> Ray Mentzer, a chemical engineer at Purdue University, spent his career working on LNG projects for Exxon Mobil. He says the specially designed containers that transport hydrocarbons have a good safety record. But he says transporting the gas through densely populated areas increases the risk if there's a leak.
> "It's not flammable until it's vaporized, but it's going to be vaporized pretty darn quickly and then it's going to seek an ignition source," he says. "Believe me, it will find an ignition source pretty darn readily."
I will also note that those train tracks in the town in the photos had a derailment only a few years back. I am familiar with the area and know people who live there.
https://response.restoration.noaa.gov/about/media/train-dera...
I would also note that the engineer's use of informal language here is clearly alarmist.
Natural gas is an explosion hazard in enclosed spaces. If you walk into your house and smell gas, that's very dangerous. Note also that even if there is no explosion hazard, fire is still dangerous.
If you are uncomfortable with rail transport of crude, that's a perfectly legitimate stance to take. Honestly, transporting any flammable substance (and many non-flammable ones as well) does pose risks. If you know the risks and benefits and think the former outweigh the latter, let people and especially your representatives in government know. However, society generally seems to accept rail transport of oil and similar chemicals, so outrage over the transport of a less dangerous substance seems like it would be more likely to come from a place of ignorance than rational analysis.