Trains carry oil past stalled pipeline projects
BILLINGS, Mont. — Energy companies behind the oil boom in the Northern Plains are increasingly turning to an industrial-age workhorse — the locomotive — to move their crude to refineries as plans for new pipelines stall and lines cannot keep up with demand.
Delivering oil thousands of miles by rail from the heartland to refineries on the East, West and Gulf coasts costs more, but it can mean increased profits — up to $10 or more a barrel — because of higher oil prices on the coasts. That works out to roughly $700,000 per train.
The parade of mile-long trains carrying hazardous material out of North Dakota and Montana and across the country has experts and federal regulators concerned. Rail transport is less safe than pipelines, they say, and the proliferation of oil trains raises the risk of a major derailment and spill.
Since 2009, the number of train cars carrying crude hauled by major railroads has jumped from about 10,000 a year to a projected 200,000 in 2012. Much of it has been in the Northern Plains' Bakken crude patch, but companies say oil trains are rolling or soon will be from Texas, Colorado and western Canada.
“This is occurring very rapidly, and history teaches that when those things happen, unfortunately, the next thing that is going to occur would be some sort of disaster,” said Jim Hall, a transportation consultant and former chairman of the National Transportation Safety Board.
Rail companies said the industry places a priority on safety and has invested heavily in track upgrades, provided emergency training and taken other measures to guard against accidents. There have been no major oil train derailments from the Bakken, according to federal regulators.
Union Pacific Railroad CEO Jack Koraleski said hauling oil out of places such as North Dakota will be a long-term business for railroads because trains are faster than pipelines, reliable and offer a variety of destinations.
“The railroads are looking at this as a unique opportunity, a game-changing opportunity for their business,” said Jeffery Elliot, a rail expert with the New York-based consulting firm Oliver Wyman.
Larger trains are harder to control, and that increases the chances of something going wrong, safety experts said.
State and local emergency officials worry about a derailment in a population center or an environmentally sensitive area such as a river crossing.
Wayde Schafer, a North Dakota spokesman for the Sierra Club, described rail as “the greater of two evils” because trains pass through cities, over waterways and through wetlands that pipelines can be built to avoid.
“It's an accident waiting to happen. It's going to be a mess, and we don't know where that mess is going to be,” Schafer said.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
- U.S. lowers fluoride in water; too much causing splotchy teeth
- Buffalo weighs public boarding school proposals for at-risk kids
- Presley’s planes will remain at Graceland
- High morale linked to longer survival among elderly
- ‘Organic’ tag on water-raised produce raises ire
- Supreme Court leans toward legalizing gay marriage nationally
- Oregon mulls law limiting antibiotic use on livestock
- McCain renews push to have military, not CIA, manage drone strikes
- Study a surprise: Commercial bees unfazed by pesticides
- Mourners attend Baltimore man’s wake
- Corinthian Colleges to shut down more than two dozen remaining schools