 |
Re: Cut them off!
Author: mook
Date: 04-04-2014 - 08:37
Operating on the basis of a belief system that cannot be verified by observation of the real world is a common problem with those who are loudly political (and religious). The belief is reality, and reality cannot compete with it. The result is often advocacy of positions that are not in one's self-interest individually or as a society. Wars sometimes start that way.
Some regulators are afflicted with a form of this. The Model is reality, and conflicts between the Model and reality require that reality be adjusted to match the model. Fortunately, this situation can sometimes be addressed by performing research (i.e. examining reality) and adjusting the Model, if the Model is based on actual science and not political direction.
With regard to the oil trains, the main issue seems to be that some shippers have not followed the rules already in place. Not all crude oil explodes - in fact, most doesn't. Certainly it all will burn if sufficiently lit. But the particular crude in current question seems to have a lot of volatiles that if not properly handled CAN explode, and standard crude-oil tank cars are not designed to carry that stuff. So follow the rules for preparing the crude for shipment or use the right cars. Both approaches are being tried. In the meantime, the number of cars, if in the 100-or-so per day (or was it week?) range being discussed, is easily within the normal variation in rail traffic (one more train, more or less) on the lines affected.
If there aren't enough pipelines to get the stuff out (pipelines explode too...) it has to go in tanks of some kind. Would you rather have an equivalent capacity of trucks (cost issues ignored)? There would most likely be more (though possibly smaller individual) explosions due to truck wrecks.
Yes, I know, the issue is more with use of fossil fuels in general, and the tank car problems are just an angle to attack it. That's a different rant. And if this traffic is really to support export of crude through the refined products loophole (which in some cases it probably is) then there's another different argument worth having. Not on a train-oriented board.
Too many syllables in too many words. Flame on!
Some regulators are afflicted with a form of this. The Model is reality, and conflicts between the Model and reality require that reality be adjusted to match the model. Fortunately, this situation can sometimes be addressed by performing research (i.e. examining reality) and adjusting the Model, if the Model is based on actual science and not political direction.
With regard to the oil trains, the main issue seems to be that some shippers have not followed the rules already in place. Not all crude oil explodes - in fact, most doesn't. Certainly it all will burn if sufficiently lit. But the particular crude in current question seems to have a lot of volatiles that if not properly handled CAN explode, and standard crude-oil tank cars are not designed to carry that stuff. So follow the rules for preparing the crude for shipment or use the right cars. Both approaches are being tried. In the meantime, the number of cars, if in the 100-or-so per day (or was it week?) range being discussed, is easily within the normal variation in rail traffic (one more train, more or less) on the lines affected.
If there aren't enough pipelines to get the stuff out (pipelines explode too...) it has to go in tanks of some kind. Would you rather have an equivalent capacity of trucks (cost issues ignored)? There would most likely be more (though possibly smaller individual) explosions due to truck wrecks.
Yes, I know, the issue is more with use of fossil fuels in general, and the tank car problems are just an angle to attack it. That's a different rant. And if this traffic is really to support export of crude through the refined products loophole (which in some cases it probably is) then there's another different argument worth having. Not on a train-oriented board.
Too many syllables in too many words. Flame on!
