Oil train disaster in Lac-Mégantic, Québec 07-06-2013

From The Gazette of Montéal:

The Gazette wrote:Quebec’s Environment Department has released new information about cleanup efforts in the wake of July’s deadly train derailment in Lac-Mégantic.
. . .
As of Tuesday, 30.8 million litres of oily water had been recovered from the lake, sewer system and ground in Lac-Mégantic. By July 24, 12 million litres of oily water had been pumped from the lake, ground and sewer system, according to the Environment Department.

The figure will keep rising as cleanup operations continue, said Stéphanie Lemieux of the Environment Department.

Read more at: http://www.montrealgazette.com/news/mil ... story.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Gilbert B Norman wrote:A plaintiff attorney could really have a jury sobbing as they walk into the Jury Room.

How does the law work in Quebec Province, though? Would it be a jury trial? I know that the UK for one is much, much less friendly to plaintiff's lawyers and liability suits than the US, and I would expect Canada, given its official status as a Dominion, to have a legal system more in line with Britain.

Ridgefielder wrote:

Gilbert B Norman wrote:A plaintiff attorney could really have a jury sobbing as they walk into the Jury Room.

How does the law work in Quebec Province, though? Would it be a jury trial? I know that the UK for one is much, much less friendly to plaintiff's lawyers and liability suits than the US, and I would expect Canada, given its official status as a Dominion, to have a legal system more in line with Britain.

I'd asked a similar question a page or two back, since the Quebec system may have as much derived from French pre-revolution legal code as it does from English and Canadian law as a whole. I fear we have no avocats Québécois on this board, though we do have a few lawyers from the United States and perhaps one from Canada who could help.

KEN PATRICK wrote:cowford, norman et al i saw no paper but the various statements allude to a contractual relationahip. not the usual interline stuff . this was a step higher. i'm of the opinion that cp & company developed such a contract to memorialize operations. this was a unit train and, as such, cp had to contractually hold mma to performance standards. i know you people believe railroads operate at the highest standards but, sadly, that is far from the truth. railroads are full of people who operate in a vacuum. i tried to get the same performance standards as included in the conrail/ups contract. i failed even though we were paying more per car than ups. i think it near impossible for a small shipper- 3000 cars/year- to contract performance . cp is a party and correctly so. they should have injected their operations people into the lash-up that was mm&a. i'm confident that will be established in punitive award litigation. ken patrick

The contract would have been for a specified price based on World Fuel tendering a minimum specified volume over a specified time period, and would have specified the conditions under which Force Majeure could be claimed. I am surprised that you would think that you could get a performance contract for such a small volume of traffic. If that volume were to be handled in 30 to 45 unit trains, each operating from one point of origin to one destination you might have gotten what you wanted.

mr norman ; your comments on the folk depicted in the video are sad. i find it hard to believe that anyone would dismiss railroad criminal behavoir. the various post seem to excuse stupid railroad operations. i find it hard to understand. i'm guessing that the various posters are railroad-related and, as such, cannot accept my experience-based comments and projections.
if i were advising cp, i would suggest cp take charge of the clean-up and initiate a compensation scheme for families that had related deaths. by remaining hands-off, cp risks a major court-ordered expense. their auditors will issue a qualified opinion. major negative. ken patrick

jaybee- conrail & csxt required 60 loads for a unit train. we ran one from harlem river yard to virginia twice a week. i found the problems with crewing and pricing not worth using a unit train so i went back to daily merchandise jobs from selkirk. the daily train from harlem river to selkirk made a great connection. 2 day difference in the move.
now, as for your tortured construct as to contract inclusion realize that most of those items are not in a contract. ken patrick

Geez, Jaybee... don't you know that price, term, quantity and force majeure aren't included in contracts???

Ken, on which planet do you reside? Your CR and CSX contracts certainly included all those items.

JayBee wrote:

KEN PATRICK wrote: railroads are full of people who operate in a vacuum. i tried to get the same performance standards as included in the conrail/ups contract. i failed even though we were paying more per car than ups. i think it near impossible for a small shipper- 3000 cars/year- to contract performance . ken patrick

I am surprised that you would think that you could get a performance contract for such a small volume of traffic.

The funny thing, or might I say vacuousness, about Mr. Patrick's point of view and assertions is that UPS did not have performance standards of the ilk he's alluding to in their contract with Conrail; their rates were confidential and not "per car"; and, to your point JayBee, represented over 100 times the value, worthy of commanding a service network built around their needs. Incredible.

so much illusion, so little time. railroad billing is per car. unit trains impose a minimum which is never enforced. contracts indicate an annual volume again never enforced. no daily tender. average weight agreement never enforced.
you need to interact with a railroad billing group to appreciate the complexities. there are dozens of folk sorting out load/empty status of each car. billing has greatly improved over the years. took me several hours/day to verify billing on our 200 car fleet. bad orders and return to home shop further complicates the flow. most posts herein seem to be imagined lacking in reality and experience. ken patrick

Well boys, sometimes you just have to shrug your shoulders...

When I wrote contracts for TYBR and NHIR, I usually put the incentives and discounts for volume at the end of the contract term, to protect against non payment of penalties, or bankruptcy partway through a cheap rate. I head read horror tales by John Kneilling about customers doing that to larger roads. I did get complaints from some potential customers that ConRail was more liberal with early in the term discounts, and my bosses "heard" that CR didn't enforce penalties. However, when I tried to establish joint contracts with other railroads, especially ConRail, I found that most roving resumes only wanted to make deals with large nationwide companies. I don't remember if I ever negotiated rates or service standards with Mr. Patrick. Especially when dealing with ConRail, I ran into many variations on the traditional interline accounting, but it was very rare to find that a large Class 1 road would actually EMPLOY a smaller line to do its work. The risk managers hated to share liability with the shallow pockets of a smaller connection.
Of course, the Ontario provincial official's statement that he can issue unappealable demands for payment that Canadien Pacific cannot question or dispute is beyond my knowlege.

I believe the one point on which we can all agree is that the CP, as well as their US subsidiary Soo Lone, will be attacked with litigation - and with a mite bit more firepower than 'Glen Lerner is the lawyer for you, call two two two twenty two twenty two' and other TV jingleists could bring to bear.

Canadian voters expect their government to attack any and all parties anywhere within the 'chain', as it as good as certain that public funds will be involved if the claimants have any hope of anything resembling satisfaction . I cannot rule out an attack against the designers and carbuilders of this so called DOT 111 Tank Car, the design of which is being questioned post-Megantic. I'll certainly concur with Mr. Patrick's views regarding any of these parties exposure to litigation. To what extent any will be on the wrong end of a judgement is far, far down the road.

I hope they slap down that lawsuit quickly; This isn't CP's fault, or the customer or the drillers. If everybody is liable, then only the super big corporation can afford to operate, costs will soar, oil will stay in the ground and we'll have to buy more oil from our enemies.

It has been two months since the disaster. Any recent word on how the cleanup is going, removing the
wrecked cars, haz-mat cleanup, etc and restoration of track, etc?

From The Portland Press Herald:

The Portland Press Herald wrote:The crude oil aboard a Montreal, Maine & Atlantic Railway train that destroyed the downtown area of Lac-Megantic, Quebec, and killed 47 people was improperly classified and packaged, Canadian transportation safety officials said Wednesday.

Transportation Safety Board of Canada official Donald Ross said during a press conference that the oil had been classified “packing group three,” representing the lowest risk of explosion.

An analysis of the oil contained within the train’s 72 tanker cars revealed that it should have been classified in packing group two, which represents a higher degree of flammability and requires stricter packaging to prevent explosion.

Ross said packing group two liquids must be transported in cars with added safety features to reduce the possibility of an explosion.
. . .
Authorities said proper classification of the oil’s flammability was the responsibility of Irving Oil, the company purchasing the oil.

Read more at: http://www.pressherald.com/news/Canadia ... ified.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;