LNG by rail, a new market for railroads?

I’m reluctant to put too specific a face on such events, out of a concern that it might tweak sensitivities of survivors. [angel]

I do recall that back when I was just a youngster an overweight truck traveling down a busy street 1 1/2 blocks from our house, cracked a weld on an 8" natural gas line buried feet beneath the pavement…and the gas followed small voids in the soil around the pipeline, to the nearest service entrance to two adjacent homes, flooding into their basements and ultimately ignited by the water heater’s pilot light.

Empty lots are all that remain of the two houses today. Thankfully the gas station immediately across the street was unaffected.

Sure built quite an environment of paranoia though, once the path of entry for the gas was determined. Loose gas will follow the path of least resistance, which isn’t always “up”.

I’ve been waiting for the day that we can finally haul LNG by tankcar. This traffic can be a good replacement for dwindling coal traffic. Not to mention areas that already host large scale coal mining (i.e. Powder River Basin). Happen to be located within, or alongside massive gas fields of NG.

Plain fact of the matter is boys, the stuff’s going to get moved one way or another. If not by train, then by pipeline. If not by pipeline, then by truck. But it will be moved, you can bet on it. So, which do you prefer?

LNG being sold to EU nations? Sounds like they want to get out from under the Russians, who are supplying it now. Nothing wrong with a little competition.

My first thought was that they (domestic producers) want to find an outlet for their supply, to create “demand” in order to drive up domestic prices.

I recall back in the deepest darkest day of the old embargos, you used to hear patriotically slanted spiels about how America needed to achieve energy independence, thus slaying the bad ol wolf at the door and rolling back prices at the pump, the meter, etc.

Only years later when fracking and horizontal drilling started to make that a possibility, the mantra suddenly changed, and the “global” fair market price continued to be the driver. How can ~we~ reasonably expect domestic capitalist interests to “take one for the team” when there is all that money waiting to be made on the foreign markets? export-export-export!! rah! [C):-)]

The viewpoint all depends on if you are buying or selling.

Consider this. If you’re a country that has to import energy, be it oil, gas, or even coal, you’re living with a dagger pointed at your throat.

That being the case, who would you prefer to hold the dagger? The Russians, who you really can’t be sure of, or the Americans, who may not ever unsheath the dagger, even with the greatest provocation?

Good choice, bad choice? I leave it up to you.

Ahhhh,…“the devil you know” [swg]

There it is, bro! [;)]

Sometimes I think that my greatest trump card is the knowledge that I won’t live forever. Somebody else will have to deal with that mess.

Doubtful that LNG by rail will be sent to Europe, but I can anticipate how that devil I do know might manipulate the system to my disadvantage. Exporting the logistically easy Texas natural gas thru Gulf ports, leaving only the more expensive “bottled” variety to be delivered domestically by train.

Reminds me of like 15 years ago when hedge funds cornered the domestic natural gas market, and gamed the pipeline delivery system, where they were claiming natural gas delivered to point “B” had to be routed from “A” to “C” to “D” first, adding thousands of miles of claimed transit.

Now, those likely could be remembered as “the good old days”

Depends upon who occupies the Office of President of the United States we are finding out.

I’ve been retired from the rail industry for over a decade, so i don’t have any insights into current rail management thinking. But I have to wonder if the railroads themselves are particularly anxious to transport this stuff. Undoubtedly, from a grand safety perspective, it’s safer to transport it by rail than by truck. But the downside to a railroad if there is an accident is devastating (not to mention the downside to those in the area). Recall that some railroads tried to limit their common carrier obligation to transport chlorine some years ago, only to get shot down by STB.

If they pay the bills on time they’ll have nothing to worry about. Politics is one thing, but business is business.

He’s long gone, but consider this. Back in 1973 when the Arab oil embargo (Remember that? I do) was in full swing, then-President Nixon, who a lot of people considered the devil incarnate, was advised to stop food shipments to the OPEC countries taking part in the boycott to retaliate. He refused to do so, although he would have made many, many people sweating out gas lines very happy if he did.

Honestly, I refuse to play “The Devil Incarnate” game anymore, no matter who’s in the White House, Democrat or Republican.

It is never too early to start lobbying the Green New Deal people, and others in the ‘blue wave’ House, to get them to start revisiting common-carrier obligations with an eye toward furthering socialist safety by banning hazardous material on the rails. A really good first step would be amending those obsolete old common-carrier requirements for railroads disinterested in paying current market insurance rates to do so … and then carefully being sure that the insurance providers get their ducks in a row to start so billing the carriers. And set up Amtrak-like liability caps for any incident that occurs in the brave new system.

Hey, the free-market action alone ought to result in a major decrease in actual hazmat, or an effective increase in the price shippers pay to move it that is commensurate with the greater public safety (and covers any ‘surcharge’ for the increased insurance costs). Then earmark any ‘windfall profits’ due to the much higher shipping rate for safety improvements such as progressive ECP kit conversion of critical hazmat equipment…

If Obama could classify clothing as a medical expense, there’s no reason we can’t classify grain as an explosion hazard.

RE: My earlier note

Here’s an example of a railroad’s attempt to limit its handling of high hazard hazmat traffic (chlorine) and STB’s response to it (STB shot it down):

https://dcms-external.s3.amazonaws.com/MPD/62491/5E59A6C2D2A853A2852575D2004B8A7B/39995.pdf

Up here in the Upper Midwest, running all over the place, we have propane trucks and anhydrous ammonia trucks and chlorine trucks and CNG trucks and you name it on the highways.

The idea of LNG on the rails seems to be less of a danger than what I am rolling next to in my F-150 on my way in to work every day.

Was that the one where Al Capone is walking around the table carrying a baseball bat? [B)]

I keep an ERG in the truck (volunteer fire chief) - and yes, it will scare the daylights out of you.

What is an ERG?

Huh?

The only time Capone used a baseball bat (that I know of) was when he offed a couple of rat finks. Maybe. Could be an urban legend.

Lest we forget the explosive power of isobutane, Decatur.

https://herald-review.com/news/local/years-later-memories-of-the-decatur-rail-yard-explosion-remain/article_3d388703-f1fa-5b00-af72-df91f84cef7c.html