lynchburg fireBy Peter Galuszka

The derailment of 14 oil-laden CSX tank cars and subsequent huge fire caused by three of them Wednesday in downtown Lynchburg underscores a number of environmental threats brought on by America’s fast-changing energy markets.

Three tank cars carrying crude oil from North Dakota Bakken Field that involves hydraulic fracking drilling methods shot flames hundreds of feet into the air and spilled 50,000 gallons of fuel into the James River, from which Richmond, about 120 miles away, gets its drinking water. City officials say they are monitoring the cleanliness of water.

The Bakken crude was on its way for a former Amoco oil refinery at Yorktown on Chesapeake Bay. If bans on exporting U.S. crude are lifted, Yorktown could become a major crude oil shipping point because the facility, now owned by Plains All American, already has the piers and pipes in place to handle large scale shipments of oil. They may end up in Europe to replace fuel jeopardized by the Russian-Ukrainian conflict.

All of this points out just how fast changing the energy dynamics are in the U.S. and how ill-equipped American infrastructure, a victim of conservative spending policies, is to handle it.

America’s railroads and pipelines are too stressed or inadequate to handle the sudden flow of oil and gas that fracking has produced. Pipelines and tank terminals have been filled to capacity, making oil shippers more reliant upon railroads which seem to have chronic problems keeping their lines and gear in shape.

The worst case so far happened when a train laden with North Dakota oil became a runaway while stopped in Lac-Megantic, Quebec last year and the resulting explosion and fire killed 47 people. Oil trains routinely pass through major metropolitan areas including Baltimore, Washington and Richmond.

What’s more coal-related problems have been threatening drinking water in the Upper South, Mid-Atlantic region. In January, the leak of a toxic chemical near the Kanawha River in Charleston meant that some 300,000 people had to go without drinking water for a week. Later, coal ash owned by Duke Energy leaked into the Dan River, threatening the drinking water supplies of Danville. Now, Richmond is on watch about its supplies.

What’s infuriating about all of this is that you hear a lot on this blogs of about tight spending and how little Net-based controls will make our lives infinitely better. Well, we now see what short-changing public works spending does and how it threatens lives. As for all those little Net things, well, where are they? Where were they in Lynchburg or Lac-Megantic?


Share this article



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)


Comments

24 responses to “Fracking’s New Threats”

  1. larryg Avatar

    all other issues aside – what kind of economic sense does it make to transport crude oil halfway across the country to be refined?

    you’d think you’d want to refine it as close as possible to where it is extracted and then move the much lower volume of finished product to markets.

    next point – nothing is preventing US companies from adding pipeline capacity to existing right-of-ways.. so why are we acting like we cannot build more pipelines unless they are on brand new right-of-way?

  2. Build more pipelines.

    Only in Peter World would the shortage of energy-transportation infrastructure be blamed on conservatives and not environmentalists. Keystone Pipeline, anyone?

    1. larryg Avatar

      Glad to see you are back JimB..!

      actually don’t need the Keystone – a new location pipeline. there are already dozens of exiting pipeline rights-of-ways that could be expanded.

      Keystone is about a new competitor to the existing pipelines.

      some of the opposition is proxy opposition from existing pipeline operators who would prefer to add their own capacity and not have a new competitor.

      I don’t have any particular opposition to the Keystone except that the company is not using willing selling/willing buyer but instead intending to use government-sanctioned eminent domain.

      this is not about the free market but about rent-seeking crony capitalism.

      I have no truck with the enviro-weenies either by the way.

      there are multiple levels of dishonesty involved here – by the company and by the opponents and proponents.

      1. Just a comment on eminent domain and pipelines. It has been common for many, many years for states and the federal government to give eminent domain authority to pipelines. West Va. Transp. Co. v. Ohio River Pipe Line Co., 22 W.Va. 600 (1883). The oldest case found in my quick search.

        I agree with Peter’s comment that Obama should have proposed infrastructure construction as the key part of his stimulus, and also remind folks that much of the stimulus money was used to save government bureaucrat jobs, such as staff jobs for Fairfax County Public Schools. The D’s controlled both houses of Congress when the Stimulus Bill passed.

        1. larryg Avatar

          re: ” It has been common for many, many years for states and the federal government to give eminent domain authority to pipelines”

          totally true – and totally undermines the claim that the private sector does things better than the govt does.

          the private sector has ALWAYS had the ability to engage in totally voluntary willing-buyer/willing seller transactions and yet when it comes to pipelines, rail lines, electricity.. etc.. 99% is the government using eminent domain.. or giving it to a private sector business – which now days -such things are characterized as rent-seeking – but selectively ignores the eminent domain stuff.

          what exactly justifies the incompetent, corrupt, bureaucratic government to give ED rights to private companies?

          answer please.

          1. Larry, I’m confused about your comments on eminent domain. The law has always permitted public utility and like businesses access to eminent domain authority because of their duty to serve all comers. If Dominion is obligated to serve a new community or a bigger redeveloped community, but lacks sufficient wires and cables to provide adequate service, it can use public RoW (with permission) or, to the extent necessary, condemn RoW when the owner will not agree to an easement under reasonable terms and conditions. If Dominion can say “say no,” and not serve the new community, there is no needed to give it eminent domain authority.

            The federal Natural Gas Act has long given pipeline companies eminent domain authority for similar reasons. This has nothing to do with private versus public services. It’s a fundamental tenant of common carrier or public utility law going back to England a bazillion years ago.

          2. larryg Avatar

            re: ” Larry, I’m confused about your comments on eminent domain. The law has always permitted public utility and like businesses access to eminent domain authority because of their duty to serve all comers.”

            not true. there was a time in our history where the government did not exercise the power of ED on behalf of the private sector and the “free market” left it up to private companies to negotiate with others on the terms of rights-of-ways.

            you say it is “their duty to serve all comers”. Really?

            do you think you can create a right-of-way because you “serve all comers”?
            what does that mean? who decides what “serving all comers” means?

            ” If Dominion is obligated to serve a new community or a bigger redeveloped community, but lacks sufficient wires and cables to provide adequate service, it can use public RoW (with permission) or, to the extent necessary, condemn RoW when the owner will not agree to an easement under reasonable terms and conditions. If Dominion can say “say no,” and not serve the new community, there is no needed to give it eminent domain authority.”

            who decides what the stipulations are or are not? Is it the same corrupt, incompetent government you speak of often?

            “The federal Natural Gas Act has long given pipeline companies eminent domain authority for similar reasons. This has nothing to do with private versus public services. It’s a fundamental tenant of common carrier or public utility law going back to England a bazillion years ago.”

            you do realize that in early America – the rules were not written and the only “right” was the “right” of the government to take what it needed and that “right” did not extend to the private sector.

            tell me what the date is of the legislation you say “gave the right” to private sector operators.

            My point here is to remind people that the private sector .. is not so private and virtually everything in our lives – everyday involves the use of government to, in effect, essentially take property from citizens and give it to companies .

            Let me give you an example. you can build a private subdivision where the roads are actually private – but where does the right-of-way for the road and the utilities come from? is it privately owned by someone who leases or rents it?

            why not?

            who decides WHERE the water, sewer, electric, cable etc locate or not?

            now go to a higher scope – where do our roads, rail, pipeline rights-of-ways come from? are they owned by private owners who get rent money for them and had the choice to not allow the land to be used for purposes they did not want to allow?

            You and others here hammer on govt -all the time and treat it like it is an impediment to the free market.

            but what kind of “free market” would we have – if we did not have govt-sanctioned eminent domain?

            to get your electricity -without govt – you’d have to negotiate with every property owner between you and the nearest electric line but yet you take that for granted – that somewhere, sometime – land was taken from others so that electricity (water, sewer, cable, phone, etc) could be provided to you for a much lower cost than if you had to pay for it directly.

            I still have not succinctly stated this but you probably get the drift.

            this also is the underlying point about “conservative” smart growth – that basically would not be possible if it were not for government.

            the Conservative types ASSUME ..take for granted ..these govt functions at the same time they are calling the government bureaucratic, incompetent, corrupt, etc.

          3. Larry, the 1869 Virginia Constitution recognized the authority of the state to grant private corporations the authority to use eminent domain. They key is whether the proposed use is “public in nature.” The 1907 case of Tidewater Ry. Co v. Shartzer, 59 S.E. 407 (Va. 1907) involved compensation for the Railroad’s condemnation of land for RoW in Roanoke County. That case quotes from an old English Common Law case, McCarthy v. Metropolitan Bd. of Wks., 8 C. P. 191 (1872).

            The Virginia case of Boyd v. C. L. Ritter Lumber Co. Inc, 119 Va. 348 (Va. 1916) involved a lumber company’s suit to condemn an easement on a private landowner’s lot to enable the logger to construct a tramroad upon which to carry logs and lumber from a logging site to the location of its sawmill.

            I’m sure that, if I had time, I could find older cases. Many private businesses that operate in the utility or common carrier space have access to the power of eminent domain and have for countless years.

            This has nothing to do with whether the public or private sector is more efficient or effective. It’s about ensuring public utilities and common carriers have access to RoW necessary for them to carry out their duties operating a business affected with the public interest.

            Property is rarely condemned today, often for political reasons and because we have a strong network of public RoW and statutes that permit utilities and carriers access to those RoWs under reasonable regulation and for fair compensation. There are those situations where a utility needs to cross a private landowner’s property to serve other customers. But in most instances, the parties can and do negotiate an easement.

          4. larryg Avatar

            “Larry, the 1869 Virginia Constitution recognized the authority of the state to grant private corporations the authority to use eminent domain. They key is whether the proposed use is “public in nature.” The 1907 case of Tidewater Ry. Co v. Shartzer, 59 S.E. 407 (Va. 1907) involved compensation for the Railroad’s condemnation of land for RoW in Roanoke County. That case quotes from an old English Common Law case, McCarthy v. Metropolitan Bd. of Wks., 8 C. P. 191 (1872).”

            yes.. but what determines what is “justified” and if the government is doing this – is it really a private free market circumstance that needs no “corrupt”, “incompetent” government catering to rent-seeking companies?

            “The Virginia case of Boyd v. C. L. Ritter Lumber Co. Inc, 119 Va. 348 (Va. 1916) involved a lumber company’s suit to condemn an easement on a private landowner’s lot to enable the logger to construct a tramroad upon which to carry logs and lumber from a logging site to the location of its sawmill.”

            what justifies the taking of land from one party to benefit another party ?

            “I’m sure that, if I had time, I could find older cases. Many private businesses that operate in the utility or common carrier space have access to the power of eminent domain and have for countless years.”

            I’m sure you could but you’re recounting history and I’m asking for rationale.

            “This has nothing to do with whether the public or private sector is more efficient or effective. It’s about ensuring public utilities and common carriers have access to RoW necessary for them to carry out their duties operating a business affected with the public interest.”

            how efficient would the private sector be without having Eminent Domain?

            “Property is rarely condemned today, often for political reasons and because we have a strong network of public RoW and statutes that permit utilities and carriers access to those RoWs under reasonable regulation and for fair compensation. There are those situations where a utility needs to cross a private landowner’s property to serve other customers. But in most instances, the parties can and do negotiate an easement.”

            what justifies the govt dictating the remedy?

            do we consider the government’s role in eminent domain to be “corrupt” and “incompetent” like the other things we say prove that govt is not as efficient as the private sector?

            you know my point here… is the role of govt – legitimate and needed and usually (not always) conducted in beneficial way to the private sector on rights-of-ways?

            yes or no.

  3. Peter Galuszka Avatar
    Peter Galuszka

    Keystone is a sideshow compared to what’s going on. The perfect time to have done a big deal rebuild would have been during the recession. Obama could have pitched a new New Deal with billions for bridges, Interstates, trains, etc. INstead, the conservatives were giving us their noise about deficit spending (Boomergeddon anyone?) and the only real money ended up with big banks like Citibank, Countrywide and B of A. — financiers who got rewarded for screwing up.

    Now you have the infrastructure being overstressed and you are seeing a raft of accidents, spills and environmental impacts.

    Sorry, Jimbo, there’s no “Peter World” about this. Maybe after Vegas you should hit Lynchburg for a reality check.

    1. larryg Avatar

      Peter is right about the infrastructure. Obama tried multiple times to get some kind of infrastructure rebuilt legislation through Congress and the GOP saw fit to kill it – with no alternative proposals so here we are.

    2. Interstates? Great idea — let’s put oil in tractor-trailers and see what happens!

      Trains? As I recall, Obama was pushing high-speed trains. Let’s ship oil at 180 mph — woo! hoo!

      1. larryg Avatar

        pipelines Jim… pipelines…

        the question is – WHY would ANYONE ship crude oil by anything other than pipeline to start with – AND , WHY to a destination that is not a refinery?

        you wanna fix this – how about regulation?

        got a problem with that?

        😉

  4. Peter Galuszka Avatar
    Peter Galuszka

    Larry,
    There’s no active refinery now at the Yorktown site and I don’t know where the crude was bound. But the west to east rail traffic of oil is fairly new and really is picking up. Typically, it would be north to south to Gulf states refineries. Ask yourself why all that crude was going through a tiny town in Quebec?
    What is curious is that you have two older facilities on the Chesapeake (Cove Point and Yorktown) suddenly reemerging in the energy picture (LNG and oil).

    1. larryg Avatar

      it’s something that more information on would be useful. Places like Quebec that don’t have pipelines – get their oil via rail.

      but why does Keystone need a new pipeline when Canada could build their own refinery without having to transport the crude in the first place?

      look at this map:

      http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-odOrtfl2sEo/Tx9Mh59qWjI/AAAAAAAAA14/XwwhFrq_Sgg/s1600/Pipelines_Canada_US.jpg

      and tell me why we are shipping crude oil by train…

  5. JohnS Avatar

    There’s enough blame to go around for the state of American energy-transportation infrastructure. But I don’t think anyone in their right mind can argue against Peter that crude-by-rail doesn’t pose a major public safety risk, given what’s happened in Quebec and now here in the Old Dominion. That’s two strikes already.

  6. There’s more than enough private capital and willingness to build new infrastructure. The problem is that building stuff isn’t easy — it’s too often blocked and delayed either by politics or lawsuits. I’m not saying that there isn’t good reason sometimes to block some specific projects, especially when they are not market driven (like the Charlottesville Bypass and U.S. 460). The point is that the problem isn’t some kind of market failure that can be remedied by cranking up the government spending machine.

    1. larryg Avatar

      re: ” The point is that the problem isn’t some kind of market failure that can be remedied by cranking up the government spending machine.”

      agreed. Now tell me why we’re shipping crude oil by rail.

      is that the government’s fault?

      have you seen this map of existing pipelines?

      http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-odOrtfl2sEo/Tx9Mh59qWjI/AAAAAAAAA14/XwwhFrq_Sgg/s1600/Pipelines_Canada_US.jpg

      would you say this is a picture of what happens when the government “makes it hard” to “build stuff”?

  7. Peter Galuszka Avatar
    Peter Galuszka

    No one is suggesting putting oil tanks on a high speed rail line designed exclusively for passengers.

    This kind of pathetic and facetious statement shows a preponderance of ignorance!

    1. larryg Avatar

      facetious response from Bacon – yes…

      but I read somewhere – not sure where so subject to challenge – that shipping liquid via tank car – rail or highway is about twice as much as pipeline.

      now some things – like end-product chemicals, distilled fuels like gasoline and diesel, etc – end up in rail tank cars or highway tankers to get to their distribution points that are beyond the reach of the pipeline terminals.

      we see the tanker trucks every day when we fuel up our cars.

      but the point is -why in the world would you transport raw undistilled liquids in rail tank cars in the first place and even more puzzling.. why to destinations that are not refineries.

      talk about ignorance!

      do not confuse ignorance with “dumb”

      we are ALL -IGNORANT – just on different subjects !

      and this is an example of something most in this blog, including me – are ignorant about – at least so far until someone weighs in authoritatively.

      but folks who don’t know the facts.. then building advocacy on some kind on top of that lack of knowledge is…. risky business…

      Oh… and PALLEEEZE… it don’t matter whether the stuff in the rail tank car came from fracking or drilling or cows pissing…

  8. DJRippert Avatar
    DJRippert

    Where is all this tight spending? The government in the United States has spent ever more of the US GDP as time has marched on.

    Once again, here’s the graph …. http://bit.ly/1nNJkJD

    LarryG – does that look like the Republicans (or anybody else) have been blocking total government spending?

    Peter – do that graph show conservative spending policies?

    The sad truth is that government in the United States has been eating a bigger and bigger percentage of our GDP for decades. Now, we can’t ship product across the country because our infrastructure has deteriorated.

    We don’t have a lack of spending problem in government, we have a lack of competence problem in government.

    1. larryg Avatar

      ” Where is all this tight spending? The government in the United States has spent ever more of the US GDP as time has marched on.

      Once again, here’s the graph …. http://bit.ly/1nNJkJD

      LarryG – does that look like the Republicans (or anybody else) have been blocking total government spending?

      Congress approves the spending – every penny of it.

      The sad truth is that government in the United States has been eating a bigger and bigger percentage of our GDP for decades. Now, we can’t ship product across the country because our infrastructure has deteriorated.

      not the government – Congress… we know the Dems are tax and spend but the spending has been approved by both Dems and GOP .

      remember the GOP – the fiscal conservatives?

      We don’t have a lack of spending problem in government, we have a lack of competence problem in government”

      we have a lack of will in cutting spending – for entitlements and for the military.
      we subsidize seniors at 400.00 a month for health insurance even if they make 85K in income and we pretend that military retirements and entitlements are not military spending… and that things like military satellites and DOE weapons and Homeland Security and the VA are not DOD spending so we can claim that military spending is at a all time low – when in fact, we’re hiding it in the budget.

  9. Since the Keystone came up…

    We’re told that if “WE” don’t get that oil, it’ll go to China, our prime economic competitor. But the reality is that the “Northern Gateway” pipeline west from Alberta to British Columbian ports has even worse problems than our concerns with Keystone. First, BC BANS tankers from its coast. Second, it would cross 65 “First Nations” reservations and 61 one of them have said absolutely no way will we allow this pipeline to cross our land. Third, several major Christian demoninations have said they are opposed. Fourth, the existing political leadership in BC says “No way” and, finally, engineers would literally have to remove islands to allow tankers to pass each other on the BC coast IF the BC parliament changed its mind and allowed tankers.

    From our perspective, much — if not most — of the oil flowing down the Keystone would be refined in/near Houston and then exported as much more highly inflammable gasoline. It’s safer to move as oil — which some earlier commenters do not realize — than as refined product. Second, digging tar sands out requires immense energy itself and petroleum engineers say it’ll create a minimum of 40 percent more greenhouse gases than “traditional” oil DUE primarily to the strip mining presently underway. (The transportation of the oil will not create additional greenhouse, the mining of it will). If fracked — or extracted via steam process — the production will greatly foil the water supplies in Alberta (and downstream) and require that natural gas be piped in to heat the water. Finally, to ship it via pipeline it has to be diluted with distillates and those products must be shipped into Alberta to do so and then removed once the oil gets to Houston.

    Meanwhile, due to our “thirst” for oil, we’re shipping more and more heavy oil product by rail while the fracking itself is — perhaps — creating ground water pollution issues.

    These stories of rail accidents will, no doubt, “force” Americans to agree to more pipelines without us EVER considering decreasing the amount of petroleum we actually “need.” Our media NEVER report that better than half of all petroleum (averaging about two-thirds but it changes regularly) is consumed in our automobile tanks and that if we actually worked to minimize unnecessary driving we could cut the 2.9 trillion miles we drive annually by as much as 15 percent which would ripple through the economy, decreasing many issues which bedevil us from health to foreign policy to pollution to lost-economic value. At that point in time, the question in stockholders’ minds would become: “There isn’t financial gain here. It’s too expensive for too little gain?”

    Why do we never talk about transportation demand management that works in this country? Only about how we fulfill our need for a “fix?”

    1. larryg Avatar

      Since the Keystone came up…

      We’re told that if “WE” don’t get that oil, it’ll go to China, [ but Canada has objections to pipelines and tankers).

      hmmm.. this map shows Canadian pipelines
      http://www.capp.ca/getdoc.aspx?DocID=227299

      but what are we saying – that Canada won’t allow them and that’s why they want to do it in the USA?

      wait.. Canada won’t allow tankers into Vancouver because of environmental reasons but they’ll rape the earth in Alberta?

      re: moving crude oil via tanker rather than gasoline. that’s a valid point. we import crude oil – not refined gasoline… but part of the reason is because we want to make the gasoline – not other countries and companies.

      I don’t see gasoline on a tanker as much different than LNG or propane on trucks or rail cars… but I admit I’m not knowledgeable about the tradeoffs.

      we move all manner of dangerous liquids/gases by tanker, rail and road.

      “Second, digging tar sands out requires immense energy itself …

      but this part is expanding the issue to bigger issues..activism.. and the involvement of activists in this issue – undermines it.. in my view.

      not saying the issue is not important – just saying that there are distinct logistic and economic issues separate from the pollution issue – and pollution issues run the gamut to include coal and electricity – fundamental things that people care about -they want to consume less, be conservative but they don’t want to live in cold homes and have to ride transit to get the groceries.

      “Meanwhile, due to our “thirst” for oil, we’re shipping more and more heavy oil product by rail while the fracking itself is — perhaps — creating ground water pollution issues.”

      naw.. all this does is polarize the issue in my view and forces the undecided into the arms of the whacko right.

      when you go to one of these fracking forums.. you see the folks that have gone overboard…

      and we have pipelines all over the country so why are we moving crude by rail to places with no refineries… ? to export it in tankers to China?

      “These stories of rail accidents will, no doubt, “force” Americans to agree to more pipelines without us EVER considering decreasing the amount of petroleum we actually “need.”

      Au Contraire – wha has happened to highway funding – and why? Isn’t it because cars are far more efficient? People ARE using LESS fuel per capita.

      “Our media NEVER report that better than half of all petroleum (averaging about two-thirds but it changes regularly) is consumed in our automobile tanks and that if we actually worked to minimize unnecessary driving we could cut the 2.9 trillion miles we drive annually by as much as 15 percent which would ripple through the economy, decreasing many issues which bedevil us from health to foreign policy to pollution to lost-economic value. At that point in time, the question in stockholders’ minds would become: “There isn’t financial gain here. It’s too expensive for too little gain?””

      but we’re tying this to a huge issue that is perceived by even middle-of-the-road folks as anti-car, anti-people…

      I used to be a bit of an activist but I decided the strident, take-no-prisoners attitude was counter-productive and the way forward takes compromise and patience and no mixing of agendas… keep them separate and pure.

      “Why do we never talk about transportation demand management that works in this country? Only about how we fulfill our need for a “fix?”

      well we DO …TALK about it… but we cannot force people to do what they don’t want to do ..they want to conserve and have lower impacts but they also won’t put up with what they perceive as draconian “anti-people” measures – at least not in a country we’re we elect our leaders.

      when we force issues this way – I feel we polarize and divide people – and force them to make choices and they often move right.
      so I prefer the way Environmental Defense or NRDC works over the Sierra folks.

      middle ground, half loaf approaches.. patience.. work to gather more supporter,etc… we’re changing.. but I admit not very fast and maybe not fast enough.

Leave a Reply