The story indicates at least 80 cars are on fire…
ABC News had some dramatic video of it this morning.
http://ca.news.yahoo.com/train-derailment-sparks-major-fire-quebecs-eastern-townships-124101421.html
In the thread Oil By Rail-Part 2, the following link was posted. It is about public opposition to hauling oil by rail: http://www.king5.com/news/business/185072141.html.
Two days ago on that thread, I said the following about that article and predicted the most costly train wreck in history because of the damage it will do to the oil-hauling rail business:
“What they are arguing is that they have stopped a pipeline because it is hazardous to the planet, and they are equally justified in stopping the oil trains for the same reason. This does not look good for the sudden rail boom in oil. Eventually an oil train is going to pile up and spill a lot of oil. When it does, it will become the symbol for the greens to advance their case that oil trains should be banned or regulated out of existence.
It will make no difference how much actual damage the first oil train spill does. It will simply demonstrate what is possible. It will be the trigger for the kneejerk reaction in the regulatory community. As such, it will be the most costly train wreck in history due the damage it will do the oil hauling rail business.”
I would say that this Quebec derailment is exactly the pivotal event that I was predicting. It is amazing that it only took two days to materialize.
Various other Canadian reports within the last hour indicate that the train - hauling crude oil - was 73 cars, and that at least 4 are burning; that the several stores in downtown have been destroyed, several people are missing and feared dead, the entire town is evacuated and a 1 kilometer safety perimeter has been set up; that over 100 firefighters are involved, including some from across the border in the U.S.; and that a large quantity of crude oil has been spilled into the local river.
Definitely a major setback to claims of rail being able to haul crude oil safely, compared to pipelines, and the repercussions will last for several years. A worse scenario is hard to envision . . . almost no explanation will be “good enough” to satisfy the public, media, and politicians. [sigh]
- Paul North.
RBN energy blog was saying the same things a few months ago.
Bucyrus, sad to say, but it looks like you were indeed accurately prescient on that one, and I have to agree with your conclusion and prediction of the effects, too - “the most costly train wreck in history”, etc. Too bad it did come to pass, as bad as you feared . . . I never expected that zero derailments would occur, but had hoped the numbers would be low, and that the damage and leaks would be limited to a handful of cars. Evidently my optimism was misplaced or unjustified . . .
- Paul North.
I’m not sure we should be predicting too much gloom… It depends on the cause. IF it is a broken rail, the railroads can say “Look at Metro North. Should we regulate commuter trains out of existence?” The biggest problem I see is public outcry, with the usual “What, they’re hauling toxic goods by my house?” And subsequent fight against the railroad.
But unnoticed in this mornings paper: A pipeline rupture on an Indian Reservation spilling over 25,000 gallons of oil. Maybe there is no news in that, but there is no safety in that either.
ROAR
When those complainers are ready to give up their cars and warm houses in the winter, not to mention the food and other goods that require crude oil to be refined and used in various manufacturing steps, I am sure the RRs will have no need to be hauling that dastardly stuff and pipe lines will be unneeded as well.
Just think, a world without plastics of any sort, less diverse nutritional options (can’t haul the stuff to market without fuel!), and zero tourism (unless you’d like to walk to a national park!) as well as thousands of things that are available today and taken for granted that won’t exist without crude oil or its derivatives being piped or hauled from the source of the crude to the usage points. People in North Dakota can drive anywhere they want and have warm houses but cannot have fresh fruit from Florida or California, but New Yorkers can “just walk” where they want to go … at least the exercise will keep them warm, even if they have no Wheaties or Cheerio’s for breakfast and fruit for dessert after the evening meal.
Lion: do you have a link to a news story?
Thank you.
From this video, it doesn’t seem like all cars are burning, just at the front of the train:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Gl49CpPQtc
I would say you are trying too hard to predict doom. Ethanol trains have derailed with some explosive results, and yet ethanol trains still roll along.
http://www.examiner.com/video/norfolk-southern-ethanol-train-derailment-new-brighton-pa
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/11/ohio-train-derails_n_1664505.html
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OEpUzHyJf9Q
So, why will there be such an outcry about oil trains, but not ethanol?
On one of the videos the flashing “Fred” is visible, so it appears the derailed cars are towards the rear of the train.
I am more curious about what actually caused the oil to ignite. Crude oil is not as volatile as certain other petroleum products, and more commonly creates a big mess as it spills. Once something like the raging inferno seen here occurs, of course, all bets are off.
Speculation as to the cause of the derailment will have to wait until qualified investigators can approach the scene, unless evidence of track damage and/or mechanical debris is found further back. Considering the time, there is even a possibility a drunk driver turned into the side of the train at a grade crossing.
John
It is because ethanol is considered to be carbon neutral and petroleum is not. Ethanol is the darling of people who hate fossil fuels.
Slightly off-topic, but the “complainers” that successfully got San Onofre Nuclear Power Plant to shut down in Southern California h are now complaining (weeks later) about their higher electricity costs.
UH OH The law of unintended consequences might have come to light. The folowing media posting says that the train was a run away. According to the following report the MM&A crew had gotten off the train waiting for a relief crew and the train left on its own.
Unintended consequence ? Requiring a crew that has gone illegal on haz mat train to leave any train un- attended with the possibility of just this type of incident happening.
http://news.yahoo.com/train-carrying-petroleum-derails-catches-fire-canadas-quebec-121417580.html
This problem needs probably addressed in very detail. in a separate thread.
Your grasping at straws to prove your guess.
That is an amazing development. I wonder if it could have been terrorism.