The Garden Club of America
National Affairs and Legislation Committee
Barbara Geltosky, Vice Chairman Energy Sources
October 2013
Wells and Mines to Wheels – Transporting Our Fossil Fuels
Although we are all aware of the hazards of oil pipelines, such as the rupture in Yellowstone that spilled 63,000 gallons of crude into the Montana River, alternative means of transport can be equally dangerous. Trains are frequently used as a method to move fuels such as coal and crude oil to ports. As coal is gradually being replaced by natural gas in the United States, the coal industry is seeking to expand exports to Asia and Europe.1 Their goal is to convey their product to market as cheaply as possible, where it can then be sold to the highest bidder. Unfortunately, along the way, things happen. Trains can derail, crash and explode and pipelines can leak. This summer in Lac Megantic, Canada, the crude oil in an unattended train exploded, killing 47 people and leveling a town. This oil was being carried from the Bakken shale play in North Dakota to a St John New Brunswick refinery for import back into the US.2 In 2012 there were five derailments of coal trains, which resulted in spills and fatalities. Ironically the railroads reported that coal dust itself may have lead to some derailments by warping tracks!3
Powder River Coal transported through the Pacific Northwest
Coal trains are composed of approximately 120 rail cars, resulting in an average of 60,000–420,000 lbs. of coal lost per train each trip.4 If this wasn’t bad enough for the environment, on the horizon is the specter of new coal export terminals planned for Washington and Oregon, with train routes through some of our most scenic areas including the Columbia River Gorge5 In the Northwest region, coal will be transported in mile long trains from the mines in the Powder River Basin in Wyoming and Montana through Idaho, and over the Cascades to Pacific Terminals for export to Asia. A massive increase in rail traffic and longer trains are expected in the future should the new highly contested terminals be built in Cherry Point, Washington and Boardman, Oregon. Ironically, there are some analysts who now feel that due to a drop in overseas demand, from countries like China who are using less coal, and the prolonged delays caused by environmental challenges, it may not be financially feasible to build the ports after all.6
Environmental Opposition
The National Wildlife Federation and leaders of several dozen fisheries are petitioning the Army Corps of Engineers to boost its scrutiny of proposed coal export facilities along the Pacific Northwest. They say such reviews should include “cumulative airborne, marine, and ground impacts from the facility sites and the areas that they would impact as a direct result of their use.”7 “In May, Northwest-based groups filed a formal petition with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers asking it to evaluate the cumulative and related impacts of all proposed coal export terminals in Oregon and Washington. “The coal trains, passing through such towns as Helena, Montana, on the way to the Coast, would create higher levels of air pollution due to diesel fumes and coal dust, and increased barge and cargo operations on the Columbia River and Puget sound would have further environmental impact.8
The Power Past Coal Coalition has been pushing back aggressively against the coastal coal port proposals. This coalition filed a complaint against Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway Company (BNSF) in the U.S District Court for the Eastern District of Washington for violations of the Clean Water Act in the eastern part of the state. An earlier federal lawsuit, filed by the same groups in western Washington for violations in the western part of the state, is also underway.9
The Rail vs. Pipeline Debate
Depending on who you are talking to, one form of transport may be less hazardous than the other. Transporting crude oil by rail results in almost three times the number of spills compared with pipelines, according to the Washington-based Association of American Railroads. Over the entire decade ending with 2012, railroads hauled 11.2 billion gallons of crude with 95,256 gallons spilled, the majority from just one 2008 accident in Oklahoma that accounted for 81,103 gallons, according to the rail association.
Railroads and pipelines both deliver more than 99 percent of products without incident. U.S. pipelines carried 474.6 billion gallons of crude and petroleum products in 2012 and reported 2.3 million gallons spilled, an effective rate of 0.0005 percent, according to the Association of Oil Pipelines. A sobering thought is that without the Keystone XL pipeline, designed to carry 830,000 barrels a day, rail shipments of Canadian crude would rise an additional 42 percent by 2017, according to an April 2 report by RBC Capital Markets.10 Which is safer- pipelines or trains-most likely, neither are safe, and no matter which is used, more oversight is definitely needed.
1 Krauss, Clifford, “Coal Industry Pins Hopes on Exports as US Market Shrinks”, June 14, 2013, New York Times
2 Revkin, Andrew,” The Long Chain of Responsibility Behind an Oily and Deadly Train Wreck”, July 8,2013, New York Times
3 La Fontaine, Peter, “Two More Coal Train Wrecks- The Epidemic Continues”, July 17, 2013, Wildlife Promise
4 Columbia Riverkeeper, Sierra Club, “Taking Big Coal To Port” June 5, 2013, Eco Watch
5 “Proposed Coal Export Terminals Putting People and Planet at Risk”, June 5, 2013 Eco Watch
6 John Upton, Grist
7 Quinones, Manuel, “National Wildlife Federation, fisheries leaders demand more export scrutiny”, August 19, 2013, E and E News
8 “Groups Petition Army Corps to Evaluate Environmental Impacts of All Proposed Coal Export Terminals in WA, OR”, May 2013,Earth Justice
9 Quinones, Manuel, “Sagging domestic market has Montana mine, tribe rolling dice on exports” September 16, 2013 E and E News
10 “Quebec Train Disaster spurs rail-versus pipeline debate on oil,” July 8, 2013, Fuel Fix
OCT