The following articles are from the Roanoke Times in regard to the derailment of the oil train along the James River.
The Roanoke based NBC affiliate WSLS 10, has also been following the story closely with several stories of acetone mixed with the oil showing up in the James River and contributing to the fire in the derailment.
This must be the acetone story you refer to:
http://www.wsls.com/story/25602022/scientist-finds-acetone-in-the-james-river-following-explosion
The article raises some questions. It assumes that the acetone came from the recent CSX oil train derailment. It says that acetone should not be present in Bakken crude, but it may be that acetone-containing fracking water was included with the Bakken crude. Is acetone normally a component of fracking water?
The scientist speaking in the article says that acetone might be igniting from static electricity. I assume that he is offering this as a possible explanation for the fire that resulted during the Lynchberg derailment. The article says that the cause of the fire has not been determined.
If the fire was not caused by the friction of the derailment and was caused by static electricity that would seem to suggest two possible scenarios:
The derailment spilled acetone, and the acetone was ignited by static electricity after being spilled; and not ignited by the friction of the derailment.
The acetone ignited inside of a tank car by static electricity while the train was running on the rails, caused the tank to explode, and then derailed the train as a consequence of the explosion.
Throughout this oil-by-rail debate, blame has been shifted back and forth between derailment causes and the flammab
[quote user=“Euclid”]
This must be the acetone story you refer to:
http://www.wsls.com/story/25602022/scientist-finds-acetone-in-the-james-river-following-explosion
The article raises some questions. It assumes that the acetone came from the recent CSX oil train derailment. It says that acetone should not be present in Bakken crude, but it may be that acetone-containing fracking water was included with the Bakken crude. Is acetone normally a component of fracking water?
The scientist speaking in the article says that acetone might be igniting from static electricity. I assume that he is offering this as a possible explanation for the fire that resulted during the Lynchberg derailment. The article says that the cause of the fire has not been determined.
If the fire was not caused by the friction of the derailment and was caused by static electricity that would seem to suggest two possible scenarios:
The derailment spilled acetone, and the acetone was ignited by static electricity after being spilled; and not ignited by the friction of the derailment.
The acetone ignited inside of a tank car by static electricity while the train was running on the rails, caused the tank to explode, and then derailed the train as a consequence of the explosion.
Throughout this oil-by-rail debate, blam
EXTREMELY low probability.
And I think it is important that he understand why.
I should clarify that my scenarios #1 and #2 are not my theories of what did happen. They are only my interpretations of what I see as possible scenarios based on the conclusions of the scientist in the article.
Actually, I am not convinced by the findings claimed by scientist in the article, nor his conclusions. He almost seems to be suggesting that his static ignition theory might explain all of the recent oil train fireballs, but the writing does not make that clear.
It is also unclear whether the scientist’s static ignition theory is connected with my scenario #1 or #2.
I agree that acetone in the river could have come from anywhere, including faulty test results. But what is the likelihood of acetone being in Bakken crude? And if there is a chance, what would be its origin? It seems like that question would have an easy answer.
I don’t think the ignition of flammable liquid during a derailment needs any explanation other than the hot sparks of quickly yielding steel.
Oh brother! Is this guy going to take over every thread on this forum?
It’s the lawyer in him.
Well gee, it did not seem like much was happening here. I certainly did not mean to crash the party.
Is there a topic that really interests you at this time that you could start a thread on? If you don’t get too complicated, I could even take a stab at it. Maybe?
Euclid,
I welcome your head-on collisions within the " party"…“.thread.” inspirational stuff…
This event inspired leads to investigations: 1st that the right of way eroded and washed out; 2nd that the train “just went on the ground and piled up” 3rd that that a rail defect was ignored for a while, 4th that a track defect caused the derailment, 5th that the tank cars were inappropriately built and used where derailments were possible, 6th that there was a mix of stuff inside those cars that was too risky: acetone. to transport, 7th that static electricity caused ignition…I’m likely to have missed other leads…
But, it’s cold, very dry, and your boots keep your feet warm but shed electrons as you step an, slide along your, carpet, pathway.
Put your hand on something grounded and, somehow shockingly the shed electrons balanse…static electricity
Static electricity…in a steel tank car container connected by steel wheels to a grounded bunch of track…likely to cause ignition?..could there have been any kind of build-up of static electricity
Tell me how to doubt it?
I will see what I can think of. Lately I have spent a lot of Youtube time in India.
I have one: that automatic air-brake hookup Euclid was alluding to in the other thread. I was particularly interested in seeing how it would accommodate ‘legacy’ hose connection, either in interchange transition or when accommodating single cars after general adoption. Simple ‘plug-in’ gladhand adaptor (which is what I was suggesting long ago)?
ok. Then we need to give Big Jim back his thread & start a new one. I will wait.
Chemicals used in fracking liquid:
More info pertinent to this thread starts around paragraph 15:
As for that automatic air hose hook up, I think this was the subject matter of an article in TRAINS magazine quite a number of years ago.
Fracking liquid or diet soda?
Very interesting article, Jim.
Thanks for the link.
What is most important is to understand the power, belligerence, and audacity of the oil and gas lobby to feel they can steamroller over safety and put their partners, particularly the railroads, in such danger. Whatever the politics, it has to be addressed. The general public should not be put in harms way for the benefit of profits. Alerting first responders along tracks that such dangerous ladings are en route and a description of the chemical composition of the lading should be a requisite…especially now…before any more profits are made and lives and property lost. Where is the integrity and honesty of the American businessman today? To avoid the rules is one thing, but to be a poor neighbor and worse trespasser is another.
I don’t think I’m alone in my feelings but as an American I expect and demand affordable fuel prices. Most places I lived there wasn’t any mass transit alternatives and few alternatives to home heating. Talk about integrity…at least I’m not driving my SUV to an anti petroleum rally.
WE will always sacrifice safety for convenience , how many died from atomic power accidents (Russia) ? Natural gas explosions? Coal mine disasters? The world has shown that all of these are acceptable casualties, We are still mining coal around the world, still splitting atoms, still pumping natural gas into homes and businesses…
As far as I know , NO ONE (not even the protesters) has stopped buying fuel made from Bakken oil. Stop buying it and it’ll stop moving.
The world isn’t safe unless we all want to sit at home in the dark and cold.