More oil spilled in U.S. train accidents in 2013 than in all the years from 1975 to 2012 combined, McLatchy News Service has reported.
And if Wednesday's derailment near Heimdal, N.D., is any indication, 2015 is on its way to being another "banner" year. But that's not an achievement of which any North Dakotan should be proud.
The derailment is sure to focus more attention on the issue of oil-train safety. That's good, because the attention is needed. The trains roll through not only Grand Forks, Fargo and other North Dakota and Minnesota communities, but also past iconic landmarks such as the Pike Place Market in downtown Seattle.
And an explosive derailment in any of those places could result in a staggering loss of life.
But before any talk can turn to safety, the speakers first must agree on the facts. And as mentioned before in this space, that's not happening in one key area: the role that "oil stabilization" could play in rendering oil less volatile.
ADVERTISEMENT
On that issue, North Dakota's oil regulators and many critics are talking past each other. It's as if the two sides aren't even speaking the same language.
That's got to change. And considering that the critics include several members of the U.S. Senate, North Dakota officials really ought to take the lead in clearing the confusion up.
To cite just the most recent example, here is part of the press release that the Dakota Resource Council issued Wednesday in response to the derailment near Heimdal:
"The North Dakota Department of Mineral Resources failed to require full-fledged oil stabilization when it put out its 'conditioning order' this past December. Similarly, the recent U.S. Department of Transportation rules regarding oil trains that were released on Friday failed to require full-fledged oil stabilization. ...
"Two options to consider are 1) the Dalrymple Administration strengthens its rules to require stabilization of the oil or 2) Congress passes Sen. Maria Cantwell's Crude-By-Rail Safety Act of 2-15, which would require national oil stabilization standards to prevent oil train disasters like those that have occurred in North Dakota and throughout the continent."
But according to Lynn Helms, director of the mineral-resources department, such claims about stabilization are based on myth. It's a myth that's widely shared, including by senators and others in high places; but it's still a myth.
"One falsehood gaining traction holds that oil producers in Texas use a process called 'stabilization' to reduce the volatility of crude oil," Helms wrote last month in a Herald column ("Setting the record straight about oil conditioning," Page A4, April 3).
"The fact is that stabilization is a process used not on crude oil, but on natural gas condensate (a low-density mixture of hydrocarbon liquids) from natural gas wells.
ADVERTISEMENT
"Crude oil producers in Texas are treating oil the same way that is now required of oil producers in North Dakota, which is conditioning crude oil by removing the light gases with temperature and pressure."
So, there you have it: Two knowledgeable observers, each speaking on behalf of an audience of some import-and each describing alternate realities that nowhere seem to mesh.
In our view, the topic needs a neutral arbiter. The UND Department of Petroleum Engineering is one possibility. The Society of Petroleum Engineers is another, and the federal government is a third.
What's the truth about stabilization, and what role-if any-can it play in reducing oil's risk? Those are questions at the core of oil-train safety, and answering them should be North Dakota regulators' Job 1.
-- Tom Dennis for the Herald
