th, the US Senate narrowly rejected a bill (2280) to speed approval of the Keystone XL pipeline. The motion needed 60 votes in favour to pass. The bill failed after 59 senators voted in favour and 41 were against. Predictably, all 45 Senate Republicans voted in favour of the legislation alongside 14 Democrats and Independents. The pipeline was approved last week for the ninth time by the Republican-dominated House of Representatives.

Republicans vow to reintroduce the measure in early next year when they take control of the Senate. While the Keystone may have been defeated, it will likely pass when the slate of pro-oil Republicans take office in the new year.

Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky and the incoming majority leader, said within minutes of the vote, "I look forward to the new Republican majority taking up and passing the Keystone jobs bill early in the new year." Senator John Hoeven plans to reintroduce it in January or February.

This is not the first time a pro KXL bill died in the Senate. On May 12, 2014, a pro-KXL bill died in the Senate after Republican Senators blocked bi-partisan efforts to move forward the Shaheen-Portman energy efficiency bill. According to Dirty Energy Money database, a total of 21 million dollars was given to Senators who cosponsored the bill.

Senators who support the Keystone receive disproportionate support from the dirty energy industry. Senators cosponsoring the pro-Keystone XL bill have received roughly 5 times more in oil industry cash than those who remained off the bill.

Related
Republicans Keep Pushing Keystone XL Pipeline
Republican Congress to Push the Keystone XL
Obama Standing Up to the GOP by Promising to Veto Keystone Legislation
Reasons Why the Keystone XL is a Pipedream
Keystone XL will Emit 4 Times More Pollution than Originally Thought
The Politics of the Obama Administration's Keystone Delay
Buying Support for the Keystone XL
A Brief Review of the Keystone XL Saga
The Fate of the Keystone XL: The Ball is in Your Court Mr President
Refuting the Rationale for Approving the Keystone XL
Business Leaders, Scientists, Economists and Ordinary People Reject the Keystone XL
Keystone XL will Fly or Fail Depending on Who you Talk to
The Keystone XL Pipeline: Debunking Four Cardinal Lies
Comparison of the Keystone XL and Renewable Energy
Video - Farcical Comedy on Keystone XL Jobs
How Come the Keystone XL is so Hard to Kill

Republicans Keep Pushing Keystone XL Pipeline

Never let it be said that Republicans are not tenacious when it comes to their support for fossil fuels and knee-jerk opposition to President Obama. Republicans in Congress are trying yet again to force the President's hand on the Keystone XL pipeline. A motion was already passed in the House and another is expected today (November 18th) in the Senate.

The House of Representatives passed a measure Friday (November 14) that would force approval of the Keystone XL pipeline with a vote of 252 to 161. Nearly all Republicans voted for the bill, along with 31 Democrats. This is the ninth time the House has tried to push the President on the Keystone XL.

Their are now 59 votes in the Senate in support of the pipeline, one shy of the required 60 votes All 45 Republicans support the pipeline, so they need 15 Democrats.

At a press conference in Myanmar (aka Burma) the President issued his strongest KXL warning to date:

“Understand what this project is: it is providing the ability of Canada to pump their oil, send it through our land, down to the Gulf, where it will be sold everywhere else. It doesn’t have an impact on US gas prices. If my Republican friends really want to focus on what’s good for the American people in terms of job creation and lower energy costs, we should be engaging in a conversation about what are we doing to produce even more homegrown energy? I’m happy to have that conversation.”

The President has already promised he would veto any bill that does not follow the process currently in play. This involves another State Department review. "I’ve been clear in the past," said Obama. "My position hasn’t changed, that this is a process that is supposed to be followed."

If Senate Republicans are unable to secure the votes they need today, they will wait until January or February when there will be an influx of pro-oil GOP legislators who were elected in the November midterms. KXL supporters could introduce a standalone bill or attach Keystone to another bill.

Related
Republican Congress to Push the Keystone XL
Obama Standing Up to the GOP by Promising to Veto Keystone Legislation
Reasons Why the Keystone XL is a Pipedream
Keystone XL will Emit 4 Times More Pollution than Originally Thought
The Politics of the Obama Administration's Keystone Delay
Buying Support for the Keystone XL
A Brief Review of the Keystone XL Saga
The Fate of the Keystone XL: The Ball is in Your Court Mr President
Refuting the Rationale for Approving the Keystone XL
Business Leaders, Scientists, Economists and Ordinary People Reject the Keystone XL
Keystone XL will Fly or Fail Depending on Who you Talk to
The Keystone XL Pipeline: Debunking Four Cardinal Lies
Comparison of the Keystone XL and Renewable Energy
Video - Farcical Comedy on Keystone XL Jobs
How Come the Keystone XL is so Hard to Kill

Republican Congress to Push the Keystone XL

Congress is trying to fast track the controversial Keystone XL project. A debate on the pipeline is scheduled to take place today (Friday, November 14)  in both the US House and the Senate. Both houses of the Republican led Congress are expected to approve the bill.

While the President has indicated he will veto the bill, there are steps that could be taken by the GOP to override his decision.

Republicans do not seem to care about the consequences or the costs. NASA's top climate scientist, Jim Hansen, said that fully developing the tar sands in Canada (a necessary step in the development of the pipeline), would mean“essentially game over” for the climate. According to White House statistics, additional emissions from the tar sands pipelines could equal $128 billion in climate costs over the pipeline’s projected lifespan. By 2100 the costs of failing to reign in emissions from fossil fuels will surpass the costs of carbon reduction by $8 trillion.

Thus far a number of protests have succeeded in delaying the pipeline.  Reports show that these delays have already prevented at least $17bn in new investments in the Canadian tar sands. These investments would have had the equivalent carbon output of 735 coal-fired power plants.

Related
Obama Standing Up to the GOP by Promising to Veto Keystone Legislation
Reasons Why the Keystone XL is a Pipedream
Keystone XL will Emit 4 Times More Pollution than Originally Thought
The Politics of the Obama Administration's Keystone Delay
Buying Support for the Keystone XL
A Brief Review of the Keystone XL Saga
The Fate of the Keystone XL: The Ball is in Your Court Mr President
Refuting the Rationale for Approving the Keystone XL
Business Leaders, Scientists, Economists and Ordinary People Reject the Keystone XL
Video - Two Million Comments Rejecting the Keystone XL Pipeline
Keystone XL will Fly or Fail Depending on Who you Talk to
The Keystone XL Pipeline: Debunking Four Cardinal Lies
Ten Reasons Why Nurses Oppose the Keystone XL
Comparison of the Keystone XL and Renewable Energy
Video - Farcical Comedy on Keystone XL Jobs
How Come the Keystone XL is so Hard to Kill

Obama Standing Up to the GOP by Promising to Veto Keystone XL Legislation

President Obama said that he will veto the GOPs efforts to push through the Keystone XL. He sees that the GOP is gunning for him and his climate agenda. Rather than backing down he is standing up to Big Oil and their Republican minions.

By standing up to Republican threats Obama is showing that he is a man of integrity and a true champion of the environment. The move is consistent with the President's promise that he will only allow the pipeline to be built if it, "doesn’t increase climate change."

The Keystone XL is among a list of targets that the GOP have identified as low hanging fruit. The fact that Obama has indicated that he will veto any Congressional legislation forcing approval of the Keystone XL pipeline is a bold move.

The President's position is particularly noteworthy in light of the fact that even before the midterms, there were 57 Senators that supported the Keystone XL all of whom remain in the Senate.

In the new year there will an influx of Republicans that are even more strident supporters of fossil fuels including the notorious tar sands pipeline. This will mean that there will be a filibuster-proof 60 Keystone supporters.

Besides court action, only a Presidential veto can keep the pipeline from being built.

In response 350.org Executive Director May Boeve issued the following statement:

"It’s good to see the White House drawing a line in the sand on Keystone, and standing up for our climate. President Obama is right to veto politically-driven legislation that undermines the State Department’s independent review process, and increases our reliance on fossil fuels. We’ll continue to support President Obama to stand up to Big Oil and reject Keystone XL once and for all."

Related
Reasons Why the Keystone XL is a Pipedream
Keystone XL will Emit 4 Times More Pollution than Originally Thought
The Politics of the Obama Administration's Keystone Delay
Buying Support for the Keystone XL
A Brief Review of the Keystone XL Saga
The Fate of the Keystone XL: The Ball is in Your Court Mr President
Refuting the Rationale for Approving the Keystone XL
Business Leaders, Scientists, Economists and Ordinary People Reject the Keystone XL
Video - Two Million Comments Rejecting the Keystone XL Pipeline
Video - Obama's Top Aids and Democratic Donors Oppose the Keystone XL
Keystone XL will Fly or Fail Depending on Who you Talk to
The Keystone XL Pipeline: Debunking Four Cardinal Lies
Moving Bitumen by Rail Rather than Pipe will Lessen Tar Sands Expansion
Ten Reasons Why Nurses Oppose the Keystone XL
Comparison of the Keystone XL and Renewable Energy
Video - A New Approach to Protest Against the KXL
Video - Farcical Comedy on Keystone XL Jobs
How Come the Keystone XL is so Hard to Kill

Reasons Why the Keystone XL is a Pipedream

The reasons why the Keystone XL pipeline will be rejected are increasingly convincing. Although there have been a lot of arguments proposed on both sides of the issue, certain factors have recently come to light that suggest the pipeline may never see the light of day.
____________________________


After a seemingly endless succession of arguments for and against the pipeline, some compelling reasons have emerged that suggest the Keystone XL (KXL) may not be completed after all. If it is completed, the KXL would ferry 825,000 barrels of tar sands oil per day from Alberta to the Gulf of Mexico.

The combination of protest, legal wrangling, an expired permit, President Obama’s climate initiatives, further regulations, harmful impacts, and market forces are making the road forward for the KXL much more difficult.



1. Protest


The chorus of those opposing the KXL is increasingly well organized. Opposition comes from groups that range in size from small scale local grass roots protests to highly organized national campaigns. A total of two million people submitted comments to the State Department urging that the KXL be rejected. Opposition also comes from ten Nobel Laureates who have sent a letter to President Obama and the Secretary of State urging them not to move forward with the KXL.

Young people are at the forefront of protests. This new generation is increasingly standing up to express their opposition to the pipeline project. This was evident in the faces of the thousand students who protested in front of the White House earlier this year.

There are 74 million people in the U.S. that are in the 18-34 year old group. These also make up the cohort most likely to suffer the worst impacts of climate change. This new generation understands the perils of climate change and they are increasingly advocating for a shift’away from fossil fuels towards cleaner forms of energy. While the youth may be at the forefront of calls to kill the KXL, this is truly an intergenerational movement of climate defenders.

Protests against the pipeline continued with the Cowboy & Indian Alliance march on Washington in April. The alliance of farmers, ranchers, and tribal communities came to Washington DC to voice their opposition to the Keystone project.

2. Legal wrangling


On Thursday June 26th, 2014, the Supreme Court of Canada rendered a ground-breaking decision that recognizes the land claim of a B.C. First Nation. This precedent setting ruling will most certainly impede the expansion of fossil fuels in Canada and make the building of pipelines far more difficult. The unanimous ruling granted B.C.’s Tsilhqot’in First Nation title to a 1,700-square-kilometer area of traditional land outside its reserve. The decision sets a game-changing precedent. Going forward, logging, fossil fuel extraction and mining operations on or near aboriginal lands must have the consent from affected aboriginal groups.

The Supreme Court decision states that the government has a duty to consult and accommodate First Nations. If the First Nations group does not consent, the government can only go against its wishes if it proves it’s justified under the Constitution.

There is also a slew of legal issues in Nebraska that is holding up that state’s support for the Keystone project. The use of the southern leg of the KXL is also being challenged. Montana is blocked from using the completed portions of the KXL in Kansas by South Dakota and Nebraska.

3. Expired permit


On June 29, TransCanada’s permit to build the Keystone in South Dakota expired. The permit from South Dakota Public Utilities Commission authorizes TransCanada to build the KXL. This means that TransCanada will have to go through the application process all over again. However, this time, there is likely to be considerably more organized opposition.

4. President Obama


Putting an end to the KXL is a legacy issue for the President. Failure to act will imperil the lives of future generations and ultimately undermine his legacy. It is also a matter of consistency and integrity. Last summer, President Obama made a statement that makes the building of the pipeline hard to justify. He said he would reject the pipeline if it was proven that the KXL has an adverse climate impact. Since then, a large number of scientists, economists, and other experts have put forth a compelling case demonstrating the deleterious environmental impacts associated with the pipeline.

It is difficult to reconcile moving forward with the KXL in light of the President’s recent move to restrict emissions from power plants through the Environmental Protection Agency. It is hard to envision how he could reduce emissions from coal plants while at the same time giving the green light to a pipeline that would expand one of the world’s most destructive carbon bombs.

5. Further regulation


Widely anticipated government regulations will further erode the attractiveness of the tar sands. Rail industry regulations on the transport of fossil fuels will help minimize dangerous accidents while driving up the costs. Perhaps the most effective way of reigning in the tar sands involves some form of carbon pricing. The imposition of a carbon tax or cap-and-trade would also inflate the price and go a long way towards curtailing tar sands expansion.

6. Harmful impacts


The threat from the changing climate and environmental damage caused by fossil fuels is widely documented. There is a consensus among climate scientists that if we continue to burn fossil fuels, burgeoning levels of carbon dioxide will worsen extreme weather, raise sea levels and create mass extinctions. This point is particularly true of tar sands bitumen, which is among the world’s most destructive sources of energy

Burning fossil fuels already contributes 33.4 billion metric tons of carbon dioxide (CO2) per year. This is destined to get far worse if the tar sands play an expanded role to meet growing energy demand. The world’s energy needs are expected to rise by about a third over the next 20 years.

We have already reached dangerously high levels of CO2 in our atmosphere and we simply cannot afford to continue down this perilous course without incurring catastrophic consequences.

The Canadian province of Alberta has tar sands reserves equivalent to 168.7 billion barrels. This is more than the reserves of Iran, Iraq, Kuwait and Russia. Turning the tar sands into usable fossil fuel products is very energy intensive. Conservative estimates suggest that tar sands bitumen is 14-20 percent more energy intensive than traditional oil.

A recent study has concluded that the annual carbon emissions from the pipeline will be four times the amount that the State Department predicted in its report.  

Another report titled Fail, indicated that approving the KXL would increase U.S. greenhouse gas emissions by 181 million metric tons each year. That represents an equivalent climate impact of 51 coal plants or 37 million cars.

The Keystone XL is expected to leak 91 times over its lifetime, which poses serious risks to land and water, including some of the most sensitive aquifers in North America. The KXL also directly threatens farmers, ranchers, and those who live near the proposed pipeline corridor.

The carbon load form the KXL is not just a local issue, it has global implications. If the pipeline is allowed to go forward, it will make it that much more difficult to keep temperatures below the internationally agreed upon upper threshold limit of 2 degrees Celsius. This imperils the lives and livelihoods of billions of people around the world.

7. Market forces


There is a growing awareness that fossil fuels and the tar sands in particular are increasingly risky and as such, not as attractive an investment as they used to be. A confluence of factors are already coming together to make the KXL less attractive to investors. The protests and the risk of a carbon bubble are part of the equation that is reducing the ROI. Investment in the oil sands have already dropped off and there is shrinking foreign investment in Canada’s oil patch in general.

Rejecting the Keystone XL will increase the costs and help market forces to diminish the economic viability of tar sands expansion. Pipelines are the most cost effective way of transporting large volumes of crude. If it is completed, the KXL could transport more than 800,000 barrels per day. Rejecting the pipeline would significantly restrict the amount of tar sands oil that could be moved to market.

Maximilian Auffhammer, a University of California economist estimates that in if no new pipelines are built, up to ten billion barrels of tar sands oil will stay under ground.’a0
“If no pipelines get built within and out of Canada and one has to rely on this rail scenario, capacity would run out this year and roughly 10 billion barrels stay in the ground,” Auffhammer says. “Not building Keystone XL would make the rail capacity constraint binding and therefore lead to slower extraction even in the short run.”
In the absence of the KXL there is insufficient transport capacity to realize the supply projections by Canadian Petroleum Producers. This holds true even if all other projects are built and rail capacity grows.

The growth of price competitive renewable energy will further undermine the viability of tar sands oil extraction. The proliferation of natural gas from fracking has decreased the need for Canada’s tar sands. This takes the wind out of the sails of one of the most powerful arguments put forth in support of the pipeline.

These are but seven of many good reasons why the Keystone XL may never be completed. Rejecting the KXL will signal an important step forward in our efforts to chart a new course where climate change and pollution are an integral part of policy decisions.

Source: Global Warming is Real

Related
Keystone XL will Emit 4 Times More Pollution than Originally Thought
The Politics of the Obama Administration's Keystone Delay
Buying Support for the Keystone XL
A Brief Review of the Keystone XL Saga
The Fate of the Keystone XL: The Ball is in Your Court Mr President
Refuting the Rationale for Approving the Keystone XL
Business Leaders, Scientists, Economists and Ordinary People Reject the Keystone XL
Video - Two Million Comments Rejecting the Keystone XL Pipeline
Video - Obama's Top Aids and Democratic Donors Oppose the Keystone XL
Keystone XL will Fly or Fail Depending on Who you Talk to
The Keystone XL Pipeline: Debunking Four Cardinal Lies
Moving Bitumen by Rail Rather than Pipe will Lessen Tar Sands Expansion
Ten Reasons Why Nurses Oppose the Keystone XL
Comparison of the Keystone XL and Renewable Energy
Video - A New Approach to Protest Against the KXL
Video - Farcical Comedy on Keystone XL Jobs
How Come the Keystone XL is so Hard to Kill

Keystone XL will Emit 4 Times More Pollution than Orginally Thought

According to a new study, the Keystone XL will produce four times the amount of carbon emissions predicted in the State Department's controversial report.

The data was published in a study from scientists at the Stockholm Environment Institute (SEI). It was published on Sunday in the journal Nature Climate Change. The new research suggests that the proposed Keystone XL pipeline would increase greenhouse gas emissions by as much as 121 million tons of carbon per year. That is more that four times more that the figure of 30 million tons contained in the State Department report.
The SEI report estimates that increased supplies of oil from the tar sands will cause prices to fall by around $3 per barrel. The State Department report did not account for increased oil consumption associated with price declines.

The American Petroleum Institute (API) erroneously said the study was irrelevant because one way or another this oil will find its way to market. However, the limitations associated with moving the oil by rail or finding another pipeline route cast aspersions on the API's conclusions.

As explained in The Green Market Oracle, "Oil moved by rail increases greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by 27.8 – 39 percent and if the oil is transported to the Gulf of Mexico, GHG emissions would rise to about 41.2 percent." Second moving oil by rail is both more expensive and more dangerous. Third in the absence of the KXL there is insufficient transport capacity to realize the supply projections of Canadian Petroleum Producers.

Richard Tol, is one of the only scientists to disagree with the findings in the IPCC's latest report, he dismissed the report and claimed that 121 million tons of carbon is a drop in the bucket.

Any significant increase in GHGs should preclude the building of the pipeline. President Obama said that he would only build the pipeline if it "does not significantly exacerbate the problem of carbon pollution." If it goes forward, the KXL would not only be a significant source of carbon it would wipe out all of the carbon savings from the Obama administration's GHG cutting policies.

Related
The Politics of the Obama Administration's Keystone Delay
Buying Support for the Keystone XL
A Brief Review of the Keystone XL Saga
The Fate of the Keystone XL: The Ball is in Your Court Mr President
Refuting the Rationale for Approving the Keystone XL
Business Leaders, Scientists, Economists and Ordinary People Reject the Keystone XL
Video - Two Million Comments Rejecting the Keystone XL Pipeline
Video - Obama's Top Aids and Democratic Donors Oppose the Keystone XL
Keystone XL will Fly or Fail Depending on Who you Talk to
The Keystone XL Pipeline: Debunking Four Cardinal Lies
Moving Bitumen by Rail Rather than Pipe will Lessen Tar Sands Expansion
Ten Reasons Why Nurses Oppose the Keystone XL
Comparison of the Keystone XL and Renewable Energy
Video - A New Approach to Protest Against the KXL
Video - Farcical Comedy on Keystone XL Jobs
How Come the Keystone XL is so Hard to Kill

The End of Oil Trains?

Early in July, people from across North America and around the world paused to remember the one year anniversary of the Lac-Mégantic oil train disaster. This tragic anniversary and the recent spate of rail accidents has increased calls to reign-in oil trains.

The environmental and emotional legacy of the Lac-Mégantic disaster

On July 6, 2013, a runaway train carrying crude oil derailed and exploded killing 47 people and destroying a large part of the little town of Lac-Mégantic. On the anniversary of the disaster, dignitaries joined the people of the town to mourn the tragic events.

In addition to widespread contamination, the explosion destroyed a number of buildings including the town's waste water treatment plant. Far more serious are the impacts on the air, water and earth. Even more enduring are the emotional wounds that people will likely carry with them for the rest of their lives.

A week long event is now underway in support of the residents of Lac-Mégantic and their ongoing efforts to keep the oil trains out of their community. Between July 6, and Sunday July 13, 2014, people across the country and around the world are rallying in what is being called the Oil Train Week of Action. As part of this event non-violent protests against oil trains are being staged in communities all across the North American.

Growing call for rail safety

The tragedy of the Lac Megantic disaster and the spike of oil train derailments across North America last year are fueling growing concern. People are increasingly asking questions about the dangers of moving fossil fuels through their towns and cities. It is estimated that 25 million Americans live within the blast radius of oil trains. To see a map of oil train routes in the US and Canada click here.

More than any single event the tragedy in Lac-Mégantic has galvanized opposition to shipping oil by rail. A large number of people have vowed to make the disaster into a clarion call that ultimately reduces the number of oil trains in North America.

In the wake of Lac-Mégantic and dozens of other incidents, there is increasing pressure for more regulatory oversight, and higher standards that minimize the risks posed by oil trains. People are standing up to oil interests in an effort to protect themselves from the dangers of transporting fossil fuels by rail.

Growing number of oil trains

As explained in a Global Warming is Real article, we have a growing number of reasons to believe that the Keystone XL pipeline may never be completed. In the absence of a new pipeline, the fossil fuel industry is increasingly transporting oil by rail. This has dramatically increased the number of oil trains traversing North America.

In 2009, Canada shipped a mere 500 carloads of oil by rail. CN Rail, Canada's major railroad, has indicated that they will continue to double the amount of crude they move every one or two years. CN's records show that they moved 30,000 carloads of crude oil in 2012, and 60,000 in 2013. In 2014 and 2015, the company plans to increase that amount to 120,000 carloads of crude. According to the Railway Association of Canada, a total of 160,000 carloads of Canadian crude was shipped by railcars in 2013.

As measured by weight, 375,000 metric tonnes of oil were shipped by rail in 2011, which grew to 4.3 million in 2012. Prior to 2009, only 8,000 metric tonnes of oil was transported by rail. In 2013 alone, the US shipped 400,000 carloads of crude oil, or over 11.5 billion gallons. In October 2013, trains transported nearly 700,000 barrels a day of North Dakota oil alone, which represents a 67-per-cent jump over 2012.

Growing number of accidents

The increased volume of oil train traffic is correlated with the growing number of rail incidence. Accidents are an inevitable corollary of transporting fossil fuels by rail. Seven out of the 10 worst US oil spills in the last decade happened in the last three years. It is an actuarial truism to say that this trend will continue. The more oil we ship by rail, the more disasters we are going to see.

Oil is involved in more rail and road accidents than any other dangerous goods. Between January 1, 2006 and June 30, 2013, almost one third of all accidents involving the transportation of dangerous goods by rail or road involved crude oil.

In 2013 alone there were 88 rail accidents involving oil and at least 8 explosions of trains bearing crude. More crude oil has spilled from train accidents in 2013 than in the previous four decades combined. Between 1975 and 2012, US rail spilled a combined 800,000 gallons of crude oil. In 2013 alone, a total of 1.15 million gallons of crude oil was spilled.

The Pipedream

One of the ironic twists that has arisen from the spike in oil train accidents is increased support for oil pipelines. Although the average spills from trains tend to be larger than the average spills from pipelines, they are less frequent than those from trucks or pipelines. However, the biggest pipeline accidents dwarf the biggest train accidents. An Alberta spill in 1980 saw 6.5 million litres of crude spilled. The largest spill of crude oil from a train (between January 1, 2006 and June 30, 2013) was 90,000 litres on May 21, 2013.

Far from showing the need to expand oil pipelines, the Lac-Mégantic disaster tells us that we need to reduce the risks associated with transporting oil. The only way we can do that is if we produce and consume less of it. Fossil fuels are unsafe no matter how they are transported. The debate over whether we should build more pipelines, or ship more oil by rail is like choosing between death by hanging, or death by firing squad.

Pipelines offer a very inexpensive way of moving vast quantities of oil, so if the goal is to minimize climate impacts, we must avoid them at all costs. Pipelines are the cheapest way to move oil. The cost of moving oil by pipeline is roughly half the cost of moving oil by rail (between $5 to $10 per barrel of oil compared to $10 to $20 per barrel).

In a HAAS School of Business, online publication, Maximilian Auffhammer, a University of California Berkeley economist, estimates that if no new pipelines are built, up to ten billion barrels of tar sands oil will stay under ground.

Less rail means less oil

There are a host of benefits associated with decreasing the amount of oil transported by rail. This will not only prevent deaths, injuries and environmental contamination from accidents, it will also reduce the amount of oil that makes it to market, which will in turn minimize emissions.

In the HAAS article, Auffhammer made the point that the limited transportation capacity of moving oil by rail represents a constraint that will slow extraction. "Not building Keystone XL would make the rail capacity constraint binding and therefore lead to slower extraction even in the short run," Auffhammer said.

The inherent capacity limits of rail will slow oil extraction and this could increase the price of oil thereby enhancing the relative value of renewable forms of energy. More renewable energy will further diminish our reliance on fossil fuels.

Regulatory changes

In the wake of an unprecedented spike in accidents, the US and Canadian governments have introduced or are considering new regulations to address the dangers of shipping oil by rail.

In the US, federal regulators have tightened some rules for oil shippers. On June 7, 2014, in the wake of an emergency order from the Department of Transportation, railroads now have to disclose the times and locations of oil trains to state emergency responders. Railroads that do not release information face a fine of $175,000 per day and even risk a ban.

In the summer of 2013, shortly after the Lac-Mégantic disaster, the Canadian government put emergency measures to reduce the risks associated with oil trains. Late in 2013, Canadian Transportation Minister Lisa Raitt announced that the federal government would begin to designate crude oil as highly dangerous. Transport Canada officially approved new safety rules drafted by the railway industry on December 26th, 2013.

DOT-111

Much of the regulatory discussion centers around the DOT-111 railcars that transport the oil. Industry figures suggest there are as many as 228,000 DOT-111 railcars currently in operation across the US. It has been known for at least a decade that the DOT-111 are subject to rupture. Ten years ago, the Transportation Safety Board of Canada wrote that the DOT-111 tank cars have a flawed design and a "high incidence of tank integrity failure" during accidents.

This spring, Canada's transport minister announced new rail safety regulations which will eliminate or force a retrofit of the DOT-111 tanker cars. Tanker cars carrying oil now need a thicker, more puncture-resistant outer-shell jacket around the entire tank car, as well as thermal protection. They will also have to have extra-protective head shields on both ends. The estimated cost for replacing and retrofitting could exceed $1 billion.

End of oil trains?

The repercussions from the tragic explosion in Lac-Mégantic have reverberated around the world. With millions of people living within the blast radius of oil trains, we can no longer take our safety for granted even when we are in our homes.

We are unlikely to see an end of oil trains in our lifetime and we will never be able to erase the scars of the tragic disaster in Lac-Mégantic. However, we may be able to reduce the number of rail accidents and perhaps even keep some oil underground in the process.

Source: Global Warming is Real

© 2014, Richard Matthews. All rights reserved.

Related Articles
Oil Train Derailments: How Many Wake-Up Calls do we Need?
The Environmental and Emotional Legacy of the Lac-Mégantic Disaster
Event - Worldwide Oil Train Week of Action
More Oil Being Shipped by Rail = More Risks
Curtailing the Transport of Oil by Pipe and Rail
Growing Opposition to Shipping Oil by Rail
Criminal Charges Leveled Against those Responsible for the Lac Megantic Disaster
The Rail Company that Decimated the Town of Lac Megantic Quebec Sold at Auction
MMA's Bankruptcy Protection is Unconscionable
Massive Oil Spill from Train Derailment in the Town of Lac Megantic
The Dangers of Transporting Fossil Fuels
Train Derails and Spills Oil in Lynchburg Virginia
Train Derails Spilling Oil in Saskatchewan
Oil Bearing Train Derails and Explodes in New Brunswick
Train Carrying Fossil Fuels Derails Causing an Explosion and Fire in Alberta
Train Derails Spilling Coal into a BC Waterway
Video - Train Carrying Oil Derails Illustrating the Dangers of Transporting Fossil Fuels
New Government Regulation of Oil Trains
Transport Canada's New Train Safety Rules for Transporting Fossil Fuels
CN Plans to Phase Out Rail Cars that Caused the Lac Megantic Disaster
Stop Old Trains from Transporting Oil
Tables - Rail Traffic in North America
Graphs - Oil Shipped by Rail