A couple of interesting tidbits in the aftermath of the Lac-Megantic disaster, courtesy of the Montreal Gazette:

1. Railways are fleeing responsibility as fast as they can.

2. The chemical composition of the oil may have made the disaster much worse.

For those just joining us, Lac Megantic, Quebec was devastated on July 6 when an unattended train carrying 72 cars of crude oil rolled into the town and exploded. The oil came from the Bakken oil fields of North Dakota; CP Rail had contracted to move the oil to New Brunswick, and had subcontracted the last portion of the transport to the Montreal, Maine & Atlantic Railway. The train was being run by MM&A when it exploded.

Now, the two points (and their implications) in more depth.  

1. Corporate cravenness. After being ordered to pay $7.8 million toward cleanup and recovery (an operation whose total cost is likely to top $200 million), MM&A ducked into the protection of bankruptcy court, from whence it is highly unlikely to re-emerge. Indeed, Canada has revoked MM&A’s license to operate (although a brief extension is possible, just to keep freight moving) because, for some odd reason, the railway is having trouble getting liability insurance! How about that.

Which brings us to CP Rail. The Canadian government says CP is also liable because it was “the entity responsible for ensuring the transport” of the oil to its final destination. CP’s response?

“As a matter of fact, and law, CP is not responsible for this clean up,” the rail giant said in response to Quebec’s decision to add the company’s name to a formal legal notice on Wednesday. “CP will be appealing.”

What does the government think of that?

“I will leave it up to lawyers, but let’s be clear: under the law on environmental quality, the minister does not ask for, or suggest, compensation … he orders it,” [Environment Minister Yves-Francois] Blanchet said in a statement. “It’s not optional.”

Heh.

2. The oil “reacted in an abnormal way.” Oil is flammable, obviously. But a tanker full of oil doesn’t necessarily explode. It’s kind of like a library: full of flammable material, but the material is so densely packed that it can’t burst into flames. Unless you tip over the shelves and rip up quite a few books, a library is surprisingly fire-resistant.

An oil tanker isn’t as safe as a library, natch, but the principle is the same.

In Lac-Megantic, though, the explosions came fast and furious — “in an abnormal way,” said an official of the Transportation Safety Board. Which prompted the Gazette to ask the obvious question: Why?

And the most likely answer: traces of natural gases, such as hydrogen sulfide, in the crude oil. H2S is an extremely volatile (not to mention deadly) substance; most of the Bakken crude is low in H2S, but some is not. In fact, the oil pipeline company Enbridge filed a complaint with the US government earlier this year, after receiving batches of crude with high concentrations of H2S. Levels high enough to cause instant death if you breathe the stuff.

Even so, it’s not especially dangerous if it’s vented properly, according to Paul Bommer, University of Texas professor of petroleum engineering. But when crude is transported in a rail car, vapors can build up at the top of the tank. This is one significant way in which train transport of crude oil is more dangerous than pipelines, which keep the oil moving and make gas buildups unlikely if not impossible.

“If you had an accident where you overturned a tank car and it ruptured, the first thing out of there potentially could be the little bit of vapour.

“And if there’s any heat source at all, that’s likely to explode, and if it explodes, the oil’s going right up with it.”

We don’t know yet if there were high levels of H2S in the Lac-Megantic crude; the Transportation Safety Board is testing oil from the same Bakken source to determine what, if any, other substances were in the crude. But H2S appears a likely culprit.

Due to the lack of pipelines, a whole lot of crude from the Bakken reserves and the Alberta tar sands is being transported by rail. This means good money for the railroads — and heavy pressure to deliver. The Gazette notes:

Data collected by the U.S. Federal Railroad Administration show railroads have been asking for approval to move a significant number of tank cars that may be overloaded, without enough room to allow for vapours expanding in transport.

Oh, yay.

Two things I think about this. In the immediate case, if CP Rail has made any similar requests of Canadian authorities, then I’d say CP is screwed.

And in the broader view, I think this is cause to question whether pipelines are really the worst things. Certainly, at the very least, this should make us consider the options and the real pluses and minuses of each. And I know, I know, for the sake of the planet what we really need to do is get off fossil fuel.

The best way to do that is to go as hard and fast as we can on renewable energy. Until renewables can beat fossil fuels in the marketplace, there will be strong pressure to move the oil, one way or another.

Honestly, I can’t say which is worse: trains or pipelines. And saying “neither” is unrealistic, at least until we wean ourselves off fossil fuels.