JLW
Diamond Member
- Sep 16, 2012
- 15,225
- 16,104
- 2,405
- Thread starter
- #41
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?
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
Thanks for the link. It sheds lights on the railway industry’s POV.So your argument is this: Dems oppose pipelines, therefore, we must allow dangerous amounts of LNG through cites. Wow what logic!Your argument makes no sense. This is a rush change in the rules to satisfy the fracking industry. To hell with the Consequences.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.
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.
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.