20 / 32
says in her report.
“Americans are more likely to get struck
by lightning than to be killed in a pipeline
accident,” she concludes.
As Furchtgott-Roth explains, approximately
70 percent of crude oil and petroleum products
in the United States are shipped by pipeline
on a ton-mile basis, that is, the number of tons
shipped over number of miles. If safety and
environmental damages in energy transportation
were proportionate to the volume of shipment,
she asserts, “one would expect the vast majority
of damages to occur on pipelines.”
However, the data reported in her white
paper found the exact opposite to be true: the
majority of incidents occur on road and rail.
“AN ENDLESS AMOUNT OF VARIABLES”
Numbers aside, Green says that trying to
accurately compare pipeline and rail safety means
looking at, “an endless amount of variables.”
Take, for example, spillage. When researchers
at the International Energy Agency (IEA) looked
at PHMSA data for the years 2004 through
2012, they found that pipelines in the United
States actually spilled three times as much crude
as trains. That period, however, was dominated
by two large spill events, one in and around
the Kalamazoo River and another into the
Yellowstone River. According to IEA, nearly
three-quarters of pipeline occurrences resulted in
spills of less than one cubic meter (264 gallons),
while 16 percent didn’t cause a spill at all. The
numbers illustrate
how difficult it can
be to winnow out the
truth. As Christopher
Ingraham noted in a
Washington Post blog
comparing pipeline
and rail risks, “one big spill can completely
change the face of an industry’s safety record.”
That, of course, goes for rail as well as pipelines.
And what about less easily quantified issues, like
the potential danger to citizens or the environment?
On those concerns, Green remains
philosophical.
“The fact is, energy policy can’t be divorced
from the need to move large quantities of energy
over vast distances,” he says. “You could say
that because high pressure pipelines are located
away from population centers, they’re less likely
to cause injury to people than trains that run
through urban centers are.
“But it’s important to note that the likelihood
of a problem occurring with either rail or
pipeline is low,” Green adds. “No one wants to
harm individuals or the environment, including
railroads and pipeline companies. And they’ve
both done a stupendous job, given the quantity
of product being moved.”
To Green, that means both industries are at
the point where they’re just making incremental
changes that influence safe operation.
“We’re working at the margins now,” he says,
“trying to determine the best way to move that
one barrel of oil safely and with minimal risk to
the environment.”
NOT AN “US-VERSUS-THEM” SCENARIO
There’s no question that railroads are taking
their expanded position in the North American
energy renaissance seriously. They’ve even
borrowed some of the current rhetoric,
suggesting that increased oil volumes indicate
that trains are “helping the U.S. economy
achieve energy independence,” according to Carl
Ice, president and CEO, BNSF Railway.
Regardless of the size of that role, officials
say that safety is top of mind. They also admit
that it’s taken some time to get up to speed. As
“THE LARGE-SCALE SHIPMENTS OF CRUDE
OIL BY RAIL SIMPLY DIDN’T EXIST 10 YEARS
AGO, AND OUR SAFETY REGULATIONS NEED
TO CATCH UP WITH THIS NEW REALITY.”
I N N O V AT I O N S • V O L . V I I I , N O. 1 • 2 0 1 6
18
C O V E R S T O R Y