From: calvin@remove.daxack.ca   
      
   dpeltier@my-deja.com (dpeltier@my-deja.com) said...   
   >   
   >- How many brakes were applied? (May require extensive forensics in this   
   >case.)   
   >- Any reason to believe any were defective, and if so, were the proper   
   >inspection procedures in place and / or executed?   
   >- Were the rules for how many brakes to use ineffective? Or were they not   
   >followed? If they were not followed, why not? Was there a widespread   
   >problem and if so what were the railroad and the regulators doing to cause   
   >or prevent it?   
      
   These question result in several follow-up questions and issues...   
      
   Did the number of brakes set meet the company policy? If not, the employee   
   bears the majority of responsibility. If the employee followed company policy   
   then focus transfers to that policy and the company.   
      
   From what I understand, the MMA's policy on manual brakes had the requirement   
   something like only half of what Transport Canada recommended.   
      
   Since TC only made this a recommended practice and not a mandatory rule,   
   I suspect it is unlikely that the company would be found criminally   
   responsible for setting a lower limit. However, in a civil court, they   
   would likely be found partly responsible for doing so, and Transport   
   Canada could likely be found partly responsible for not making this a   
   mandatory rule.   
      
      
   Then there is the whole regulatory issue that allowed this type of crude   
   oil to be categorized with all other types of crude oil. Many news reports   
   described the cars as "being mislabeled", and the implication in the media   
   was that the shipper and the railroads had deliberately mislabelled them   
   to hide something or avoid special paperwork or some other red-tape issue.   
      
   To simplify the description, there are two types of crude oil produced in   
   North America. One comes from shale deposits and has a high amount of   
   methane, ethane, and other light components dissolved in it. The other does   
   not.   
      
   In the past, the two main sources were Texas and Alberta. Texas crude is   
   the first type and Alberta is the second. However, there was a great   
   market for those lighter components not far from Texas, so it made economical   
   sense to remove it and sell it off before shipping the crude. Therefore,   
   all crude oil in the past has been non explosive (and relatively rather hard   
   to catch fire).   
      
   Then Bakken oil production began to come on the scene around 2006. Being   
   from a shale deposit, the lighter components are in the crude and this   
   makes it explosive. Unlike down in Texas, there was no local market for   
   the lighter components, so the cost of extracting them and transporting   
   them separately (likely by pipeline) is high. So the crude is shipped   
   as-is. Regulators did not have a separate classification for this, and   
   it was just shipped as "crude oil" because that is what it is.   
      
   --   
   Calvin Henry-Cotnam   
   "Unusual or extreme reactions to events caused by negligence   
    are imaginable, but not reasonably foreseeable"   
     - Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin, May 2008   
      
   --- SoupGate/W32 v1.03   
    * Origin: LiveWire BBS -=*=- UseNet FTN Gateway (1:2320/1)