Canadian oil could cross Nebraska by rail if Keystone XL denied
June 2nd, 2014
Omaha, NE –Â On a recent steamy spring afternoon in Fremont, drivers were hustling across the Burlington Northern Santa Fe railroad tracks on West 23rdÂ Street, when all of sudden, traffic came to a halt. As the rail crossing bells clanged, the driver sounded the horn on the burly engine. This time, it was a coal train. But increasingly, says Bill Pook, emergency services director for Dodge, Burt and Washington Counties, â€œwe see a lots of oil tankers coming through.â€[audio:https://kvnonews.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/Keystone_KVNO01.mp3]
Nationwide, according to the Congressional Research Service, shipments of oil by rail have increased from fewer than 10,000 carloads in 2008 to an expected 650,000 this year. Those shipments have come under increasing scrutiny because of incidents like a derailment in Quebec last year that caused a fire and explosions that killed 47 people.
That was volatile light crude from the Bakken field in North Dakota. But if President Obama rejects the proposed Keystone XL pipeline, a State Department environmental impact statement said, additional shipments of heavy crude from the oil sands of Alberta, Canada destined for refineries on the Texas Gulf Coast could be added to the mix.
â€œInevitably the oil will not stay in the ground. It will get to market. So itâ€™s just a matter of how itâ€™s going to get there. The presidential permit is only required on new infrastructure, so thereâ€™s nothing keeping Canadian oil from crossing the border â€“ being trucked across or being put on an existing rail line,â€ McCown said.
Oil sands — or tar sands â€“ oil, poses its own risks, as shown by a 2010 pipeline rupture that polluted Michiganâ€™s Kalamazoo River for nearly 40 miles. If Keystone XL is rejected, the State Department report said,12 to 14 trains per dayÂ of 100 cars each carrying the heavy crude could enter Nebraska on the BNSF line at South Sioux City, come south through Fremont to Ashland, then head east, leaving the state at Plattsmouth.
Burlington Northern Santa Fe spokeswoman Roxanne Butler declined comment on what the line through Fremont carries now, or could carry in the future.
McCown, who headed the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration or PHMSA under President George W. Bush, says itâ€™s safer to move oil by pipeline than by rail â€“ a claim challenged by the Association of American Railroads. According to Joe Delcambre of PHMSA, in 2013, 99.9 percent of all train cars carrying crude oil in the U.S. reached their destination without incident.
Jane Kleeb of the anti-pipeline group Bold Nebraska rejects the argument that if the pipeline is turned down, the oil will move anyway, by rail.
â€œTransCanada and a few other tar sands companies continue to use this kind of threat lingering out there that if it doesnâ€™t go by pipeline it will go by rail. And thereâ€™s just no proof to actually back up that claim,â€ Kleeb said.
Kleeb says the higher cost of rail shipping will make oil from the sands of Alberta uncompetitive. The State Department report saysÂ costs would be higher, but not so high as to curtail production.
At a recent campaign event, Fremont resident Arnold Lessig questioned why pipeline opponents are not more upset about shipments of oil by rail.
â€œI see Burlington Northern trains going out. Theyâ€™re a mile long, everyoneâ€™s a tanker car â€“ going over the Platte River bridge, heading south. I donâ€™t see Jane Kleeb standing out waving a sign when they go by. They complain about the pipeline being dangerous but to me, those trains are just as dangerous,â€ he said, adding if an accident would occur, the train and its cargo would â€œbe in the Platte River right there.â€
Kleeb says communities are right to be concerned about oil shipments, whether by rail or pipeline. But she says instead of calling out protesters, they should put pressure on state officials for better regulation and more training to deal with potential accidents.
â€œWe are allowing oil companies, whether itâ€™s by pipeline or by rail, to essentially treat us like the wild, wild West. And we look the other way,â€ she said. â€œWe should be putting stronger enforcement â€“ whether thatâ€™s through the Public Service Commission, or whether thatâ€™s through the DEQ, (Department of Environmental Quality) or whether thatâ€™s through local zoning ordinances. And so if any fingers need to be pointed, itâ€™s at our current elected officials, making sure we have the proper regulations in place.â€
Even if shipping oil by pipeline is cheaper and safer than by rail, thatâ€™s no reason to approve it, argues Daniel Botkin, emeritus professor of environmental studies at the University of California Santa Barbara.
“The pipeline itself is not the issue. Itâ€™s the source of energy which is not needed right now by the United States or the world. Itâ€™s the dirtiest form of energy and so just to say, â€˜Well, itâ€™s going to happen anyway,â€™ thatâ€™s not a rationale to help it,â€ he said, warning of environmental threats to land and water from strip mining the oil sands in Alberta.
Back in Fremont, emergency services director Bill Pook estimates there are already 50 trains a day carrying all sorts of materials â€“ some of them hazardous — through town. Pook says he doesnâ€™t know what the effect of adding a dozen oil trains would be.
â€œRight now, we canâ€™t comprehend anything thatâ€™s going to be so much greater than what weâ€™re already handling. I guess the proof would have to be something thatâ€™s felt, instead of on paper,â€ he said.
That proof, if it comes, may depend on the decision about the pipeline, which isnâ€™t expected until after the November election.
Comments are closed.