Alabama Derailment the Latest Oil-by-Rail Flashpoint

Investigators work at the train derailment site July 9, 2013 in Lac-megantic, Quebec, Canada.
National Journal
Alex Brown
Nov. 8, 2013, 1:40 p.m.

Fri­day’s de­rail­ment of a crude-oil train in Alabama is the latest in a series of in­cid­ents that have put in­creas­ing scru­tiny on rail-safety stand­ards and promp­ted pipeline ad­voc­ates to call for ex­pan­sion of that meth­od of oil trans­port­a­tion.

No in­jur­ies were re­por­ted in the rur­al de­rail­ment, but 11 cars were left burn­ing with flames shoot­ing 300 feet in­to the air. Sev­er­al Ca­na­dian de­rail­ments earli­er this year promp­ted tightened safety stand­ards, but some say that’s not good enough. Green­peace Canada’s Keith Stew­art told Na­tion­al Journ­al that rail trans­port of oil has “been un­safe since the 1990s.”¦ [But the cars] con­tin­ue to be used.”

While Stew­art sees that as a reas­on to in­vest in re­new­able en­ergy, oth­ers are call­ing for an in­crease in pipelines. “Pipelines are safer than rail,” As­so­ci­ation of Oil Pipe Lines Pres­id­ent An­drew Black said in an in­ter­view last month. “There are few­er pipeline in­cid­ents per tons of crude oil moved.”

That num­ber is skewed, said Holly Ar­thur, spokes­wo­man for the As­so­ci­ation of Amer­ic­an Rail­roads, be­cause pipelines are not held to the same strin­gent re­port­ing stand­ards as rail­roads. “At the end of the day, pipelines spill more of the ma­ter­i­al than do rail­roads,” Ar­thur said. “Both modes are in­cred­ibly safe.”

The safety de­bate shows no signs of stop­ping, but it’s un­likely that will stop pipeline ad­voc­ates from cit­ing the latest de­rail­ment as an ex­ample of why pro­jects like the Key­stone XL pipeline should be ap­proved. And while that ar­gu­ment con­tin­ues — and more pipelines are stalled — more and more oil will con­tin­ue mov­ing through the U.S. by rail.

What We're Following See More »
More People Watched Trump’s Acceptance Speech
1 days ago

Hillary Clinton hopes that television ratings for the candidates' acceptance speeches at their respective conventions aren't foreshadowing of similar results at the polls in November. Preliminary results from the networks and cable channels show that 34.9 million people tuned in for Donald Trump's acceptance speech while 33.3 million watched Clinton accept the Democratic nomination. However, it is still possible that the numbers are closer than these ratings suggest: the numbers don't include ratings from PBS or CSPAN, which tend to attract more Democratic viewers.