Trump’s “Bomb Trains” coming to a neighborhood near you!

[martybegan]

A new Trump administration rule relaxing guidelines that govern the transport of liquefied natural gas could create “bomb trains” with enough explosive power to level whole cities, environmental groups say. A coalition of organizations led by the nonprofit Earthjustice has sued the administration, challenging the rule, which is scheduled to go into effect on Monday.

Separately, fourteen states and the District of Columbia are also suing the Trump administration to review the rule and declare it unlawful. The National Transportation Safety Board and the National Association of State Fire Marshals oppose it as well.

Under the new rule, trains would be allowed to transport up to 30,000 gallons of liquified natural gas (LNG) per tank, significantly more than has ever been allowed in the U.S., and there will be no restrictions on the number of LNG tanker cars in a particular train, nor on the routes these trains may travel, so they will be free to pass through dense population centers.

.....

......But shifting LNG transport to the railways could be a catastrophe, the lawsuits assert. “There’s a very good reason liquefied natural gas has never been shipped by rail in this country, and that’s because it’s wildly unsafe,” said Joseph Otis Minott, executive director of the Clean Air Council, which joined the lawsuit with Earthjustice. “I don’t want these dangerous trains going through my neighborhood, and trust me, you don’t either.”

New Trump Rule Could Create 'Bomb Trains,' Environmentalists Say

Two lawsuits have been filed over the Trump administration's 'wildly unsafe' plan to transport liquified natural gas on railroads.

www.rollingstone.com

You think this can only happen in Beirut:



Not if the Orange Idiot has his way.

I wonder if those trains are owned by Warren Buffet, who loves to transport Carbon Products across the US?

Warren Buffett-Owned Oil Freight Train Derails, Explodes – The Phaser

thephaser.com

As of today, liquefied natural gas is not shipped by rail. This Monday the rules change to allow LNG on rail. . 30,000 gallons of LNG will be permitted per tanker car and there could be fifty tanker cars full of LNG rolling through cities. An explosion would make the Beirut explosion look like child’s play.

Again, when split up like that they can't detonate like that.

Okay, then why has transport of LNG by rail been barred until now?

Because more than likely Nimby idiots kept harping about it being soooo dangerous, and yet you have gas like that all over the place.

You morons do realize this is a result of you idiots fighting the building of high pressure pipelines for transporting gas, right?

Based on what I am reading you are the moron.

I just explained what happened. It's because of you idiots fighting pipelines.

The gas is in demand, and they figured out another way to transport it.

 

[JLW]

Some of what I am finding disagree‘s with Marty’s assessment:

”......This proposed rule is rushed and ill-advised, and, if finalized, will pose a serious risk to public health and safety — not just in my state but nationwide,” Inslee said.

Others noted the health risks from a leak or fire, especially in densely populated urban areas. They accused PHMSA of rushing approval to benefit the domestic fracking industry.

“We must not be used as guinea pigs by this untested and high-consequence rush to grease the rails for special interests,” wrote Tamar Dick of Bethlehem, Pa.

Dick noted that LNG volume expands significantly when released in the air and is “capable of a far-reaching catastrophe, including a fire too hot to extinguish.”‘
.........


Train transportation, the agency maintained, is less risky than shipping by highway. LNG is similar to other flammable, cryogenic liquids currently transported by rail. The rule requires the use of an existing class of tank cars, called DOT-113, that is refrigerated and protected with a double-pressure vessel design.

The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB), however, has refuted some of PHMSA’s claims, saying a thorough safety assessment of the DOT-113 tank cars is needed because the colorless, odorless gas is easily ignitable and hard to detect.

“Specifically, an analysis should address fireballs, flash fire, and explosions from ground-level vapor clouds that may expand far beyond the point of release to an ignition source,” according to a letter signed by Robert L. Sumwalt III, chairman of the NTSB.

......

We believe the risks of catastrophic LNG releases in accidents is too great not to have operational controls in place before large blocks of tank cars and unit trains proliferate,” Sumwalt said.

Sumwalt noted that derailments of DOT-113 tank cars, although rare, can release larger quantities of hazardous material than a truck accident, and that federal regulators have a poor track record of responding to “fiery flammable-liquids accidents.”

Feds Green Light Use of Trains to Transport LNG - ecoRI News

President Trump has followed through on his pledge to allow trains to transport liquefied natural gas, a decision opposed by environmental groups and 15 states, including Rhode Island and Massachusetts.

www.ecori.org

Nothing but opinions from people opposed to the use of Natural Gas in general. You idiots fought against pipelines, the easiest and safest way to get the gas to distribution ports, and now you are bitching when they try to find another way.

This is on you.

Your argument makes no sense. This is a rush change in the rules to satisfy the fracking industry. To hell with the Consequences.

 

[Billy_Bob]

You bed wetters do not have any idea just how much highly toxic and dangerous shit gets shipped by train because it's infinitely safer than putting it on the highways.

The problem is you're just way too stupid to have even considered that fact.

Fucking jabbering retards.


.

You illiterate dumb fuck. Did you not read the portion of the article that said LNG has never been shipped by rail because it is too dangerous. LNG is generally not shipped by semis either you moron.

Yeah, like you know anything about LNG transport. Anything you know about that topic is what you pull out of your ass.

Go back to your room and put your binky back in your mouth.

This is a discussion for adults only.

LNG increases markets for natural gas
Where natural gas pipelines are not feasible or do not exist, liquefying natural gas is a way to move natural gas from producing regions to markets, such as to and from the United States and other countries. Asian countries combined account for the largest share of global LNG imports.

LNG export facilities receive natural gas by pipeline and liquefy the gas for transport on special ocean-going LNG ships or tankers. Most LNG is transported by tankers called LNG carriers in large, onboard, super-cooled (cryogenic) tanks. LNG is also transported in smaller International Organization for Standardization (ISO)-compliant containers that can be placed on ships and on trucks.

At import terminals, LNG is offloaded from ships and may be stored in cryogenic storage tanks before it is returned to its gaseous state or regasified. After regasification, the natural gas is transported by natural gas pipelines to natural gas-fired power plants, industrial facilities, and residential and commercial customers.

Liquefied natural gas - U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)

What is liquefied natural gas (LNG), how is it produced and transported, and U.S. LNG imports and exports.

www.eia.gov

Yet is A-OK to use in trucks and cars..... You fuckers are so ill informed...

 

[Crepitus]

A new Trump administration rule relaxing guidelines that govern the transport of liquefied natural gas could create “bomb trains” with enough explosive power to level whole cities, environmental groups say. A coalition of organizations led by the nonprofit Earthjustice has sued the administration, challenging the rule, which is scheduled to go into effect on Monday.

Separately, fourteen states and the District of Columbia are also suing the Trump administration to review the rule and declare it unlawful. The National Transportation Safety Board and the National Association of State Fire Marshals oppose it as well.

Under the new rule, trains would be allowed to transport up to 30,000 gallons of liquified natural gas (LNG) per tank, significantly more than has ever been allowed in the U.S., and there will be no restrictions on the number of LNG tanker cars in a particular train, nor on the routes these trains may travel, so they will be free to pass through dense population centers.

.....

......But shifting LNG transport to the railways could be a catastrophe, the lawsuits assert. “There’s a very good reason liquefied natural gas has never been shipped by rail in this country, and that’s because it’s wildly unsafe,” said Joseph Otis Minott, executive director of the Clean Air Council, which joined the lawsuit with Earthjustice. “I don’t want these dangerous trains going through my neighborhood, and trust me, you don’t either.”

New Trump Rule Could Create 'Bomb Trains,' Environmentalists Say

Two lawsuits have been filed over the Trump administration's 'wildly unsafe' plan to transport liquified natural gas on railroads.

www.rollingstone.com

You think this can only happen in Beirut:



Not if the Orange Idiot has his way.

I would have thought NTSB had the final words on that.

 

[Grumblenuts]

Same reason highly flammable liquids have no business being transported in lines of tankers through urban districts. Shit happens, the cars derail, the cargo leaks, and KABOOM! People die horribly. Lawsuits abound.

Massive train car explosion bleve

www.firerescue1.com

 

[JLW]

A new Trump administration rule relaxing guidelines that govern the transport of liquefied natural gas could create “bomb trains” with enough explosive power to level whole cities, environmental groups say. A coalition of organizations led by the nonprofit Earthjustice has sued the administration, challenging the rule, which is scheduled to go into effect on Monday.

Separately, fourteen states and the District of Columbia are also suing the Trump administration to review the rule and declare it unlawful. The National Transportation Safety Board and the National Association of State Fire Marshals oppose it as well.

Under the new rule, trains would be allowed to transport up to 30,000 gallons of liquified natural gas (LNG) per tank, significantly more than has ever been allowed in the U.S., and there will be no restrictions on the number of LNG tanker cars in a particular train, nor on the routes these trains may travel, so they will be free to pass through dense population centers.

.....

......But shifting LNG transport to the railways could be a catastrophe, the lawsuits assert. “There’s a very good reason liquefied natural gas has never been shipped by rail in this country, and that’s because it’s wildly unsafe,” said Joseph Otis Minott, executive director of the Clean Air Council, which joined the lawsuit with Earthjustice. “I don’t want these dangerous trains going through my neighborhood, and trust me, you don’t either.”

New Trump Rule Could Create 'Bomb Trains,' Environmentalists Say

Two lawsuits have been filed over the Trump administration's 'wildly unsafe' plan to transport liquified natural gas on railroads.

www.rollingstone.com

You think this can only happen in Beirut:



Not if the Orange Idiot has his way.

I wonder if those trains are owned by Warren Buffet, who loves to transport Carbon Products across the US?

Warren Buffett-Owned Oil Freight Train Derails, Explodes – The Phaser

thephaser.com

As of today, liquefied natural gas is not shipped by rail. This Monday the rules change to allow LNG on rail. . 30,000 gallons of LNG will be permitted per tanker car and there could be fifty tanker cars full of LNG rolling through cities. An explosion would make the Beirut explosion look like child’s play.

Again, when split up like that they can't detonate like that.

Okay, then why has transport of LNG by rail been barred until now?

Because more than likely Nimby idiots kept harping about it being soooo dangerous, and yet you have gas like that all over the place.

You morons do realize this is a result of you idiots fighting the building of high pressure pipelines for transporting gas, right?

Based on what I am reading you are the moron.

I just explained what happened. It's because of you idiots fighting pipelines.

The gas is in demand, and they figured out another way to transport it.

Your argument is just deflection. The question is should the rules be changed to ship LNG by rail...the answer is a resounding no.

 

[martybegan]

Some of what I am finding disagree‘s with Marty’s assessment:

”......This proposed rule is rushed and ill-advised, and, if finalized, will pose a serious risk to public health and safety — not just in my state but nationwide,” Inslee said.

Others noted the health risks from a leak or fire, especially in densely populated urban areas. They accused PHMSA of rushing approval to benefit the domestic fracking industry.

“We must not be used as guinea pigs by this untested and high-consequence rush to grease the rails for special interests,” wrote Tamar Dick of Bethlehem, Pa.

Dick noted that LNG volume expands significantly when released in the air and is “capable of a far-reaching catastrophe, including a fire too hot to extinguish.”‘
.........


Train transportation, the agency maintained, is less risky than shipping by highway. LNG is similar to other flammable, cryogenic liquids currently transported by rail. The rule requires the use of an existing class of tank cars, called DOT-113, that is refrigerated and protected with a double-pressure vessel design.

The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB), however, has refuted some of PHMSA’s claims, saying a thorough safety assessment of the DOT-113 tank cars is needed because the colorless, odorless gas is easily ignitable and hard to detect.

“Specifically, an analysis should address fireballs, flash fire, and explosions from ground-level vapor clouds that may expand far beyond the point of release to an ignition source,” according to a letter signed by Robert L. Sumwalt III, chairman of the NTSB.

......

We believe the risks of catastrophic LNG releases in accidents is too great not to have operational controls in place before large blocks of tank cars and unit trains proliferate,” Sumwalt said.

Sumwalt noted that derailments of DOT-113 tank cars, although rare, can release larger quantities of hazardous material than a truck accident, and that federal regulators have a poor track record of responding to “fiery flammable-liquids accidents.”

Feds Green Light Use of Trains to Transport LNG - ecoRI News

President Trump has followed through on his pledge to allow trains to transport liquefied natural gas, a decision opposed by environmental groups and 15 states, including Rhode Island and Massachusetts.

www.ecori.org

Nothing but opinions from people opposed to the use of Natural Gas in general. You idiots fought against pipelines, the easiest and safest way to get the gas to distribution ports, and now you are bitching when they try to find another way.

This is on you.

Your argument makes no sense. This is a rush change in the rules to satisfy the fracking industry. To hell with the Consequences.

Nope, it's probably been in the works since the pipelines have been delayed and fought, and just brought up as a fighting topic by Dems to keep things up during their convention.

1. Environmentalists sue every time a new pipeline is proposed, delaying it for years
2. People still need Natural Gas
3. Producers figure out that rail transport uses existing right of way, and is already designed to transport bulk dangerous materials using proper shipping tankers
4. Producers start process to petition railcar transport of LNG
5. Environmentalists get wind, will try to sue, but more than likely since this involves already existing right of way, lawsuits will be moot
6. Engineering types like me laugh when morons like you get what you deserve, good and hard.

 

[JLW]

You bed wetters do not have any idea just how much highly toxic and dangerous shit gets shipped by train because it's infinitely safer than putting it on the highways.

The problem is you're just way too stupid to have even considered that fact.

Fucking jabbering retards.


.

You illiterate dumb fuck. Did you not read the portion of the article that said LNG has never been shipped by rail because it is too dangerous. LNG is generally not shipped by semis either you moron.

Yeah, like you know anything about LNG transport. Anything you know about that topic is what you pull out of your ass.

Go back to your room and put your binky back in your mouth.

This is a discussion for adults only.

LNG increases markets for natural gas
Where natural gas pipelines are not feasible or do not exist, liquefying natural gas is a way to move natural gas from producing regions to markets, such as to and from the United States and other countries. Asian countries combined account for the largest share of global LNG imports.

LNG export facilities receive natural gas by pipeline and liquefy the gas for transport on special ocean-going LNG ships or tankers. Most LNG is transported by tankers called LNG carriers in large, onboard, super-cooled (cryogenic) tanks. LNG is also transported in smaller International Organization for Standardization (ISO)-compliant containers that can be placed on ships and on trucks.

At import terminals, LNG is offloaded from ships and may be stored in cryogenic storage tanks before it is returned to its gaseous state or regasified. After regasification, the natural gas is transported by natural gas pipelines to natural gas-fired power plants, industrial facilities, and residential and commercial customers.

Liquefied natural gas - U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)

What is liquefied natural gas (LNG), how is it produced and transported, and U.S. LNG imports and exports.

www.eia.gov

Yet is A-OK to use in trucks and cars..... You fuckers are so ill informed...

LOL..What a ridiculous statement. There is a difference between a 10 gallon tank with LNG and 30,000 gallons. What a maroon.

 

[martybegan]

A new Trump administration rule relaxing guidelines that govern the transport of liquefied natural gas could create “bomb trains” with enough explosive power to level whole cities, environmental groups say. A coalition of organizations led by the nonprofit Earthjustice has sued the administration, challenging the rule, which is scheduled to go into effect on Monday.

Separately, fourteen states and the District of Columbia are also suing the Trump administration to review the rule and declare it unlawful. The National Transportation Safety Board and the National Association of State Fire Marshals oppose it as well.

Under the new rule, trains would be allowed to transport up to 30,000 gallons of liquified natural gas (LNG) per tank, significantly more than has ever been allowed in the U.S., and there will be no restrictions on the number of LNG tanker cars in a particular train, nor on the routes these trains may travel, so they will be free to pass through dense population centers.

.....

......But shifting LNG transport to the railways could be a catastrophe, the lawsuits assert. “There’s a very good reason liquefied natural gas has never been shipped by rail in this country, and that’s because it’s wildly unsafe,” said Joseph Otis Minott, executive director of the Clean Air Council, which joined the lawsuit with Earthjustice. “I don’t want these dangerous trains going through my neighborhood, and trust me, you don’t either.”

New Trump Rule Could Create 'Bomb Trains,' Environmentalists Say

Two lawsuits have been filed over the Trump administration's 'wildly unsafe' plan to transport liquified natural gas on railroads.

www.rollingstone.com

You think this can only happen in Beirut:



Not if the Orange Idiot has his way.

I wonder if those trains are owned by Warren Buffet, who loves to transport Carbon Products across the US?

Warren Buffett-Owned Oil Freight Train Derails, Explodes – The Phaser

thephaser.com

As of today, liquefied natural gas is not shipped by rail. This Monday the rules change to allow LNG on rail. . 30,000 gallons of LNG will be permitted per tanker car and there could be fifty tanker cars full of LNG rolling through cities. An explosion would make the Beirut explosion look like child’s play.

Again, when split up like that they can't detonate like that.

Okay, then why has transport of LNG by rail been barred until now?

Because more than likely Nimby idiots kept harping about it being soooo dangerous, and yet you have gas like that all over the place.

You morons do realize this is a result of you idiots fighting the building of high pressure pipelines for transporting gas, right?

Based on what I am reading you are the moron.

I just explained what happened. It's because of you idiots fighting pipelines.

The gas is in demand, and they figured out another way to transport it.

Your argument is just deflection. The question is should the rules be changed to ship LNG by rail...the answer is a resounding no.

Why not? Plenty of other hazardous materials are shipped safely by rail. It's not like freight trans run fast or anything. And these cars will probably be built with very heavy materials, and secure ports.

 

[martybegan]

Same reason highly flammable liquids have no business being transported in lines of tankers through urban districts. Shit happens, the cars derail, the cargo leaks, and KABOOM! People die horribly. Lawsuits abound.

When was the last time that happened?

 

[JLW]

Some of what I am finding disagree‘s with Marty’s assessment:

”......This proposed rule is rushed and ill-advised, and, if finalized, will pose a serious risk to public health and safety — not just in my state but nationwide,” Inslee said.

Others noted the health risks from a leak or fire, especially in densely populated urban areas. They accused PHMSA of rushing approval to benefit the domestic fracking industry.

“We must not be used as guinea pigs by this untested and high-consequence rush to grease the rails for special interests,” wrote Tamar Dick of Bethlehem, Pa.

Dick noted that LNG volume expands significantly when released in the air and is “capable of a far-reaching catastrophe, including a fire too hot to extinguish.”‘
.........


Train transportation, the agency maintained, is less risky than shipping by highway. LNG is similar to other flammable, cryogenic liquids currently transported by rail. The rule requires the use of an existing class of tank cars, called DOT-113, that is refrigerated and protected with a double-pressure vessel design.

The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB), however, has refuted some of PHMSA’s claims, saying a thorough safety assessment of the DOT-113 tank cars is needed because the colorless, odorless gas is easily ignitable and hard to detect.

“Specifically, an analysis should address fireballs, flash fire, and explosions from ground-level vapor clouds that may expand far beyond the point of release to an ignition source,” according to a letter signed by Robert L. Sumwalt III, chairman of the NTSB.

......

We believe the risks of catastrophic LNG releases in accidents is too great not to have operational controls in place before large blocks of tank cars and unit trains proliferate,” Sumwalt said.

Sumwalt noted that derailments of DOT-113 tank cars, although rare, can release larger quantities of hazardous material than a truck accident, and that federal regulators have a poor track record of responding to “fiery flammable-liquids accidents.”

Feds Green Light Use of Trains to Transport LNG - ecoRI News

President Trump has followed through on his pledge to allow trains to transport liquefied natural gas, a decision opposed by environmental groups and 15 states, including Rhode Island and Massachusetts.

www.ecori.org

Nothing but opinions from people opposed to the use of Natural Gas in general. You idiots fought against pipelines, the easiest and safest way to get the gas to distribution ports, and now you are bitching when they try to find another way.

This is on you.

Your argument makes no sense. This is a rush change in the rules to satisfy the fracking industry. To hell with the Consequences.

Nope, it's probably been in the works since the pipelines have been delayed and fought, and just brought up as a fighting topic by Dems to keep things up during their convention.

1. Environmentalists sue every time a new pipeline is proposed, delaying it for years
2. People still need Natural Gas
3. Producers figure out that rail transport uses existing right of way, and is already designed to transport bulk dangerous materials using proper shipping tankers
4. Producers start process to petition railcar transport of LNG
5. Environmentalists get wind, will try to sue, but more than likely since this involves already existing right of way, lawsuits will be moot
6. Engineering types like me laugh when morons like you get what you deserve, good and hard.

So your argument is this: Dems oppose pipelines, therefore, we must allow dangerous amounts of LNG through cites. Wow what logic!

 

[JLW]

A new Trump administration rule relaxing guidelines that govern the transport of liquefied natural gas could create “bomb trains” with enough explosive power to level whole cities, environmental groups say. A coalition of organizations led by the nonprofit Earthjustice has sued the administration, challenging the rule, which is scheduled to go into effect on Monday.

Separately, fourteen states and the District of Columbia are also suing the Trump administration to review the rule and declare it unlawful. The National Transportation Safety Board and the National Association of State Fire Marshals oppose it as well.

Under the new rule, trains would be allowed to transport up to 30,000 gallons of liquified natural gas (LNG) per tank, significantly more than has ever been allowed in the U.S., and there will be no restrictions on the number of LNG tanker cars in a particular train, nor on the routes these trains may travel, so they will be free to pass through dense population centers.

.....

......But shifting LNG transport to the railways could be a catastrophe, the lawsuits assert. “There’s a very good reason liquefied natural gas has never been shipped by rail in this country, and that’s because it’s wildly unsafe,” said Joseph Otis Minott, executive director of the Clean Air Council, which joined the lawsuit with Earthjustice. “I don’t want these dangerous trains going through my neighborhood, and trust me, you don’t either.”

New Trump Rule Could Create 'Bomb Trains,' Environmentalists Say

Two lawsuits have been filed over the Trump administration's 'wildly unsafe' plan to transport liquified natural gas on railroads.

www.rollingstone.com

You think this can only happen in Beirut:



Not if the Orange Idiot has his way.

I wonder if those trains are owned by Warren Buffet, who loves to transport Carbon Products across the US?

Warren Buffett-Owned Oil Freight Train Derails, Explodes – The Phaser

thephaser.com

As of today, liquefied natural gas is not shipped by rail. This Monday the rules change to allow LNG on rail. . 30,000 gallons of LNG will be permitted per tanker car and there could be fifty tanker cars full of LNG rolling through cities. An explosion would make the Beirut explosion look like child’s play.

Again, when split up like that they can't detonate like that.

Okay, then why has transport of LNG by rail been barred until now?

Because more than likely Nimby idiots kept harping about it being soooo dangerous, and yet you have gas like that all over the place.

You morons do realize this is a result of you idiots fighting the building of high pressure pipelines for transporting gas, right?

Based on what I am reading you are the moron.

I just explained what happened. It's because of you idiots fighting pipelines.

The gas is in demand, and they figured out another way to transport it.

Your argument is just deflection. The question is should the rules be changed to ship LNG by rail...the answer is a resounding no.

Why not? Plenty of other hazardous materials are shipped safely by rail. It's not like freight trans run fast or anything. And these cars will probably be built with very heavy materials, and secure ports.

Based on what I have read LNG is not safe being transported through rails.

 

[TNHarley]

You bed wetters do not have any idea just how much highly toxic and dangerous shit gets shipped by train because it's infinitely safer than putting it on the highways.

The problem is you're just way too stupid to have even considered that fact.

Fucking jabbering retards.


.

You illiterate dumb fuck. Did you not read the portion of the article that said LNG has never been shipped by rail because it is too dangerous. LNG is generally not shipped by semis either you moron.

Yeah, like you know anything about LNG transport. Anything you know about that topic is what you pull out of your ass.

Go back to your room and put your binky back in your mouth.

This is a discussion for adults only.

LNG increases markets for natural gas
Where natural gas pipelines are not feasible or do not exist, liquefying natural gas is a way to move natural gas from producing regions to markets, such as to and from the United States and other countries. Asian countries combined account for the largest share of global LNG imports.

LNG export facilities receive natural gas by pipeline and liquefy the gas for transport on special ocean-going LNG ships or tankers. Most LNG is transported by tankers called LNG carriers in large, onboard, super-cooled (cryogenic) tanks. LNG is also transported in smaller International Organization for Standardization (ISO)-compliant containers that can be placed on ships and on trucks.

At import terminals, LNG is offloaded from ships and may be stored in cryogenic storage tanks before it is returned to its gaseous state or regasified. After regasification, the natural gas is transported by natural gas pipelines to natural gas-fired power plants, industrial facilities, and residential and commercial customers.

Liquefied natural gas - U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)

What is liquefied natural gas (LNG), how is it produced and transported, and U.S. LNG imports and exports.

www.eia.gov

The fed gov gave permits for railcar LNG transportation during the obama administration.

 

[martybegan]

A new Trump administration rule relaxing guidelines that govern the transport of liquefied natural gas could create “bomb trains” with enough explosive power to level whole cities, environmental groups say. A coalition of organizations led by the nonprofit Earthjustice has sued the administration, challenging the rule, which is scheduled to go into effect on Monday.

Separately, fourteen states and the District of Columbia are also suing the Trump administration to review the rule and declare it unlawful. The National Transportation Safety Board and the National Association of State Fire Marshals oppose it as well.

Under the new rule, trains would be allowed to transport up to 30,000 gallons of liquified natural gas (LNG) per tank, significantly more than has ever been allowed in the U.S., and there will be no restrictions on the number of LNG tanker cars in a particular train, nor on the routes these trains may travel, so they will be free to pass through dense population centers.

.....

......But shifting LNG transport to the railways could be a catastrophe, the lawsuits assert. “There’s a very good reason liquefied natural gas has never been shipped by rail in this country, and that’s because it’s wildly unsafe,” said Joseph Otis Minott, executive director of the Clean Air Council, which joined the lawsuit with Earthjustice. “I don’t want these dangerous trains going through my neighborhood, and trust me, you don’t either.”

New Trump Rule Could Create 'Bomb Trains,' Environmentalists Say

Two lawsuits have been filed over the Trump administration's 'wildly unsafe' plan to transport liquified natural gas on railroads.

www.rollingstone.com

You think this can only happen in Beirut:



Not if the Orange Idiot has his way.

I would have thought NTSB had the final words on that.

From a railway website.

USDOT Issues Rule Authorizing Bulk Transport of LNG by Rail - Railway Age

With FRA approval, LNG has previously been authorized for transport by rail in a portable tank,” DOT noted. “Federal Hazardous Materials Regulations have also authorized the transportation of other flammable cryogenic materials for many years in DOT-113 tank cars. Importantly, this final rule also incorporates newly designated additional safety requirements, such as an enhanced thicker carbon steel outer tank.”

The rule also requires remote monitoring of the pressure and location of LNG tank cars. In addition, “to improve braking,” the rule requires a two-way EOT (end-of-train) device or DP (distributed power) system when a train is transporting 20 or more tank cars loaded with LNG in a continuous block, or 35 or more such tank cars of LNG anywhere in the train consist. Furthermore, the rule requires railroads to conduct route risk assessments to evaluate safety and security.

“EO 13868 recognized the growth of energy production in the U.S., coupled with an increased global demand for U.S. natural gas,” DOT said. “The rule prescribes regulations that reflect best practices and best-available technologies, sets increased regulatory certainty and provides policies that promote America’s natural resources.”

 

[martybegan]

A new Trump administration rule relaxing guidelines that govern the transport of liquefied natural gas could create “bomb trains” with enough explosive power to level whole cities, environmental groups say. A coalition of organizations led by the nonprofit Earthjustice has sued the administration, challenging the rule, which is scheduled to go into effect on Monday.

Separately, fourteen states and the District of Columbia are also suing the Trump administration to review the rule and declare it unlawful. The National Transportation Safety Board and the National Association of State Fire Marshals oppose it as well.

Under the new rule, trains would be allowed to transport up to 30,000 gallons of liquified natural gas (LNG) per tank, significantly more than has ever been allowed in the U.S., and there will be no restrictions on the number of LNG tanker cars in a particular train, nor on the routes these trains may travel, so they will be free to pass through dense population centers.

.....

......But shifting LNG transport to the railways could be a catastrophe, the lawsuits assert. “There’s a very good reason liquefied natural gas has never been shipped by rail in this country, and that’s because it’s wildly unsafe,” said Joseph Otis Minott, executive director of the Clean Air Council, which joined the lawsuit with Earthjustice. “I don’t want these dangerous trains going through my neighborhood, and trust me, you don’t either.”

New Trump Rule Could Create 'Bomb Trains,' Environmentalists Say

Two lawsuits have been filed over the Trump administration's 'wildly unsafe' plan to transport liquified natural gas on railroads.

www.rollingstone.com

You think this can only happen in Beirut:



Not if the Orange Idiot has his way.

I wonder if those trains are owned by Warren Buffet, who loves to transport Carbon Products across the US?

Warren Buffett-Owned Oil Freight Train Derails, Explodes – The Phaser

thephaser.com

As of today, liquefied natural gas is not shipped by rail. This Monday the rules change to allow LNG on rail. . 30,000 gallons of LNG will be permitted per tanker car and there could be fifty tanker cars full of LNG rolling through cities. An explosion would make the Beirut explosion look like child’s play.

Again, when split up like that they can't detonate like that.

Okay, then why has transport of LNG by rail been barred until now?

Because more than likely Nimby idiots kept harping about it being soooo dangerous, and yet you have gas like that all over the place.

You morons do realize this is a result of you idiots fighting the building of high pressure pipelines for transporting gas, right?

Based on what I am reading you are the moron.

I just explained what happened. It's because of you idiots fighting pipelines.

The gas is in demand, and they figured out another way to transport it.

Your argument is just deflection. The question is should the rules be changed to ship LNG by rail...the answer is a resounding no.

Why not? Plenty of other hazardous materials are shipped safely by rail. It's not like freight trans run fast or anything. And these cars will probably be built with very heavy materials, and secure ports.

Based on what I have read LNG is not safe being transported through rails.

Because you only read alarmist bullshit because it suits your worldview.

 

[TNHarley]

A new Trump administration rule relaxing guidelines that govern the transport of liquefied natural gas could create “bomb trains” with enough explosive power to level whole cities, environmental groups say. A coalition of organizations led by the nonprofit Earthjustice has sued the administration, challenging the rule, which is scheduled to go into effect on Monday.

Separately, fourteen states and the District of Columbia are also suing the Trump administration to review the rule and declare it unlawful. The National Transportation Safety Board and the National Association of State Fire Marshals oppose it as well.

Under the new rule, trains would be allowed to transport up to 30,000 gallons of liquified natural gas (LNG) per tank, significantly more than has ever been allowed in the U.S., and there will be no restrictions on the number of LNG tanker cars in a particular train, nor on the routes these trains may travel, so they will be free to pass through dense population centers.

.....

......But shifting LNG transport to the railways could be a catastrophe, the lawsuits assert. “There’s a very good reason liquefied natural gas has never been shipped by rail in this country, and that’s because it’s wildly unsafe,” said Joseph Otis Minott, executive director of the Clean Air Council, which joined the lawsuit with Earthjustice. “I don’t want these dangerous trains going through my neighborhood, and trust me, you don’t either.”

New Trump Rule Could Create 'Bomb Trains,' Environmentalists Say

Two lawsuits have been filed over the Trump administration's 'wildly unsafe' plan to transport liquified natural gas on railroads.

www.rollingstone.com

You think this can only happen in Beirut:



Not if the Orange Idiot has his way.

I wonder if those trains are owned by Warren Buffet, who loves to transport Carbon Products across the US?

Warren Buffett-Owned Oil Freight Train Derails, Explodes – The Phaser

thephaser.com

As of today, liquefied natural gas is not shipped by rail. This Monday the rules change to allow LNG on rail. . 30,000 gallons of LNG will be permitted per tanker car and there could be fifty tanker cars full of LNG rolling through cities. An explosion would make the Beirut explosion look like child’s play.

Again, when split up like that they can't detonate like that.

Okay, then why has transport of LNG by rail been barred until now?

Because more than likely Nimby idiots kept harping about it being soooo dangerous, and yet you have gas like that all over the place.

You morons do realize this is a result of you idiots fighting the building of high pressure pipelines for transporting gas, right?

Based on what I am reading you are the moron.

I just explained what happened. It's because of you idiots fighting pipelines.

The gas is in demand, and they figured out another way to transport it.

Your argument is just deflection. The question is should the rules be changed to ship LNG by rail...the answer is a resounding no.

Why not? Plenty of other hazardous materials are shipped safely by rail. It's not like freight trans run fast or anything. And these cars will probably be built with very heavy materials, and secure ports.

Based on what I have read LNG is not safe being transported through rails.

Its safer than roads

 

[martybegan]

Some of what I am finding disagree‘s with Marty’s assessment:

”......This proposed rule is rushed and ill-advised, and, if finalized, will pose a serious risk to public health and safety — not just in my state but nationwide,” Inslee said.

Others noted the health risks from a leak or fire, especially in densely populated urban areas. They accused PHMSA of rushing approval to benefit the domestic fracking industry.

“We must not be used as guinea pigs by this untested and high-consequence rush to grease the rails for special interests,” wrote Tamar Dick of Bethlehem, Pa.

Dick noted that LNG volume expands significantly when released in the air and is “capable of a far-reaching catastrophe, including a fire too hot to extinguish.”‘
.........


Train transportation, the agency maintained, is less risky than shipping by highway. LNG is similar to other flammable, cryogenic liquids currently transported by rail. The rule requires the use of an existing class of tank cars, called DOT-113, that is refrigerated and protected with a double-pressure vessel design.

The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB), however, has refuted some of PHMSA’s claims, saying a thorough safety assessment of the DOT-113 tank cars is needed because the colorless, odorless gas is easily ignitable and hard to detect.

“Specifically, an analysis should address fireballs, flash fire, and explosions from ground-level vapor clouds that may expand far beyond the point of release to an ignition source,” according to a letter signed by Robert L. Sumwalt III, chairman of the NTSB.

......

We believe the risks of catastrophic LNG releases in accidents is too great not to have operational controls in place before large blocks of tank cars and unit trains proliferate,” Sumwalt said.

Sumwalt noted that derailments of DOT-113 tank cars, although rare, can release larger quantities of hazardous material than a truck accident, and that federal regulators have a poor track record of responding to “fiery flammable-liquids accidents.”

Feds Green Light Use of Trains to Transport LNG - ecoRI News

President Trump has followed through on his pledge to allow trains to transport liquefied natural gas, a decision opposed by environmental groups and 15 states, including Rhode Island and Massachusetts.

www.ecori.org

Nothing but opinions from people opposed to the use of Natural Gas in general. You idiots fought against pipelines, the easiest and safest way to get the gas to distribution ports, and now you are bitching when they try to find another way.

This is on you.

Your argument makes no sense. This is a rush change in the rules to satisfy the fracking industry. To hell with the Consequences.

Nope, it's probably been in the works since the pipelines have been delayed and fought, and just brought up as a fighting topic by Dems to keep things up during their convention.

1. Environmentalists sue every time a new pipeline is proposed, delaying it for years
2. People still need Natural Gas
3. Producers figure out that rail transport uses existing right of way, and is already designed to transport bulk dangerous materials using proper shipping tankers
4. Producers start process to petition railcar transport of LNG
5. Environmentalists get wind, will try to sue, but more than likely since this involves already existing right of way, lawsuits will be moot
6. Engineering types like me laugh when morons like you get what you deserve, good and hard.

So your argument is this: Dems oppose pipelines, therefore, we must allow dangerous amounts of LNG through cites. Wow what logic!

The gas has to be transported somehow, there is demand for it.

I linked a railway website reference. It involves similar regulations to other cold stored fuels, and details the storage strength requirements, and monitoring requirements.

 

[JLW]

You bed wetters do not have any idea just how much highly toxic and dangerous shit gets shipped by train because it's infinitely safer than putting it on the highways.

The problem is you're just way too stupid to have even considered that fact.

Fucking jabbering retards.


.

You illiterate dumb fuck. Did you not read the portion of the article that said LNG has never been shipped by rail because it is too dangerous. LNG is generally not shipped by semis either you moron.

Yeah, like you know anything about LNG transport. Anything you know about that topic is what you pull out of your ass.

Go back to your room and put your binky back in your mouth.

This is a discussion for adults only.

LNG increases markets for natural gas
Where natural gas pipelines are not feasible or do not exist, liquefying natural gas is a way to move natural gas from producing regions to markets, such as to and from the United States and other countries. Asian countries combined account for the largest share of global LNG imports.

LNG export facilities receive natural gas by pipeline and liquefy the gas for transport on special ocean-going LNG ships or tankers. Most LNG is transported by tankers called LNG carriers in large, onboard, super-cooled (cryogenic) tanks. LNG is also transported in smaller International Organization for Standardization (ISO)-compliant containers that can be placed on ships and on trucks.

At import terminals, LNG is offloaded from ships and may be stored in cryogenic storage tanks before it is returned to its gaseous state or regasified. After regasification, the natural gas is transported by natural gas pipelines to natural gas-fired power plants, industrial facilities, and residential and commercial customers.

Liquefied natural gas - U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)

What is liquefied natural gas (LNG), how is it produced and transported, and U.S. LNG imports and exports.

www.eia.gov

The fed gov gave permits for railcar LNG transportation during the obama administration.

Post a link to your assertion. However there is a big difference giving a permit on a case by case basis and allowing transport carte blanche.

 

[Wyatt earp]

Some of what I am finding disagree‘s with Marty’s assessment:

”......This proposed rule is rushed and ill-advised, and, if finalized, will pose a serious risk to public health and safety — not just in my state but nationwide,” Inslee said.

Others noted the health risks from a leak or fire, especially in densely populated urban areas. They accused PHMSA of rushing approval to benefit the domestic fracking industry.

“We must not be used as guinea pigs by this untested and high-consequence rush to grease the rails for special interests,” wrote Tamar Dick of Bethlehem, Pa.

Dick noted that LNG volume expands significantly when released in the air and is “capable of a far-reaching catastrophe, including a fire too hot to extinguish.”‘
.........


Train transportation, the agency maintained, is less risky than shipping by highway. LNG is similar to other flammable, cryogenic liquids currently transported by rail. The rule requires the use of an existing class of tank cars, called DOT-113, that is refrigerated and protected with a double-pressure vessel design.

The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB), however, has refuted some of PHMSA’s claims, saying a thorough safety assessment of the DOT-113 tank cars is needed because the colorless, odorless gas is easily ignitable and hard to detect.

“Specifically, an analysis should address fireballs, flash fire, and explosions from ground-level vapor clouds that may expand far beyond the point of release to an ignition source,” according to a letter signed by Robert L. Sumwalt III, chairman of the NTSB.

......

We believe the risks of catastrophic LNG releases in accidents is too great not to have operational controls in place before large blocks of tank cars and unit trains proliferate,” Sumwalt said.

Sumwalt noted that derailments of DOT-113 tank cars, although rare, can release larger quantities of hazardous material than a truck accident, and that federal regulators have a poor track record of responding to “fiery flammable-liquids accidents.”

Feds Green Light Use of Trains to Transport LNG - ecoRI News

President Trump has followed through on his pledge to allow trains to transport liquefied natural gas, a decision opposed by environmental groups and 15 states, including Rhode Island and Massachusetts.

www.ecori.org

Nothing but opinions from people opposed to the use of Natural Gas in general. You idiots fought against pipelines, the easiest and safest way to get the gas to distribution ports, and now you are bitching when they try to find another way.

This is on you.

Your argument makes no sense. This is a rush change in the rules to satisfy the fracking industry. To hell with the Consequences.

You guys fought the coal industry, what do you expect?

 

[okfine]

Bomb trains? Wishful thinking or threats from radical tree huggers? Would lefties rather see the stuff transported by truck on the interstate?

Read the link. 14 states oppose the change in the rules. LNG has been prohibited from the rails for a reason. Seriously, what kind of idiot wants 30,000 gallons and perhaps hundreds of thousands of gallons of LNG going through their city?

How is LNG transported?
LNG is transported in double-hulled ships specifically designed to handle the low temperature of LNG. These carriers are insulated to limit the amount of LNG that boils off or evaporates. This boils off gas is sometimes used to supplement fuel for the carriers. LNG carriers are up to 1000 feet long, and require a minimum water depth of 40 feet when fully loaded. As of 2012, there were 360 ships transporting more than 220 million metric tons of LNG every year. (Source: Bureau of Economic Geology, University of Texas at Austin, Introduction to LNG.)

Our community fought and prevented an LNG terminal from being built on the Oxnard coastline. Read the following article. It mentions Bill Terry. I grew up with the Terry farming family in Montalvo.

One moment, please...