U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

92–325PDF 2015

BAKKEN PETROLEUM: THE SUBSTANCE OF 

ENERGY INDEPENDENCE 

JOINT HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY & 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT 

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND 

TECHNOLOGY 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

SEPTEMBER 9, 2014 

Serial No. 113–92 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology 

( 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://science.house.gov 
(II) 

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY 

HON. LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas, Chair 

DANA ROHRABACHER, California 

RALPH M. HALL, Texas 

F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR., 

Wisconsin 

FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma 

RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas 

MICHAEL T. MCCAUL, Texas 

PAUL C. BROUN, Georgia 

STEVEN M. PALAZZO, Mississippi 

MO BROOKS, Alabama 

RANDY HULTGREN, Illinois 

LARRY BUCSHON, Indiana 

STEVE STOCKMAN, Texas 

BILL POSEY, Florida 

CYNTHIA LUMMIS, Wyoming 

DAVID SCHWEIKERT, Arizona 

THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky 

KEVIN CRAMER, North Dakota 

JIM BRIDENSTINE, Oklahoma 

RANDY WEBER, Texas 

CHRIS COLLINS, New York 

BILL JOHNSON, Ohio 

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas 

ZOE LOFGREN, California 

DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois 

DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland 

FREDERICA S. WILSON, Florida 

SUZANNE BONAMICI, Oregon 

ERIC SWALWELL, California 

DAN MAFFEI, New York 

ALAN GRAYSON, Florida 

JOSEPH KENNEDY III, Massachusetts 

SCOTT PETERS, California 

DEREK KILMER, Washington 

AMI BERA, California 

ELIZABETH ESTY, Connecticut 

MARC VEASEY, Texas 

JULIA BROWNLEY, California 

ROBIN KELLY, Illinois 

KATHERINE CLARK, Massachusetts 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY

HON. CYNTHIA LUMMIS, Wyoming, Chair 

RALPH M. HALL, Texas 

FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma 

RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas 

MICHAEL T. MCCAUL, Texas 

RANDY HULTGREN, Illinois 

THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky 

KEVIN CRAMER, North Dakota 

RANDY WEBER, Texas 

LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas 

ERIC SWALWELL, California 

ALAN GRAYSON, Florida 

JOSEPH KENNEDY III, Massachusetts 

MARC VEASEY, Texas 

ZOE LOFGREN, California 

DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois 

KATHERINE CLARK, Massachusetts 

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT

HON. PAUL C. BROUN, Georgia, Chair 

F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR., 

Wisconsin 

BILL POSEY, Florida 

KEVIN CRAMER, North Dakota 

BILL JOHNSON, Ohio 

LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas 

DAN MAFFEI, New York 

ERIC SWALWELL, California 

SCOTT PETERS, California 

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas 
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

September 9, 2014 

Page 

Witness List ............................................................................................................. 2 

Hearing Charter ...................................................................................................... 3 

Opening Statements 

Statement by Representative Cynthia Lummis, Chairman, Subcommittee on 

Energy, Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives ........................................................................................................... 7 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 8 

Statement by Representative Eric Swalwell, Ranking Minority Member, Subcommittee on Energy, Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. 

House of Representatives .................................................................................... 8 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 9 

Statement by Representative Paul C. Broun, Chairman, Subcommittee on 

Oversight, Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of 

Representatives .................................................................................................... 10 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 11 

Statement by Representative Kevin Cramer, Subcommittee on Energy, Subcommittee on Oversight, Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, 

U.S. House of Representatives ............................................................................ 11 

Statement by Representative Dan Maffei, Ranking Minority Member, Subcommittee on Oversight, Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, 

U.S. House of Representatives ............................................................................ 12 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 13 

Witnesses 

PANEL I 

Mr. Chris Smith, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary, Office of Fossil Energy, U.S. Department of Energy 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 15 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 17 

Submitted Biography ....................................................................................... 25 

Mr. Timothy Butters, Deputy Administrator, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 26 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 28 

Submitted Biography ....................................................................................... 42 

Discussion ................................................................................................................. 43 

PANEL II 

Ms. Kari Cutting, Vice President, North Dakota Petroleum Council 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 63 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 66 

Submitted Biography ....................................................................................... 72 

Mr. John Auers, Executive Vice President, Turner, Mason, & Company 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 73 
Page

IV 

Mr. John Auers, Executive Vice President, Turner, Mason, & Company— 

Continued 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 76 

Submitted Biography ....................................................................................... 86 

Mr. Mark Zoanetti, Deputy Chief of Special Operations, Syracuse Fire Department 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 87 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 90 

Submitted Biography ....................................................................................... 93 

Discussion ................................................................................................................. 94 

Appendix I: Answers to Post-Hearing Questions 

Mr. Chris Smith, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary, Office of Fossil Energy, U.S. Department of Energy ....................................................................... 106 

Mr. Timothy Butters, Deputy Administrator, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation ................... 109 

Ms. Kari Cutting, Vice President, North Dakota Petroleum Council ................. 113 

Appendix II: Additional Material for the Record 

Prepared statement by Representative Eddie Bernice Johnson, Ranking Member, Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives ........................................................................................................... 118 
(1) 

BAKKEN PETROLEUM: THE SUBSTANCE OF 

ENERGY INDEPENDENCE 

TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 9, 2014 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND SUBCOMMITTEE ON

OVERSIGHT, 

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY, 

Washington, D.C. 

The Subcommittees met, pursuant to call, at 2:05 p.m., in Room 

2318 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Cynthia Lummis 

[Chairwoman of the Subcommittee on Energy] presiding. 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 

Chairwoman LUMMIS. The joint hearing of the Subcommittee on 

Energy and the Subcommittee on Oversight will come to order. 

Good afternoon. Welcome to today’s joint hearing. It is titled 

‘‘Bakken Petroleum: The Substance of Energy Independence.’’ Now, 

in front of each Member are packets containing the written testimony, biographies, and truth-in-testimony disclosures for today’s 

witnesses. 

Before we get started, since this is a joint hearing involving two 

subcommittees, I want to explain how we will operate procedurally 

so all Members understand how the question-and-answer period 

will be handled. After first recognizing the Chair and Ranking 

Members of the Energy and the Oversight Committees, we will recognize those members of the subcommittee present at the gavel in 

order of seniority on the full committee, and those coming in after 

the gavel will be recognized in order of arrival. 

I now recognize myself for five minutes for an opening statement. 

I want to welcome our witnesses to today’s hearing. Today, the 

Energy and Oversight Subcommittees will inquire about the characteristics and behavior of petroleum produced from the Bakken region. 

Petroleum from the Bakken region recently passed a million barrels per day, which accounts for approximately 12 percent of total 

domestic production. This is an important resource for the United 

States and it deserves due attention. 

That said, we are not here today to debate the merits of rail or 

pipeline transportation, or their current and proposed regulation. 

Those are important issues, but today we have a scientific focus: 

the characteristics and behavior of Bakken petroleum. 

As we will hear today, the DOT’s Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration has undertaken a broad sampling and 

testing program to better understand if or to what extent Bakken 

petroleum may be unique from other petroleum types. 

In July 2014, PHMSAis that what—is that right? PHMSA, you 

call it PHMSA? Okay—released a report, titled ‘‘Operation Safe Delivery Update,’’ which concluded that Bakken petroleum ‘‘is more 

volatile than most other types of crude, which correlates to increased ignitability and flammability.’’ These conclusions regarding 

volatility without context and the assertion that volatility necessarily correlates to increased ignitability and flammability have 

generated significant controversy, which I am hopeful we can resolve at today’s hearing. 

The written testimony of our PHMSA and DOE witnesses clarifies the context of volatility: that petroleum from the Bakken region is properly classified as a light sweet crude oil and not outside 

the norms for light crude oils. And today’s DOE written testimony 

states that ‘‘more scientific analysis is needed to better define the 

relationship between volatility and ignitability/flammability.’’ 

The Science Committee will be interested to hear about the results of DOE’s research as it progresses. I look forward to further 

discussion and again thank today’s witnesses for participating in 

today’s hearing. 

[The prepared statement of Mrs. Lummis follows:] 
8 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY

CHAIRWOMAN CYNTHIA LUMMIS

Good afternoon. I would like to welcome our witnesses to today’s hearing titled 

Bakken Petroleum: The Substance of Energy Independence. Today, the Energy and 

Oversight Subcommittees will inquire about the characteristics and behavior of petroleum produced from the Bakken region. 

Petroleum from the Bakken region recently passed 1 million barrels per day, 

which accounts for approximately 12% of total domestic production. This is an important resource for the United States and it deserves due attention. 

That said, we are not here today to debate the merits of rail or pipeline transportation, or their current and proposed regulations. Those are important issues, but 

today we have a scientific focus: the characteristics and behavior of Bakken petroleum. 

As we will hear today, the DOT’s Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, also known as ‘‘PHMSA,’’ has undertaken a broad sampling and testing program to better understand if or to what extent Bakken petroleum may be 

unique from other petroleum types. 

In July 2014, PHMSA released a report, titled ‘‘Operation Safe Delivery Update,’’ 

which concluded that Bakken petroleum ‘‘is more volatile than most other types of 

crude—which correlates to increased ignitability and flammability.’’ These conclusions regarding: (1) volatility without context and (2) the assertion that volatility 

necessarily correlates to increased ignitability and flammability have generated significant controversy, which I am hopeful we can resolve in today’s hearing. 

The written testimony of our PHMSA and DOE witnesses clarifies the context of 

volatility: that petroleum from the Bakken region is properly classified as a ‘‘light, 

sweet crude oil’’ and not outside the norms for light crude oils. And today’s DOE 

written testimony states that ‘‘more scientific analysis is needed to better define the 

relationship between volatility and ignitability/flammability.’’ 

The Science Committee will be interested to hear about the results of DOE’s research as it progresses. I look forward to further discussion and again, I thank today’s witnesses for participating in today’s hearing. 

Chairwoman LUMMIS. The Chair now recognizes Mr. Swalwell for 

his opening statement. 

Mr. SWALWELL. Thank you, Chairwoman Lummis and Chairman 

Broun, for holding this hearing and I want to thank our witnesses 

for appearing today and for their forthcoming testimony. 

We are clearly in the midst of a substantial boom in oil and gas 

production, and it is worth reminding my colleagues here today 

that this is a great example, whether you agree that this is a longterm solution for our country or not, that much of the advances 

that have allowed this boom have come from investments that have 

been made from and by the Department of Energy. And they have 

directly allowed advancements in directional drilling technologies 

and hydraulic fracturing practices that have made this boom possible. 

But also it should come as no surprise that the rapid, massive 

growth and demand to transport these fuels has raised new issues. 

What kind of growth am I talking about? Well, according to the Association of American Railroads, there were 10,800 car loads of 

crude oil transported by rail in 2009. Now that may sound like a 

lot, but in 2013 there were over 400,000 carloads of crude oil or 

about 37 times as much. And it is unfortunately becoming increasingly clear that our current railway safety standards were not designed to handle anywhere near these levels and types of crude oil 

transport that we are seeing today. It is incumbent upon Congress, 

I believe, to make sure that the policies and regulations stay up 

with the advancements in technology. 

There have been several significant accidents in recent years, one 

of which led to the tragic death of 47 people in a small town in 
9 

Que ́bec last year. And we are frankly lucky that the location of 

some of these other accidents were remote enough to avoid similar 

or even worse outcomes. 

My home State of California is projected to receive up to 150 million barrels of oil by rail by 2016 compared with just two million 

barrels in 2011, and much of that oil will be volatile crude from the 

Bakken region of North Dakota and Canada. And people in my district and at home in the East Bay are rightfully concerned about 

what this will mean for their safety and that is why I am glad that 

the Department of Transportation is finally addressing this issue 

head-on. So we must do all that we can to protect any persons who 

are in the path of this crude oil as it is being transported. 

And I would also just like to address the title of the hearing, 

‘‘Bakken Petroleum: The Substance of Energy Independence.’’ I disagree that Bakken petroleum is true energy independence. I believe this provides at best an energy lifeline, but I think true energy independence in our country will be when we are able to fully 

harness and capture the renewables. And so I doubt that when we 

reach that point, and I hope it is soon, we will ever have to hold 

a hearing on the volatility of wind, solar, or fuel cells, and we 

should be reminded about the difference between the two. 

Thank you again to all of our witnesses for being here today and 

providing us with an opportunity to hear from a wide range of 

stakeholders, and I yield back. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Swalwell follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY

RANKING MINORITY MEMBER ERIC SWALWELL

Thank you Chairwoman Lummis and Chairman Broun for holding this hearing, 

and I also want to thank our witnesses for their testimony and for being here today. 

We are obviously in the middle of a substantial boom in oil and gas production, 

and it is worth reminding my colleagues here today that this is a great example 

of how government research can pay off when it comes to energy development. It 

is widely recognized that DOE-supported research was key to advancing the directional drilling technologies and hydraulic fracturing practices that have made this 

boom even possible. 

But it should also come as no surprise that the rapid, massive growth in demand 

to transport these fuels has raised new issues. What kind of growth am I talking 

about? Well, according to the Association of American Railroads, there were 10,800 

carloads of crude oil transported by rail in 2009. Now that may sound like a lot, 

but in 2013, there were over 400,000 carloads of crude oil, or about 37 times as 

many. And it’s unfortunately becoming increasingly clear that our current railway 

safety standards were not designed to handle anywhere near these levels and types 

of crude oil transport we’re seeing today. 

There have been several significant accidents in recent years, one of which led to 

the tragic death of 47 people in a small town in Que ́bec last year. And we may 

frankly be lucky that the locations of some of the other accidents were remote 

enough to avoid similar—or even worse—outcomes. 

My home state of California is projected to receive up to 150 million barrels of 

oil by rail by 2016, compared with just 2 million barrels in 2011, and much of that 

oil will be volatile crude from the Bakken region of North Dakota and Canada. 

This is why I am glad that the Department of Transportation is finally addressing 

this issue head on. It appears to me that with this proposed rule we are ensuring 

that the United States not only continues to be a leader in the production and transportation of these fuels, but that we really do this in a safe and responsible manner. 

Thank you again to all of our witnesses for being here today and providing us 

with an opportunity to hear from a wide range of stakeholders, and with that I yield 

back. 

Chairwoman LUMMIS. Thank you, Mr. Swalwell. 
10 

The Chair now recognizes the Chairman of the Subcommittee on 

Oversight, Mr. Broun, for his opening statement. 

Mr. BROUN. Thank you, Chairwoman Lummis, and I welcome all 

of our witnesses today. 

While I look forward to hearing from both panels today, I must 

say I am very disappointed, though not surprised, that this Administration is continuing to have an unwillingness to work with the 

Congress. Chairwoman Lummis and I invited representatives from 

the agencies who are experts in the subject matter because we are 

interested in the science behind Bakken crude. Instead, both agencies appearing before the Committee today declined to provide the 

witnesses that we requested, sending us in their place, witnesses 

more knowledgeable on the politics behind Bakken crude. As I said, 

I am not surprised, I am just very disappointed. 

Over the past few years, the United States has made significant 

technological advances in the production of energy, leading to an 

increased supply of our country’s vast God-given resources to fulfill 

the energy needs of Americans. Much of this is due to the influx 

of crude oil output from the Bakken Shale region, which topped one 

million barrels per day earlier this year, and is expected to climb 

to 1.5 million barrels a day over the next three years. 

Given the large volume of crude being transported across the 

country, the Department of Transportation began testing its characteristics to determine its flammability and volatility. Preliminary 

results of the review were published in July, which concluded that 

crude oil from the Bakken formation ‘‘is more volatile than most 

other types of crude, which correlates to increased ignitability and 

flammability.’’ 

The DOT report’s comparison of the Bakken crude, which is classified as a light sweet crude, to crude oil in general, including 

heavier crudes, is a bit like comparing apples to oranges because 

light sweet crude as a class is generally considered to be more volatile than the heavier crudes. Separately, the North Dakota Petroleum Council commissioned a similar kind of study to the DOT 

study. While both the government and industry studies led to similar scientific results, the NDPC study concluded that Bakken crude 

is no more volatile, again, no more volatile than other types of light 

sweet crudes. 

Energy independence creates a healthy economy, jobs at home, 

and directly correlates to our national security by limiting how 

much we rely on foreign energy imports to survive and prosper. 

America is on the road towards energy independence, with domestic crude contributing extensively, and it would be disastrous to impede on this extraordinary possibility. 

While I have heard the Administration claim over the years that 

it supports an ‘‘all-of-the-above’’ energy plan, I hope that when all 

is said and done, Bakken crude does not become an example of a 

‘‘none-of-the-below’’ practice that seems to be prevalent in this Administration. 

Thank you again, Chairwoman Lummis, and I would like to yield 

the balance of my time to my good friend, Mr. Cramer, the Vice 

Chairman of the Oversight Subcommittee. Mr. Cramer. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Broun follows:] 
11 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF OVERSIGHT SUBCOMMITTEE

CHAIRMAN PAUL BROUN

Thank you, Chairwoman Lummis, and welcome to all of our witnesses. While I 

look forward to hearing from both panels today, I must say I am disappointed— 

though not surprised—at this Administration’s continued unwillingness to work 

with the Congress. Chairwoman Lummis and I invited representatives from the 

agencies who are experts in the subject matter because we are interested in the 

science behind Bakken crude. Instead, both agencies appearing before the Committee today declined to provide the witnesses we requested, sending us in their 

place witnesses more knowledgeable on the politics behind Bakken crude. As I said, 

I am not surprised, just disappointed. 

Over the past few years, the United States has made significant technological advances in the production of energy, leading to an increased supply of our country’s 

vast resources to fulfill the energy needs of Americans. Much of this is due to the 

influx of crude oil output from the Bakken Shale region, which topped one million 

barrels per day earlier this year, and is expected to climb to 1.5 million barrels a 

day over the next three years. 

Given the large volume of crude being transported across the country, the Department of Transportation began testing its characteristics to determine its flammability and volatility. Preliminary results of the review were published in July, which 

concluded that crude oil from the Bakken formation ‘‘is more volatile than most 

other types of crude—which correlates to increased ignitability and flammability.’’ 

The DOT report’s comparison of the Bakken crude, which is classified as a light, 

sweet crude, to crude oil in general, including heavier crudes, is a bit like comparing 

apples to oranges because light sweet crudes as a class are generally considered to 

be more volatile than heavier crudes. Separately, the North Dakota Petroleum 

Council commissioned a study similar to the DOT study. While both the government 

and industry study led to similar scientific results, the NDPC study concluded that 

Bakken crude is no more volatile than other types of light, sweet crudes. 

Energy independence creates a healthy economy, jobs at home, and directly correlates to our national security by limiting how much we rely on foreign energy imports to survive and prosper. America is on the road toward energy independence, 

with domestic crude contributing extensively, and it would be disastrous to impede 

on this extraordinary possibility. 

While I have heard the Administration claim over the years that it supports an 

‘‘all-of-the-above’’ energy plan, I hope that when all is said and done, Bakken crude 

does not become an example of a ‘‘none of the below’’ practice. 

Thank you again, Chairwoman Lummis, and I would like to yield the balance of 

my time to my good friend, Mr. Cramer, the Vice Chairman of the Oversight Subcommittee. 

Mr. CRAMER. I thank the Chairman, I thank Chairwoman 

Lummis and the Ranking Members, and certainly thank Chairman 

Smith of the overall committee for agreeing to call this hearing. 

Being the sole Representative from the State known as Bakken, 

North Dakota, and being that North Dakota is the place where one 

of the rail accidents occurred, I am familiar with both sides of this 

issue and prefer that there not be sides but rather that we all pull 

in the same direction. 

And I have to say that while I share Chairman Broun’s perhaps 

disappointment that we didn’t get the witnesses that perhaps we 

asked for, I am very pleased with the pre-filed testimony. I guess 

that is the right tone and look forward to the opportunity for Q&A 

in a reasoned and scientific manner that is true to the spirit of this 

committee and to the commission of this committee. 

I think it is hard to move forward with a lot of rules until we 

know for sure what we are dealing with on the one hand. On the 

other hand, there is a sense of urgency about the safety of moving 

this product and we want to be able to have a rule that not just 

meets the urgency of the moment but also is a good rule and a correct rule. That said, I too, and have from the very beginning, want 

this hearing to focus specifically on the characteristics of Bakken 
12 

crude, perhaps talk about the differences and similarities in the 

various studies that have been done between industry and the government and make sure that we are all working together on the 

same team, pulling the same direction, and for the good of all of 

our constituents. 

So with that, I appreciate the time that you yielded. 

Chairwoman LUMMIS. Thank you, Mr. Broun, and thank you, Mr. 

Cramer. 

The Chair now recognizes Mr. Maffei for his opening statement. 

Mr. MAFFEI. Thank you very much, Madam Chair, and thank 

you for holding this hearing today. 

Like Mr. Swalwell, I too found the title of this hearing rather curious. The title suggests that Bakken crude oil is part of America’s 

path to energy independence and I certainly do want to talk about 

the various issues related to it. It is certainly one of those sources 

that has been increasing in recent years. But if we do truly want 

to explore ‘‘energy independence’’ in the United States, as the title 

of this hearing does suggest, and given the fact that we are the 

Science and Technology Committee, we should be exploring the use 

and development of domestic renewable sources of energy such as 

wind, solar power, biofuels, geothermal, even nuclear, those that do 

not add to the threats posed by global climate change, which we 

have already started to see. 

That said, once one gets past the politically loaded title, I am 

truly grateful to both the Chairwoman of the Energy Subcommittee 

and the Chairman of the Subcommittee on Oversight for calling 

this hearing today. The issue of Bakken crude oil and railcar safety 

combined is particularly important to my constituency, my constituents, and my district in upstate New York since we have two 

train cars a day that carry Bakken crude oil that pass through the 

Syracuse, New York, area in my home district. 

And while the production of crude oil from the Bakken region in 

North Dakota, Montana, and Canada has increased markedly in 

the past several years, jumping a bit more from—more than 

100,000 barrels per day in 2007 to more than one million per day 

today, so have the fears about potentially catastrophic accidents as 

mile-long train cars transporting Bakken crude traverse the country. 

Now, Bakken crude oil is more volatile, and what I mean by volatile is a lower flashpoint that could lead to an explosion. It is more 

than other heavy crude oils. But I agree with the Chairs that this 

volatility is consistent with other light sweet crude oils. We have 

no reason to think it is any worse or better than other light sweet 

crudes. 

So to help address some of the known safety issues in transporting light crude oils, generally in working with the industry, the 

Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration came out 

with a proposed regulation two months ago regarding crude-by-rail 

safety issues, including methods to help reduce the risk of accidents and areas for improved safety and response to these potential 

hazards, and I am very happy to have PHMSA witnesses today to 

discuss their efforts regarding improved safety on our rail. 

I am also particularly pleased that we have a witness from my 

home district in Syracuse, New York, Mark Zoanetti, the Deputy 
13 

Chief of Special Operations for the Syracuse Fire Department, 

which I will say is one of the best mid-level city fire departments 

in the United States, and he will help us discuss the real-world 

consequences of these hazards and how first responders can train 

to address the threats and potential improvement that would help 

all of us—help all those departments respond to these and other 

hazards involving railcar safety. 

Again, trains carrying Bakken crude oil traverse the length of 

my upstate New York district on their way to Albany, New York, 

and many East Coast refineries, as they do cross much of the 

United States. Using the rail lines, these trains can be up to a mile 

long and they can carry roughly 120 tank cars with 85,000 barrels 

of oil. So any substance with any volatility at all would obviously 

be a concern to me. I am not necessarily judging Bakken crude as 

any different or any more of a concern, but safety clearly is a concern and one we have to deal with. 

And so, therefore, I do look very much forward to hearing all the 

witnesses on both panels today, and again, I want to thank both 

the Chairman and the Chairwoman for holding this hearing and 

also thank my fellow Ranking Member, Mr. Swalwell. 

I yield back. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Maffei follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF OVERSIGHT SUBCOMMITTEE

RANKING MINORITY MEMBER DAN MAFFEI

Thank you Mr. Chairman for calling this hearing today. The issue of Bakken 

crude oil and railcar safety is particularly important to me and my constituents 

since two trains a day carrying Bakken crude oil pass through Syracuse, New York, 

my home district. While the production of crude oil from the Bakken region in North 

Dakota, Montana and Canada has exploded in the past several years jumping from 

a bit more than 100,000 barrels per day in 2007 to more than one million barrels 

per day today, so have the fears about potentially catastrophic accidents as milelong 

train cars transporting Bakken crude oil traverse the country. 

Bakken crude oil is more volatile than other heavier crude oils, although its volatility is consistent with other light sweet crude oils. However, since production of 

Bakken crude has surged in recent years and more than 70-percent of this crude 

oil is now shipped by rail there is legitimate concern about the volume of this oil 

being shipped by rail given its known potential volatility and an increasing number 

of train derailments and accidents involving Bakken crude over this same time period. These are legitimate concerns. While the focus of today’s hearing seems to have 

shifted from originally examining safety issues associated with the transport of 

Bakken crude and other light crude oils to discussing how Bakken crude oil is part 

of America’s path to energy independence, we must consider the safety issues associated with it. If we truly want to explore ‘‘energy independence,’’ as the title of this 

hearing suggests, and given the fact we are the science and technology committee, 

we should be exploring the use and development of renewable sources of energy, 

such as wind and solar-powered technologies. 

Bakken crude oil is an important contributor to our energy portfolio, is a vital economic resource, and helps keep domestic energy costs low. While we need to do all 

we can to keep energy costs low for hardworking middle class families, we must address the real world consequences associated with crude-by-rail safety issues and potential accidents. Both these concerns and consequences are increasing as more 

crude oil moves along more miles of track than ever before creating new risks and 

potential hazards. The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB), for instance, 

describes nine significant crude oil accidents by rail from 2006 through February 

of this year. However, eight of those accidents have occurred since March 2013. The 

most significant accident occurred in Lac Me ́gantic in Que ́bec, Canada in July 2013, 

involved 72 rail cars carrying Bakken crude oil and resulted in the destruction of 

30 buildings and the death of 47 residents of that town. Other less serious accidents 

have occurred since then in Alabama, North Dakota and Virginia, for instance. 
14 

To help address some of the known safety issues in transporting light crude oils, 

and working with industry, the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) came out with proposed regulations two months ago regarding 

crude-by-rail safety issues, including methods to help reduce the risk of accidents 

and areas for improved safety and response to these potential hazards. I am happy 

we have a PHMSA witness here today to help discuss their efforts regarding improved safety conditions for transporting crude oil by rail. 

I am also particularly pleased that we have a witness from my home district of 

Syracuse, New York, Mark Zoanetti, the Deputy Chief of Special Operations for the 

Syracuse Fire Department who can help discuss the real world consequences of 

these hazards, how first responders need to train to address these threats, and potential improvements that would help them respond to these and other hazards involving railcar safety issues. Trains carrying Bakken Crude Oil traverse the length 

of my Upstate New York District on their way to Albany, New York and major East 

Coast refineries. Using CSX rail lines, these trains can be up to a mile and 120 tank 

cars long, carrying roughly 85,000 barrels of oil. Given the high frequency and volume of Bakken Crude Oil transport through my Upstate New York and other regions of the Country, it is important that we address the public safety concerns of 

this issue. Thank you for being here today Deputy Chief Zoanetti and I look forward 

to your testimony and the testimony of all of our witnesses. 

With that I yield back. 

Chairwoman LUMMIS. Thank you, Mr. Maffei. And I understand 

it is Maffei like buffet, not fi. And I am Lummis, rhymes with 

hummus so we are in the food groups— 

Mr. MAFFEI. Exactly. 

Chairwoman LUMMIS. —with our names. Okay. Thank you. 

If there are Members who wish to submit additional opening 

statements, your statements will be added to the record at this 

point. 

Chairwoman LUMMIS. It is now time to introduce our first panel 

of witnesses. Our first witness is Mr. Chris Smith, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for the Office of Fossil Energy at the Department Of Energy. Mr. Smith was appointed in 2009 as Assistant Secretary for Fossil Energy’s Office of Oil and Natural Gas. 

Prior to joining DOE, Mr. Smith spent 11 years with international 

oil companies focused on upstream business development and LNG 

trading. 

Our second witness today is Mr. Timothy Butters, Deputy Administrator for Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration at the Department Of Transportation. Prior to joining 

PHMSA, he served as the Assistant Chief of Operations for the 

City of Fairfax Fire Department. He served as the Chairman of the 

Hazardous Materials Committee for the International Association 

of Fire Chiefs. Deputy Administrator Butters also previously served 

ten years as Managing Director of the Chemical Transportation 

Emergency Center. 

As our witnesses should know, spoken testimony is limited to 

five minutes each, after which members of the committee will have 

five minutes each to ask questions. Your written testimony will be 

included in the record of the hearing. 

It is the practice of the Subcommittee on Oversight to receive 

testimony under oath, so, gentlemen, if you would please now stand 

and raise your right hand. 

Do you solemnly swear or affirm to tell the whole truth and 

nothing but the truth, so help you God? 

Let the record reflect that the witnesses participating have taken 

the oath. 

Thank you, gentlemen. You may be seated. 
15 

I now recognize our first witness, Mr. Smith, for five minutes. 

TESTIMONY OF MR. CHRIS SMITH, 

PRINCIPAL DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY, OFFICE OF 

FOSSIL ENERGY, 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

Mr. SMITH. Chairwoman Lummis and Broun, Ranking Members 

Swalwell and Maffei, and members of the subcommittee, thank you 

for the opportunity to appear before you today to discuss oil production in the Bakken formation. 

As you know, the United States is experiencing a renaissance in 

oil and gas production. According to the Energy Information Administration, U.S. oil production averaged an estimated 8.5 million 

barrels per day in July, the highest monthly level of production 

since April of 1987. The 2015 forecast of 9.3 million per day represents the highest annual average level of oil production since 

1972. This domestic oil boom is due primarily to the new unconventional production of light sweet crude oil from tight oil formations 

like the Bakken in North Dakota, as well as the Eagle Ford and 

the Permian Basin in Texas. These private developments were 

made possible in part by three decades of industrial research costshared by the Department of Energy into technologies such as hydraulic fracturing, horizontal drilling, and three-dimensional mapping. 

The Department of Energy has been actively engaged with our 

colleagues at the Department of Transportation in addressing the 

challenges associated with moving this wealth of new production to 

market. While the Department of Energy does not collect data on 

the specific volume of petroleum products transported by rail, data 

from the North Dakota Pipeline Authority indicates daily export 

volumes by rail from North Dakota have increased over the past 

few years from 70,000 barrels per day to over 700,000. 

There is growing public concern over the safety of transportation 

of crude oil by rail and the public is looking to the government for 

appropriate oversight and regulations to ensure their safety. These 

public concerns were voiced in Bismarck, North Dakota, last month 

at a public forum in which Secretary Ernie Moniz and Secretary of 

Transportation Foxx participated in as part of the Administration’s 

Quadrennial Energy Review. 

Ensuring public confidence in the safety of these shipments is a 

priority, particularly because this domestically produced oil is important for American energy security and our economic prosperity. 

To that end, it has become clear that the continued realization of 

this tremendous resource may require additional measures to address safety concerns of the communities where it is extracted and 

through which it is transported. 

In light of this new and growing resource, various efforts have 

been launched by the Federal and State Governments and industry 

to better understand the safety aspects of moving Bakken and 

other crude oils from tight oil formations. The most detailed understanding of the chemical and physical characteristics of Bakken 

crude oil is based on two studies: PHMSA’s Operation Safe Delivery report and a study by Turner, Mason & Company on behalf of 

the North Dakota Petroleum Council. 
16 

Based on our review of these two studies and drawing on our 

general knowledge of crude oil, the Department of Energy considers 

Bakken to be a light sweet crude oil that can be considered more 

volatile than some, but not necessarily all, of the other crude oils 

produced in the United States. 

The North Dakota Petroleum Council and the PHMSA studies 

are based on test and analyses of the physical and chemical properties of a statistically significant set of Bakken crude samples collected from above-ground storage tanks at various individual leases 

and rail-loading facilities throughout the Bakken. 

Volatility is a measure of the tendency for a material to vaporize; 

that is the ease with which it changes from a liquid to a gaseous 

state. Crude oil contains numerous different hydrocarbon components with different volatilities. The lower molecular weight hydrocarbon constituents such as ethane, propane, and butane are more 

volatile than hydrocarbons with high molecular weight, and the 

volatility of any particular crude oil will increase as the concentrations of these lower molecular weight constituents rise. 

DOE has not attempted to make any detailed comparison between Bakken crude oil and other forms of crude oil. In support of 

the Department of Transportation, which has the preponderance of 

federal regulatory responsibilities in this area, the Administration 

is considering further investigation into the properties of these 

crudes from tight oil formations and how these properties may attribute to their safe handling and transport. 

At the end of the day, if we are to realize the full potential of 

the type of oil found in the Bakken and other formations, we need 

to make sure that it is extracted and transported safely. The Department of Energy stands ready to lend its expertise and experience to that effort. 

With that, I would be happy to answer any questions that the 

Committee might have at this time, and thank you for giving me 

the opportunity to testify today. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Smith follows:] 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 

Chairwoman LUMMIS. Thank you, Mr. Smith. 

I now recognize our second witness, Mr. Butters, for five minutes. 

TESTIMONY OF MR. TIMOTHY BUTTERS, 

DEPUTY ADMINISTRATOR, PIPELINE AND HAZARDOUS 

MATERIALS SAFETY ADMINISTRATION, 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Mr. BUTTERS. Good afternoon. Madam Chairwoman Lummis, 

Chairman Broun, Members Swalwell and Maffei, and other members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you to discuss PHMSA’s data results and testing of Bakken 

shale crude oil. 

Safety is the number one priority for Secretary Foxx and everyone in PHMSA, as well as the other modal administrations within 

the U.S. Department of Transportation. It drives everything we do. 

PHMSA works diligently to protect people and the environment 

from the risks of hazardous materials by all modes of transportation, air, surface, marine, and pipeline. 

The United States is seeing historic highs in domestic production 

and transportation of crude oil and natural gas. This is a positive 

development for our nation’s economy and energy independence. 

These products are also considered hazardous materials and the 

safety responsibilities associated with their production and transportation are serious and significant. The volume of crude oil transported by rail, barge, pipeline, and truck throughout the United 

States is greater than ever, and it is DOT’s responsibility to ensure 

these hazardous materials are transported safely. 

The production of shale crude oil in the Bakken region has elevated North Dakota as the second-largest oil-producing State in the 

United States. As of March of 2014, over a million barrels of oil 

was produced every day in North Dakota, the majority of which 

was transported by rail. In 2009, as was noted earlier, approximately 11,000 carloads were moved by rail compared to more than 

400,000 in 2013. 

These compelling statistics and the recognition of DOT’s regulatory responsibility for safety is why Secretary Foxx and Administrator Quarterman deemed it important to visit the crude oil production facilities in North Dakota several times last year. Within 

the last year, DOT has taken aggressive actions on multiple fronts 

to reduce risks and ensure the safe transportation of crude oil and 

other flammable liquids by rail. These actions include more than 

two dozen initiatives to strengthen the way shale crude oil is delivered, including conducting unannounced spot inspections, issuing 

emergency orders, safety advisories, and proposing new regulations 

to enhance the safety of rail tank cars using the transport of this 

oil. 

In August 2013 we initiated Operation Classification in the 

Bakken Shale formation to verify and ensure that shippers were 

properly classifying crude oil for transportation in accordance with 

the Federal Hazardous Materials regulations. Observations by 

DOT field inspectors, coupled with the recent serious rail accidents 

in Canada and the United States involving shale crude oil led us 

to more closely examine crude oil being produced in the Bakken re-
27 

gion in terms of its flammability and volatility. PHMSA wanted to 

better understand the unique characteristics of mined gases and 

oils from the Bakken region and ascertain the range of physical 

and chemical properties. 

Operation Classification involved months of unannounced inspections, testing, and analysis of shade crude oil from the Bakken region. Our report, Operation Life Safety Update, which was released 

in July of this year, provides a summary of our testing and sampling activities from August of 2013 through May of 2014. During 

that period, a total of 135 samples were analyzed and are included 

in this summary. PHMSA contracted with Intertek Laboratories, a 

nationally recognized ISO 9001 certified lab to test all the crude oil 

samples. Operation Classification determined that Bakken Shale 

crude oil is more ignitable and flammable due to higher dissolved 

gas content, higher vapor pressure, lower flashpoint and boiling 

point than other types of crude and thus has a higher degree of volatility, which was noted as a tendency for a material to vaporize. 

PHMSA’s analysis notes that Bakken crude oil is more ignitable 

and flammable than any other types of—many other types of crude, 

specifically those heavy crude oils. Further, the majority of this 

crude oil displayed characteristics consistent with a Class 3 flammable liquid, Packing Group 1, which is the group designated for 

highest hazardous materials within a Class 3 flammable liquid category. 

Since PHMSA’s Operation Safe Delivery Update was issued, we 

continued our testing and sampling activities and we also refined 

our collection method. PHMSA now uses a closed sampling method 

through the use of a closed-type syringe to minimize the potential 

for any dissolved gases to escape during collection, thus providing 

increased accuracy. PHMSA is also taking samples at other shale 

locations around the United States to further compare and characterize crude oil with that of the Bakken region. 

PHMSA plans to provide updates to its testing and sampling activities and work with other government agencies and the regulated community to ensure the safe transportation of crude oil 

across the country. DOT appreciates this committee’s attention to 

this very important safety issue. If America is going to be a world 

leader in producing energy, it is the Department’s commitment and 

our job to ensure that we are also a world leader in transporting 

it safely. 

Thank you again for the opportunity to appear and I will be 

pleased to answer any questions you may have. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Butters follows:] 
28 
29 
30 
31 
32 
33 
34 
35 
36 
37 
38 
39 
40 
41 
42 
43 

Chairwoman LUMMIS. I thank the witnesses for their testimony. 

And we will now have a period of questioning. Each member of the 

committee will have five minutes to ask questions, beginning with 

the Chairman. So I will begin the questioning with five minutes. 

And, gentlemen, again thank you for being here today. 

I want to focus very narrowly on the scientific characteristics of 

Bakken crude. And my first question, Mr. Butters, is is Bakken 

light sweet crude oil different from other light sweet crude oils? 

Mr. BUTTERS. The Bakken Shale crude oil is generally consistent 

with other light sweet crude oils. 

Chairwoman LUMMIS. So it is fair to say that if you are comparing Bakken light sweet crude oil to other light sweet crude oils 

that are produced outside of the Bakken, that you have not yet 

found any different characteristics when comparing light sweet to 

light sweet? 

Mr. BUTTERS. Well, our data clearly shows that to this—the 

Bakken Shale crude oil is a highly flammable crude oil, and the 

data that has come from other sources, the petroleum industry, 

also suggest the same thing, that these lower boiling points, 

flashpoints, vapor pressures, et cetera, put this in a highly flammable category of oil. 

Chairwoman LUMMIS. Okay. My question, however, is does the 

Bakken light sweet crude differ in characteristics from other light 

sweet crudes? 

Mr. BUTTERS. Well, as I said, the data is consistent with flammability. And keep in mind that PHMSA’s role— 

Chairwoman LUMMIS. Excuse me. 

Mr. BUTTERS. I am sorry. 

Chairwoman LUMMIS. Consistent with flammability, so meaning 

light sweet crude from the Bakken compares equivalently with the 

flammability of light sweet crude from elsewhere? I am trying to 

compare apples to apples— 

Mr. BUTTERS. I understand— 

Chairwoman LUMMIS. —light sweet to light sweet. 

Mr. BUTTERS. I understand that. Keep in mind that our analysis 

was—there were two objectives for our analysis. One was to better 

understand the chemical and physical properties of the Bakken 

crude oil— 

Chairwoman LUMMIS. Um-hum. 

Mr. BUTTERS. —and because of the risk in the volume that is 

moving across this country, that is why the focus was on that material. 

Chairwoman LUMMIS. Okay. And— 

Mr. BUTTERS. The second purpose was to ensure that shippers 

were classifying this oil properly prior to transportation. 

Chairwoman LUMMIS. Excellent. Am I—I understand what the 

purpose was. Right now I am just concentrating on the science and 

I am trying to make an apples-to-apples comparison. Is Bakken 

crude more volatile than other light sweet crude that is not produced in the Bakken? Yes or no? 

Mr. BUTTERS. All I can speak to is the analysis that we conducted on the Bakken shale oil, notChairwoman LUMMIS. Okay. So you haven’t studied other light 

sweet crudes? You have only studied Bakken light sweet crudes? 
44 

Mr. BUTTERS. We have taken samples of—from other shale plays, 

but the predominant sampling that we have taken is from the 

Bakken region. And again, it is because of our role in terms of the 

transportation of this— 

Chairwoman LUMMIS. Um-hum. 

Mr. BUTTERS. —hazardous material, we wanted to be sure that 

we, number one, understood what it wasChairwoman LUMMIS. Um-hum. 

Mr. BUTTERS. —and, number two, that shippers were properly 

classifying this material, putting it in the proper container prior to 

transportation. 

Chairwoman LUMMIS. Mr. Smith, is Bakken light sweet crude 

different from other light sweet crude in terms of volatility, flammability? 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you for the question, Chairman—Chairwoman. 

So, generally speaking, so I give an answer that is generally consistent with the answer that Mr. Butters gave, it is generally consistent in many cases with other light sweet crudes but I would 

note that crude oils vary— 

Chairwoman LUMMIS. Yes. 

Mr. SMITH. —in their composition, they vary in the geologic settings in which they are created, and therefore, every crude oil is 

going to be different. But as a general categorization, crude oil that 

is coming out of light—out of tight formations will tend to have a 

higher level of volatility than most but not necessarily every other 

light crude. But again, to emphasize that every crude oil—crude 

oils are complex—they are complex materials. They are all different, as anyone who has worked in the refining sector or other 

processing or chemical sectors will tell you, crude oils are different, 

they vary, and it is something that bears— 

Chairwoman LUMMIS. Okay. 

Mr. SMITH. —further study. 

Chairwoman LUMMIS. Acknowledging that crude oils are different, all I am really interested in was the yes or no, whether 

Bakken has been found to be different from other light sweet 

crudes. I will take it that the answer is no, it has not been found 

to be different from other light sweet crudes; it has been found to 

be different from intermediate crudes and heavies? 

Mr. SMITH. Well, that is not exactly the answer I gave. The answer is that all crudes are different and Bakken crudes would tend 

to be more volatile than many other light crudes. But again, all— 

Chairwoman LUMMIS. Oh, so it is different? 

Mr. SMITH. All— 

Chairwoman LUMMIS. Do we know it is different? Is it different? 

Mr. SMITH. So we do know that Bakken crudes, when you compare them to other—first of all, we do know that all crudes are different. 

Chairwoman LUMMIS. Right. 

Mr. SMITH. You look at chemical compositions of crude oil that 

comes from different sources, you do see lots of differences in crude 

oils. So there are things that we know, there are things that we 

don’t know, so I can’t categorically compare Bakken crude with 

every other crude that exists, but I can state that there are dif-
45 

ferences within crude oils and oil that comes out of tight formations 

does tend to have a higher level of volatility than crudes that come 

out of other sources. 

Chairwoman LUMMIS. My time is expired. I now recognize Mr. 

Swalwell for five minutes. 

Mr. SWALWELL. Thank you, Chairwoman Lummis. 

Mr. Butters, in PHMSA’s July 23 report entitled ‘‘Operation Safe 

Delivery Update,’’ did you find any substantial difference in the 

volatility of Bakken crude when compared to other light sweet 

crudes like West Texas Intermediate or Brent Crude just to try and 

clarify and follow up on the Chairman’s question? 

Mr. BUTTERS. I understand. The purpose of the report was not 

to compare different types of crude oil. The purpose of our study 

was to understand the physical and chemical characteristics of the 

product because of our role as the safety oversight agency in the 

transportation of hazardous materials. 

Mr. SWALWELL. Would it be safe to say then that you did not intend to indicate any such difference? 

Mr. BUTTERS. Our intent was to understand the product, the 

physical and chemical properties of the product in terms of its 

flammability, to ensure that it was being properly classified and 

categorized for transportation. If you look at the range of crude oils 

ranging from the very heavy to the very light, Bakken crude oil 

falls on the light side and therefore consistent with higher flammability ranges. 

Mr. SWALWELL. And a Bakken crude oil on the light side, the 

light sweet crude, would be more volatile, correct, than a crude imported from Saudi Arabia or Venezuela categorized as a heavy 

crude? 

Mr. BUTTERS. Well, that would have to be compared against its 

chemical and physical properties. 

Mr. SWALWELL. Can you tell us how the chemical and physical 

properties can help us determine volatility? 

Mr. BUTTERS. Certainly. In the case of the Bakken crude oil, it 

has a higher amount of dissolved gases, the C1’s through C4’s, for 

example. The flashpoint is lower, which is the temperature at 

which there is a higher propensity to ignite. The boiling point is 

lower, which is the point at which the liquid tends to vaporize. And 

all of that contributes to increased flammability. 

Mr. SWALWELL. And is PHMSA in any way attempting to inhibit 

the development of Bakken crude or do you believe that it is solely 

focused on ensuring that when we develop and transport this domestic resource we do it as safely and as reasonably as possible? 

Mr. BUTTERS. The latter. We—our responsibilities are to ensure 

that hazardous materials, no matter what form they are in, are 

properly classified and put in the proper container, properly communicated in accordance with the hazmat regulations. 

Mr. SWALWELL. And Mr.—and thank you, Mr. Butters. 

Mr. Smith, does DOE have any estimate on the size of this resource, meaning how long do you think Bakken crude will be 

around and explorable? 

Mr. SMITH. Well, thank you for the question, Congressman. 

So it is a very large resource. So our estimate is it is something 

over three billion barrels of crude resources, and that is indeed a 
46 

moving target because when you look at proven resources, the 

measure of proven resources is based on your economic and commercial ability to produce the formations. So it is safe to say it is 

a very, very large formation, it is a very large resource, and we 

think it is going to be an important part of our energy mix for 

years to come. 

Mr. SWALWELL. Great, thank you. I yield back the balance of my 

time. 

And if the Chairman has any further questions, I would be 

happy to yield to the Chairman for followup. 

Chairwoman LUMMIS. I thank the gentleman and I will actually 

allow you to surrender that time and yield to Mr. Broun. 

Mr. BROUN. Chairman, before we start my time and questioning, 

I would like to take a point of personal privilege just to make a 

statement, and that is that we can see now why did we invite technical scientific experts in the field instead of political witnesses? 

Mr. Butters, your inability to provide us a clear answer to not 

only Chairman Lummis’ questions but even my friend Mr. 

Swalwell’s questions about this, you are not providing us straight 

answers, and that just reinforces what I said in my beginning 

statement. 

So if I could have my time, I would appreciate it. That is the reason why I am so extremely disappointed in the Administration not 

providing technical witnesses. 

Chairwoman LUMMIS. The Chair recognizes Mr. Broun. 

Mr. BROUN. Thank you, Madam Chair. If you would start my 

time, thank you. 

Mr. Butters, the PHMSA study claims that while Bakken crude 

‘‘does not demonstrate the characteristics of a flammable gas, corrosive liquid, or toxic material, it is more volatile than other types 

of crude, which correlates to increased ignitability and flammability.’’ Is the claim about ignitability and flammability a scientific 

assessment or are they synonymous with the term volatility, and 

if not, is the report projecting a false image of the properties of 

Bakken crude? 

Mr. BUTTERS. If I understand—Congressman, if I understand 

your question, our analysis of the Bakken Shale crude oil clearly 

characterized this material as highly flammable due to its low 

flashpoint, low boiling point, vapor pressures. 

Mr. BROUN. Well, we understand it is flammable— 

Mr. BUTTERS. Yes. 

Mr. BROUN. —but is ignitability and flammability synonymous 

with volatility? 

Mr. BUTTERS. Well, volatility in the science vernacular is a material’s propensity to vaporize, and so as a flammable liquid has a 

higher propensity to vaporize, then it introduces—it has a higher 

likelihood of ignitability because of the low pressure— 

Mr. BROUN. Can you answer yes or no to this question? I don’t 

get what these— 

Mr. BUTTERS. Well, I am trying to answer the question. 

Mr. BROUN. I have got limited time. I have got several questions. 

Mr. BUTTERS. Okay. 

Mr. BROUN. Okay. Obviously you can’t answer it. Again, that just 

reiterates my disappointment. 
47 

Following up with you, Mr. Smith, according to your written testimony, ‘‘DOE believes that more scientific analysis is needed to 

better define the relationship between volatility and ignitability/ 

flammability.’’ This appears to contradict the PHMSA conclusion, 

what we heard this mumbo-jumbo from Mr. Butters. So just to be 

absolutely clear, is it fair to say that DOE’s position is that volatility is not a sufficient indicator of a material’s ignitability and 

flammability characteristics, and that this conclusion in the 

PHMSA report may be exaggerating the conclusiveness of volatility 

as it relates to other petroleum characteristics? 

Mr. SMITH. Well, thank you for the question, Congressman. 

So what I can speak to is DOE’s experience and the research 

that we are doing and the science and the risk that has to do with 

moving these hydrocarbons. So I can— 

Mr. BROUN. You all ask that there be more scientific analysis, 

that is correct? 

Mr. SMITH. That is what we are undertaking. 

Mr. BROUN. Okay. 

Mr. SMITH. That is correct. 

Mr. BROUN. And it is the discussion between the volatility versus 

the ignitability and flammability, you see that as two different 

issues from your own written statement, whereas Mr. Butters is 

saying they are basically one in the same— 

Mr. SMITH. Well— 

Mr. BROUN. —so you all contradict each other. 

Mr. SMITH. I did not— 

Mr. BROUN. Would you agree with that? 

Mr. SMITH. I did not hear him say they are one in the same, but 

I can tell you what DOE’s position is, which is generally consistent 

with the position coming out of PHMSA. Volatility, flammability, 

ignitability are different things. They are different characteristics. 

Volatility, as Mr. Butters explained, is the propensity of a material 

to vaporize, so that is your light ends coming out of the crude. 

Ignitability and flammability are properties of the material in 

terms of their propensity to ignite, to catch fire, or to burn, so— 

Mr. BROUN. Well, water vaporizes, too, so it is not ignitable, so 

it is two different things here, is that— 

Mr. SMITH. And— 

Mr. BROUN. And that is what you all are saying but Mr. Butters 

is trying to equate them in my opinion. Let me ask you both this: 

Would you agree that gasoline and even more so ethanol is more 

volatile, particularly volatile and also has a greater flammability 

than does light crude? Would you both agree to that? 

Mr. SMITH. Ethanol is— 

Mr. BROUN. Yes or no? Ethanol more than light crude? 

Mr. SMITH. Ethanol is a very well understood and consistent— 

Mr. BROUN. Yes or no? 

Mr. SMITH. I can’t— 

Mr. BROUN. Is it more volatile and more flammable than is light 

crude? 

Mr. SMITH. I can’t give you a yes or no answer to that question. 

Mr. BROUN. Okay. Mr. Butters— 

Mr. SMITH. I could explain the different between the two. 

Mr. BROUN. —do you want to answer yes or no to this? 
48 

Mr. BUTTERS. That answer—a yes or no answer would not do the 

question justice, Mr. Congressman. 

Mr. BROUN. Well, ethanol, it evaporates—if we were to pour out 

some ethanol on the desk right there, it would evaporate much 

quicker than light crude would, and if you set a match to it, it 

would be easier to set it on fire than it would be light crude no 

matter what kind of light crude, whether it is Bakken light crude. 

You all never answered Chairwoman Lummis’ question because we 

really don’t know. We need more scientific analysis. 

The best way to transport all these things would be by pipeline, 

and this Administration has blocked pipeline production. And I am, 

as well as my Democratic colleagues are, very concerned about 

safety. I am a physician and to me it is tragic that this Administration is blocking the transportation of not only Bakken light crude 

but Canadian oil sands crude and any other crude. We need to 

have pipelines instead of—and transport these things in a very safe 

way. 

Madam Chair, my time is run out. I yield back. 

Chairwoman LUMMIS. The Chair now recognizes Mr. Maffei. 

Mr. MAFFEI. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

I am going to take this opportunity to do the rare thing of disagreeing with my friend from Georgia about these witnesses. And 

I don’t know what—maybe I am misinterpreting what he is saying, 

but I feel— 

Mr. BROUN. Would the gentleman yield— 

Mr. MAFFEI. Well, let me tell you my disagreement first and then 

I am happy to yield. 

So I—look, if you ask for specific witnesses and the Departments 

didn’t give you those specific witnesses, that is fine. I don’t see how 

it is a point of personal privilege, but that is something different. 

But I will say this, the reason why these gentlemen are not able 

to answer your or the good Chairwoman’s question are not because 

they are not qualified to answer them; it is because you are asking 

questions as if they are yes and no that don’t have yes and no answers. 

Now, we on the Science Committee have a bit of a responsibility 

I believe to at least respect the language that science uses, and 

science doesn’t always have easy yes or no answers. If you want to 

go to the Committee on Oversight and—the full Committee on 

Oversight and question people about this email or that email being 

lost or something, that is when you can say yes or no, but you are 

actually—the gentlemen are frankly more in agreement I believe 

with the point of view that you are interested in getting, but because you are consistently badgering them by saying yes or no, yes 

or no, it is not going to lead to what you want. 

And frankly, Mr.—Chairman Broun, using the term mumbojumbo to describe Mr. Butters’ testimony I found offensive. He is 

here, he has, I thought, written very good and informed testimony, 

and I just—so I am taking this rare opportunity to say that. You 

and I don’t disagree very often about the operations of this committee, but I really think that these two gentlemen deserve respect. 

For whatever reason they are the people from these—they are distinguished public servants from these particular agencies and they 
49 

are giving us good information to the best of their ability given 

the—what you are asking. 

I am happy to yield. 

Mr. BROUN. I thank the gentleman for yielding. The question 

was we invited scientific technical experts but the Administration 

refused to provide those to us. The witnesses we have are political 

experts, and the statement about mumbo-jumbo was basically 

geared towards—volatility is a scientific, measurable—as well as 

flammability are scientific, measurable issues, and what I was saying is that the answer I was getting was not based on science but 

it is because, as you say, they are doing the best they can and I 

do respect every—I apologize— 

Mr. MAFFEI. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Butters, do you have any 

scientific qualifications? What is your background? 

Mr. BUTTERS. My background is I have been in the emergency 

response business for well over 30 years, primarily in hazardous 

materials. I—as an operational officer with both Fairfax County 

and Fairfax City and as Chairman of the Hazardous Materials 

Committee for the International Association of Fire Chiefs. I have 

handled a number of hazardous materials incidents in the field. I 

understand how hazardous materials behave. I have had background training in hazardous materials chemistry. Am I a chemist 

by formal education? No. But I do have quite a bit of experience 

in this particular area and I have been managing—overseeing this 

Operation Safe Delivery since its inception. At the Department of 

Transportation I was specifically assigned this because of my background in this area, and— 

Mr. MAFFEI. Thank you, Mr. Butters. I don’t mean to interrupt 

you, but I will take the opportunity to thank you for your service 

and probably at personal risk to you at times during your career. 

My point is simply that I am not sure if you are right, Mr. 

Broun. I acknowledge that when we asked for a particular witness, 

we should get a good reason for that—why that witness isn’t coming forth from the Administration. But that said, I believe if these 

witnesses were—gave you even more scientific answers, you would 

be even more frustrated with them. You are asking for a comparison of volatility that both of you—but as far as I remember both 

of you asked for a comparison of volatility to all crude oils or to all 

light sweet crude oils, and they can’t answer those questions because there are so many different variables. I, by the way, messed 

up in my opening statement. I defined volatility as something that 

I think is probably closer to flammability, and even that was probably a colloquial definition. 

These are scientific issues and I just—I don’t know, I implore 

that all of us should understand that the—when we are asking 

these questions that may have complex answers—you know, we are 

not on the campaign trail. We should allow the witnesses to give 

us that complex answer and—that you may be surprised that that 

answer actually comports fine. I mean my view on this is that it 

is going to be transported; sure, it is volatile but so is so many 

other things that we transport. It is just because of the increased 

volume that is being transported we need to look at the safety considerations, no more, no less. 

I would—I am over time so thank you very much. 
50 

Chairwoman LUMMIS. The Chair now recognizes Mr. Cramer, the 

gentleman from North Dakota. 

Mr. CRAMER. I thank the Chair and I thank the witnesses. 

I want to also say I appreciate Secretary Moniz and Secretary 

Foxx, who have been very engaged with—at least with the North 

Dakota Delegation on this topic, and Administrator Quarterman as 

well. 

And I wanted to focus a little bit—Mr. Butters, in your pre-filed 

testimony on page 7 you state that the focus on the Bakken region 

is because there was some question of whether materials were 

properly classified and characterized by shippers. Did you find any 

misclassified—obviously this would be an area of your expertise I 

suspect quite specifically, but find this classified material in the 

course of the research? 

Mr. BUTTERS. Thank you, Congressman. Yes, we did. We did— 

as part of our inspections, we did find some shippers were using 

generic safety data sheets, MSDSs, as their tool for classifying this 

material. They were not analyzing the actual product that they 

were offering for transportation. And classification of the product 

correctly and accurately is critical to ensure that it is transported 

safely. 

Mr. CRAMER. So I want—then I want to get to the packing group 

designation, which I think you speak to as well in your testimony. 

Why is light crude like Bakken or WTI—why is it—it is regulated 

under Packing Group 1—I think you testified to that—while ethanol, gasoline, and other flammables are—volatile Class 3 liquids 

are regulated under Packing Group number 2, which is less stringent is my understanding? Understanding these other Class 3 

flammable liquids are being transported using the DOT 111’s, how 

do we reconcile that with what we are seeing from the rules? So 

you have a less stringent fuel that is classified more dangerous 

or—more dangerous in my view if I understand this correctly being 

classified as less dangerous in terms of the packing class? Am I 

misreading this? 

Mr. BUTTERS. Let me see if I can answer your question. Obviously, our safety regulations divide hazardous materials into 9 

DOT classes. Bakken Shale oil is classified as a Class 3 flammable 

liquid. Within that class, as in all 9 classes, there are 3 packing 

groups. Packing Group 3 is considered the least hazardous, Packing 

Group 2, sort of median level— 

Mr. CRAMER. Right. 

Mr. BUTTERS. —and Packing Group 1 is considered the highest 

hazard of a—for material. So the Bakken crude oil, because of its 

flammability, has been determined to be a Packing Group 1 material. 

Mr. CRAMER. So—and as I understand this, ethanol Packing 

Group 2 then? 

Mr. BUTTERS. Yes. 

Mr. CRAMER. So I want to get then to Chairman Broun’s illustration and realize maybe you can’t answer it from a compound standpoint, so let me ask it from a layman’s standpoint. If I had a 1 gallon container of ethanol and a 1 gallon container of sweet light 

crude—let’s call it Bakken today—and I drop a match in each one, 

which one is going to ignite? 
51 

Mr. BUTTERS. Well, they will both ignite. They both have flammable—flammability characteristics that they will ignite. I mean 

I—it is hard to say under the scenario you are describing but they 

both—both products have flammability—you know, flammability 

ranges that will support combustion— 

Mr. CRAMER. But if one is a number 1 and one is a number 2, 

it seems that the number 1, which in this case is light crude, would 

be more flammable, more ignitable than the other unless there is 

something that I am not understanding. Is there some dynamic beyond that that I am not understanding? Because from a layman’s 

standpoint it is hard to believe that light sweet crude is more ignitable then refined petroleum product like ethanol or gasoline. 

Mr. BUTTERS. Well, again, it is based on its flashpoint and boiling point, and that determines which packing group the flammable 

liquid is assigned to under our regulations. 

Mr. CRAMER. So an equal flame dropped in the two containers, 

they would respond roughly the same or differently? 

Mr. BUTTERS. They would both ignite is—if that is— 

Mr. CRAMER. Okay. And then I want to go with one other thing 

before I run out of time. Do you guys worry—you mentioned in 

your testimony that more study is necessary and we talked about 

a specific focus on Bakken sweet crude. Are there plans to broaden 

the study considering all the plays that might be out there and all 

the potential there might be for a lot more of this product to be 

moved by rail? 

Mr. BUTTERS. Well, we are going to continue our sampling this 

year and then we will continue to look at the need for additional 

sampling as we go forward. 

One point I would want to mention about the difference between 

the Bakken Shale oil and ethanol, ethanol is a refined product— 

Mr. CRAMER. Um-hum. 

Mr. BUTTERS. —unlike the Bakken oil, which is essentially a raw 

product that comes right out of the ground and essentially may go 

through—some goes through a heated treated process to remove 

some of the gas content, but it is transported in a very raw form, 

so that is important to understand in terms of how the product is 

treated for classification. 

Mr. CRAMER. Sure, but we are talking—yes, I understand that, 

but if we are talking about flammability, what happens, I don’t 

know that—beforehand that doesn’t matter but I am way over 

time. Thank you. 

Chairwoman LUMMIS. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from 

Texas, Mr. Veasey, for five minutes. 

Mr. VEASEY. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

I wanted to ask Mr. Smith just to help us understand and give 

me a better understanding of the difference between these psi readings because I was reading an article that said that in the Bakken 

there were vapor pressure readings of over 8 psi and sometimes 

those readings reached as high as 9.7 psi. Now, when you compare 

that to—according to this pipeline data, the Louisiana light sweet 

crude had a vapor pressure reading of 3.33 psi. How significant of 

a difference is that when we talk about volatility? 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you, Congressman, for the question. 
52 

So when you look at these psi ratings, that is a measure of vapor 

pressure for the various types of crude. So the vapor pressure is a 

measure of the light ends that is included in the crudes, be it ethane, propane, butane. So light crudes generally have a psi rating, 

you know, somewhere around 10. The higher the rating, the more 

ethane, butane, propane will be in the crude. So when you look at 

those statistics, and I am not sure exactly where the ones that you 

cite are from but I can say directionally a higher psi rating will 

just include—will indicate that there is a greater content of the 

lighter ends within the crude. 

Mr. VEASEY. Okay. The—also from this same article, this study 

that I am looking at, it says that Tesoro Corporation, which is a 

major transport of the Bakken crude to the West Coast, said that 

it regularly received shipments from the Bakken with psi readings 

sometimes up to 12 psi. Now, was it—would that be an unusually 

high reading? 

Mr. SMITH. We would expect Bakken crudes to have vapor pressure readings from, say, 10 to 14— 

Mr. VEASEY. 10 to 14, okay. 

Mr. SMITH. —in that general range, so that would be fairly consistent for a crude coming from that part of the country. 

Mr. VEASEY. Okay. Mr. Butters, I wanted to ask you, I know that 

the Chief of Staff for the Department of Transportation has said 

that it was really imperative that the petroleum industry and other 

stakeholders work with DOT to share data so you can make assessments as far as, you know, safety is concerned. Is that data-sharing—I mean that was from a quote from your Chief of Staff earlier 

this year. Are you getting the sort of cooperation you need to ensure public safety? 

Mr. BUTTERS. Yes, we have been—the industry has been forthcoming in sharing the data that they have compiled, both the 

North Dakota Petroleum Council, the Association of Fuel Marketing, which represents the refiners, did some analysis. They 

shared that data with us. And individual companies have also 

shared their analysis with us as well. 

Mr. VEASEY. Oh, well—yes, that is good. That is good. So I just 

wanted to close and ask you this—and I will yield back the time, 

depending on when you when you finish, to the Chairwoman—just 

from a public safety standpoint, from a pure public safety standpoint, is it better to ship this stuff by rail or by pipeline? 

Mr. BUTTERS. Our role as the transportation safety agency is to 

ensure that any hazardous material, regardless of mode, is properly classified so it safely moves through that mode of transportation. There is a number of factors that can—that factor into 

which mode is selected, but again, our role is really to ensure that 

if it is moving in transportation, that it is properly classified and 

properly contained in the package that it is moving in to maximize 

safety. 

Mr. VEASEY. Thank you, Mr. Butters. And, Madam Chair, if you 

don’t mind, I would like to yield the remaining 45 seconds to Mr. 

Maffei, please. 

Chairwoman LUMMIS. Mr. Maffei. 

Mr. MAFFEI. I only have one quick question, but I think what we 

are all trying to get at is the same thing, which is this stuff more— 
53 

forgetting the word flammable, volatile—is it more dangerous? And 

of course it is hard because there are so many different kinds of 

light crude. But let me ask it this way. Assuming comparable safety precautions, Mr. Butters, would you be more concerned about a 

trainload full of Bakken crude oil or a trainload full of light crude 

oil from—imported? Would it be more—no, I am talking about light 

in both cases. 

Mr. BUTTERS. Well, I guess I would need to understand again the 

flammability of both products. I mean if we are talking about everything being equal, that both products you are describing are— 

Mr. MAFFEI. So the problem is you don’t know what kind of light 

sweet crude it is—would be that I am comparing it to I would 

imagine butMr. BUTTERS. Well, that is right. I mean you would need to know 

the chemical and physical characteristics— 

Mr. BROUN. Why don’t you just assume Bakken versus Bakken? 

Mr. BUTTERS. Yeah. 

Mr. MAFFEI. So same, Mr. Smith. Is there—there is nothing 

about this that makes it particularly more dangerous than other 

kinds of light sweet crude; it is just it depends on the particularities of both, is that right? 

Mr. SMITH. I think that is an appropriate characterization. 

The one thing I would say to that is that when—so again, we are 

not the rule makers so we work with the Department of Transportation in making the rule, but when we think about the risk of 

complex systems, be they the Deepwater Horizon offshore or issues 

with other unconventional oil and gas production, it is a systemic 

question. So the concern that we would have when we look at this 

is the fact that you have gone from 70,000 barrels per day of being 

moved by rail to 700,000 barrels being moved per day. It is up— 

it is an order of magnitude of 10, and so that is where the risk 

comes in and that is where— 

Mr. MAFFEI. I am out of time and I don’t want to impose on the 

Committee. But, yeah—no—but everything else being equal, that is 

the thing so— 

Mr. SMITH. Yeah, but— 

Mr. MAFFEI. —but we will explore the volume part later. 

Mr. SMITH. If I might add that that is an important factor. If you 

describe risk as probability times consequence, this material as a 

flammable liquid has significant consequences, as this photograph 

from Castleton indicates. The more volume that moves, that probability also goes up, so risk goes up, and that is really why we have 

focused on ensuring that this product is transported safely. 

Chairwoman LUMMIS. I assume you yield back? 

Mr. MAFFEI. Oh, yeah, yeah. I am way out of time. I apologize, 

Madam Chair. 

Chairwoman LUMMIS. Thank you. And I do appreciate your efforts at trying to get to the heart of this. I don’t know why we 

are—yeah, I don’t know why we are struggling so, but the Chair— 

perhaps Mr. Johnson can help us. The gentleman from Ohio is recognized. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Well, we will see, Madam Chairman. Thank you. 

Mr. Smith, I appreciated your phone call a few weeks ago, 

months ago about the newly revamped LNG export decision-mak-
54 

ing process that your office recently implemented whereby you are 

electing not to consider export authorization applications until individual projects had completed their environmental reviews. Currently two major export projects in Texas and Louisiana that completed their environmental reviews months ago are still waiting on 

final authorizations from DOE. So how have you actually streamlined your process if these two major projects continue to suffer 

under these undue administrative delays? Because as I recall our 

conversation, we talked about a decision forthcoming within weeks, 

not months, and certainly not years. So help me out. 

Mr. SMITH. Well, thank you for the question, Congressman. First 

of all, the new process ensures that instead of walking down some 

predetermined queue of projects, we are now considering those 

projects on a case-by-case basis once they are ready to be considered by the Department, which means they have finished all of 

their process— 

Mr. JOHNSON. Okay. These two have, so what happened? 

Mr. SMITH. So the next project in the queue is Cameron, which 

has recently finished the Notice for Rehearing at FERC. Once the 

project is finished the Notice for Rehearing, then it is eligible to be 

considered by the Department. So that project has not been waiting 

in the queue for months. It actually very recently finished that 

process, and we are right now going through the possibly—evaluating that project for consideration so— 

Mr. JOHNSON. Do you have any idea on the timeline for it? 

Mr. SMITH. I can’t give a commitment on timing but what I can 

say is the Department is committed to moving as expeditiously as 

possible and we are moving through that process— 

Mr. JOHNSON. But you are still committed to weeks, not months, 

as you talked to me about, correct? 

Mr. SMITH. Each project is going to be different but certainly we 

think that the pace for doing these projects should be consistent 

with the pace that we have had in past projects, which has been 

on the order of weeks. 

Mr. JOHNSON. What about Freeport? 

Mr. SMITH. Indeed. So as these projects are ready to be considered, they will be considered in due course— 

Mr. JOHNSON. Are they ready? 

Mr. SMITH. Freeport is still passing through that process right 

now, but again, once they are finished with the rehearing, once 

they are done with the FERC process— 

Mr. JOHNSON. So they are not done as far as you are—as far as 

you know? 

Mr. SMITH. My understanding is that the Cameron project is finished with the rehearing and I am not sure off the top of my head 

about whether or not the Freeport project— 

Mr. JOHNSON. Okay. We—it was our—it was my understanding 

that they were both completed with that process and had been 

waiting for—had been finished months ago and were now waiting 

on DOE authorization. So we have got differing things so I might 

reach out your office and let’s compare notes and see what we have 

got. 

Mr. SMITH. We would be happy to follow up—I will follow up on 

that. 
55 

Mr. JOHNSON. Also, in your prepared testimony you say that 

DOE believes that more scientific analysis is needed to better define the relationship between volatility and ignitability and flammability. So, Mr. Smith, did DOE review the methodology used by 

PHMSA to arrive at the conclusion that increased volatility correlates with increased ignitability and flammability? 

Mr. SMITH. Well, thank you for the question. So we have an ongoing discussion with PHMSA, so our view on volatility, ignitability, and flammability, again, those are different properties of 

any material. We think that in a laboratory setting for crude oil, 

higher volatility is going to be consistent with higher light ends, 

which do have a higher degree of flammability and volatility. When 

you are actually looking at a very complex system like a railcar 

overturning within a containment system that may or may not 

have the crude contained, which may or may not have pressure 

regulation devices, et cetera, that is a much more complex question 

that has—that is worthy of a lot more study. 

So to say categorically that over all cases that volatility is correlated with ignitability and flammability is probably further than 

we can demonstrate through our scientific studies, but we know in 

a laboratory setting when you know that the vapor—the material 

that is being vaporized is flammable, in a laboratory setting, again, 

there would be a correlation. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Okay. Well, quickly because I am almost out of 

time, can you provide expected benchmarks to this committee explaining what DOE intends to learn about the characteristics and 

behavior of Bakken petroleum? 

Mr. SMITH. So we are going through the Statement of Work right 

now for this study. This is a new area of research for the Department. It is worth noting that the rate at which tight oil has increased production recently has been very dramatic. This is a new 

issue for us in terms of detailed study of having these crudes by 

rail. So we are going through right now that Statement of Work, 

which essentially is going to be able to allow us to offer more precise questions to the question you just asked, which is in the real 

world with a real railcar with a real derailment with a real fire, 

what would be the relationship between vapor pressure, volatility, 

ignitability, flammability? Those are some things that we haven’t 

done again in real practical applications so we need to move from 

the lab to kind of the real-world laboratory of real railcars. So 

those are the types of questions that we will be able to answer and 

our Statement of Work will make that much more clear as we develop it. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Okay. All right. Thank you. 

Madam Chairman, I yield back. 

Chairwoman LUMMIS. The Chair now recognizes the gentleman 

from Texas, Mr. Weber. 

Mr. WEBER. So that was an interesting exchange talking about 

the railcars overturning, and of course you know, my grandfather 

used to say that to a hammer everything looks like a nail, and I 

guess to a match everything looks like it is ignitable. So if a railcar 

overturns, what it really needs is an ignition source. Is that true, 

Mr. Smith? 
56 

Mr. SMITH. If there is going to be a fire, there has to be an ignition source. 

Mr. WEBER. It has got to have an ignition source? 

Mr. SMITH. That is correct. 

Mr. WEBER. Mr. Butters, you mentioned earlier that PHMSA 

went out and collected crude oil samples and I think you said they 

got them from the tanks around and about presumably in North 

Dakota? 

Mr. BUTTERS. Congressman, we drew samples from a number of 

different sources. 

Mr. WEBER. Well, we are talking about the Bakken Shale. 

Mr. BUTTERS. Right, but I am—we drew samples from tanks, 

from railcars, from different— 

Mr. WEBER. Okay. 

Mr. BUTTERS. —points in the transportation process. But— 

Mr. WEBER. So you have had quite a bit of discussion about the 

hydrates that are located—the ethanes, the butanes, the propanes, 

and those types of liquids that are involved in that shale oil and 

the fact that it is lighter and sweeter? 

Mr. BUTTERS. Right, the isomers that are— 

Mr. WEBER. That is right. So—and I want to—Freon changes 

state twice in the system from a liquid to a gas and back to a liquid 

so I am familiar with the boiling off and the vaporization point. So 

is it safer for pipelines? There is a number of facilities that will 

take that crude and dehydrate it at various different places, assuming they can get the permit from the DOE and from the government. But the quicker they dehydrate that oil, the safer it is? 

Mr. BUTTERS. Well, again, our role in this process is to ensure 

that any— 

Mr. WEBER. Let me rephrase the question. Less ethanes, less 

butanes, less propanes in crude oil, less volatility? 

Mr. BUTTERS. If you are reducing the flammable constituencies 

of a product, then, yes, it becomesMr. WEBER. Okay. We finally got a yes. So we would think that 

any pipeline situation—and you may probably know that the pipeline history has a 99.9 percent safety rating. Were you aware of 

that? 

Mr. BUTTERS. Both pipeline and rail are a very safe mode of 

transportation. 

Mr. WEBER. But rail does not have the same rating as a pipeline, 

are you aware of that? 

Mr. BUTTERS. I am very familiar with the transportation of hazardous materials by rail, pipeline, and other methods. 

Mr. WEBER. Okay. And they do not have the same rating, is that 

true, in safety? 

Mr. BUTTERS. Depending on the product that is moved— 

Mr. WEBER. Okay. Well, let me— 

Mr. BUTTERS. —the pipeline and— 

Mr. WEBER. I am glad I could be here today if for no other reason 

than to help you. They don’t. Okay. Pipelines are the safest. So 

with that in mind, pipeline would be the best way to move this 

product with a higher safety rating and less hydrates, agree? 

Mr. BUTTERS. Again, PHMSA and DOT’s role in this is to ensure— 
57 

Mr. WEBER. Okay. Let me move on. 

Mr. BUTTERS. —that any product moving in transportationMr. WEBER. Let me move on. When PHMSA went out and took 

those samples, and again my question was did they have less hydrates or more hydrates in them, but when PHMSA went out and 

took those samples, how did you get—how did the PHMSA employees get there? Did they drive? 

Mr. BUTTERS. Did they—well, they went to the jobsites. Is that 

what your—the question? 

Mr. WEBER. No, how did they get to those jobsites? Did they 

drive vehicles? 

Mr. BUTTERS. Yes, they did. 

Mr. WEBER. Did they have gasoline in those vehicles? 

Mr. BUTTERS. Yes. 

Mr. WEBER. Did they know the volatility ratings of that gasoline? 

Mr. BUTTERS. Do I know the volatility ofMr. WEBER. I— 

Mr. BUTTERS. —refined gasoline? 

Mr. WEBER. I asked you first. 

Mr. BUTTERS. I don’t have that specific data in front of me but— 

Mr. WEBER. Okay. Were you all concerned about that volatility 

when the—were you concerned about the employees’ safety driving 

that vehicle with gasoline in it with the high volatility rate? 

Mr. BUTTERS. Well, keeping in mind that the risk that we are addressing is the volume of the product that is moving through transportation. A 20-gallon gasoline tank on a vehicle doesn’t pose the 

same degree of risk as a 105-car train with 20,000 gallons of product— 

Mr. WEBER. You are making my argument for me. So now we 

can come back full circle and say that a pipeline is a safer way of 

moving that than a train. 

Mr. BUTTERS. The question—Congressman, the question you 

asked is if a vehicle carrying gasoline is riskier than a train. 

Mr. WEBER. And— 

Mr. BUTTERS. That was the question. 

Mr. WEBER. So you can compare those two risks and now you 

would also have to say that a pipeline with a 99.9 percent safety 

rating would be safer than a train. Do you know of any people in 

Canada, the 40 or so that was killed by rail accident here a year 

or so back? Do you know of any that will kill like that by pipeline 

with Bakken shale oil? Answer, no. So one could deduct at least in 

the short term that it is safer. 

Madam Chair, I yield back. 

Chairwoman LUMMIS. All right. The gentleman yields back. 

The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Oklahoma, Mr. 

Bridenstine. 

Mr. BRIDENSTINE. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

I just wanted to ask a question about the thickness of the walls 

of the tank where your proposed rule is moving from 7/16 of an 

inch up to 9/16 of an inch. Do you have any analysis on the economic impact or what that is going to cost the industry to move 

from 7/16 to 9/16 of an inch? 

Mr. BUTTERS. Thank you for that question, Congressman. Because the rulemaking is currently in the process, I can’t really re-
58 

spond to those specific types of questions. The rulemaking does address the issue of tank car thickness in terms of a number of different options, so we are looking forward to the comment period 

closing at the end of September so we can evaluate the next step 

in terms of that rulemaking. 

Mr. BRIDENSTINE. So when you get that comment period, are you 

going to take it seriously? 

Mr. BUTTERS. Of course. 

Mr. BRIDENSTINE. Because yesterday I met with the American 

Fuel and Petrochemical Manufacturers. They said that they studied over 1,000 samples of Bakken crude and analyzed the data on 

your behalf at your request. The data points to Bakken crude were 

similar in characteristic to light crude extracted from other plays 

into the United States and the risks associated are fundamentally 

the same as well according to their study. And again, they spent 

their own money, their own time, their own effort developing thousands of samples that they tested. 

Your proposed rule regarding oil by rail proceeded to ignore those 

findings and the science behind it and claims Bakken crude specifically to be inherently more dangerous. Can you see why people 

would look at this and think it is, you know, agenda-driven? Do 

you see why—like if you are requesting the information and then 

you are ignoring the information and going ahead with rules that 

don’t take into account the science that they provided, do you see 

why some folks—my constituents, for example—might perceive it 

to be agenda-driven? 

Mr. BUTTERS. Well, I will—I would say this, is that as part of 

the comment period for this rulemaking, which includes—again, 

this is a comprehensive approach to rail safety. It addresses prevention and, quite frankly, I think that is what—where the priority 

needs to be is preventing these incidents from occurring in the first 

place, so addressing prevention, mitigation, which is—addresses 

the safety and the strength of the railcar that is used to carry this 

product, as well as emergency preparedness and response. And it 

is part of—we welcome comments and input from the industry in 

terms of the products that will be carried in these cars and what 

those specifications need to be. 

Mr. BRIDENSTINE. So when we move potentially from 7/16 of an 

inch to 9/16 of an inch, do you have any assessments on how much 

time that requirement might take? 

Mr. BUTTERS. How much time? 

Mr. BRIDENSTINE. Yeah, is it going to be one year, two year, 

three year, four year. When—how long are they going to have to 

make that transition? 

Mr. BUTTERS. Well, that is part of our seeking comments from 

the industry, from the public, from anyone, and what— 

Mr. BRIDENSTINE. So right now you are open. You haven’t put a 

time on it as 3 years? 

Mr. BUTTERS. We had—there is a number of proposals in the proposed rule that address time frame, and part of the—our desire is 

to hear back and get comment from those regulated entities and 

others that are affected by this proposed rule as to what the impact 

will be. 
59 

Mr. BRIDENSTINE. Apart from the costs associated with the tank 

cars, are you considering any modifications to the rail itself? 

Mr. BUTTERS. Rail integrity is part of that proposed rule as well. 

Mr. BRIDENSTINE. And as all of these costs are added up, do you 

see how this is going to increase the cost of energy for my constituents? 

Mr. BUTTERS. As part of any rulemaking, Congressman, we— 

agencies are required to go through a cost-benefit analysis of any 

proposed rule. That is—was part of the process that was done for 

this Notice of Proposed Rule as well and we will continue to look 

for—ask for comments on cost impact of the proposed regulation. 

Mr. BRIDENSTINE. Okay. One specific cost impact that I think is 

important—and I am running out of time here—is the impact on 

crude transportation out of North Dakota. Specifically, that is what 

I am interested in, the cost of crude coming out of North Dakota. 

And with that, Madam Chair, I will yield back. 

Mr. BROUN. [Presiding] Thank you. 

Mr. BRIDENSTINE. I apologize for calling you Madam Chair. You 

were a Madam until just a few minutes ago. 

Mr. BROUN. No, sir, I have never been a Madam or anywhere 

close, but thank you. My Navy colleague, my sailor colleague, I appreciate that. 

I have got a unanimous consent request that we allow Mr. Rohrabacher to participate as if he is a member and ask unanimous 

consent request that we allow him to ask questions for five minutes. 

Mr. SWALWELL. No objection. 

Mr. BROUN. Okay. Having said that, Mr. Rohrabacher— 

Mr. SWALWELL. I am sure I say that at my own peril though. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and 

thank you to the Ranking Member as well for permitting me the 

opportunity to participate. I was here a little late and I didn’t catch 

every detail of what you were announcing today, but we are—how 

do you say? It is very clear that people on this side of the aisle at 

least are very—not skeptical but we are hesitant to just accept that 

this Administration is moving forward in an open manner in discussing what and why they are trying to do. Frankly, it is—most 

of us believe and—on the side of the aisle that social engineering 

goals are being accomplished by this Administration by using regulatory powers that government has been given, and that is not 

what those regulatory powers were all about. 

Now, in this case we have—you know, there is—you know, we 

have heard in the past with a—that people in other industries talk 

about foot-dragging and harassment, of producers’ double standards of enforcement, for example, by different regulatory units on 

things that just don’t go along with the basic goals of what the Administration wants to accomplish in their social and economic 

agenda. 

I won’t have to say, and I don’t say this in a hateful, mean way, 

but Mr. Butters, your inability to what seems to me—I am setting 

off to the side. Your inability to answer directly these questions, 

will you confirm for us that there is game-playing going on and 

that you just won’t answer anything that in any way could reflect 

badly on this whole idea of that—of what your agency is trying to 
60 

do because the agency may be involved in a play based on global 

warming theory trying to again suppress the usage and use and 

availability of fossil fuels and letting that be in the background 

forcing situations and forcing people like you to have to go through 

those verbal acrobatics not to answer a question? Please feel free 

to comment on it. And I am not impugning your integrity. 

Mr. BUTTERS. I understand that and I appreciate your comments, 

Congressman. 

DOT and PHMSA is a safety agency. That is our role. Energy 

and hazardous materials are critical to this nation’s economy. I 

mentioned that. We strongly support that and we believe that, but 

our role is to ensure that this energy is moving safely through 

transportation. These crude oil lines that carry these large volume 

of flammable crude oil, which this material is, we need to ensure 

that it moves and gets to its destination without incident. That is 

our role and we are going to—want to address the risks associated 

with that and that is what we are doing and to better understand 

this material so it is properly classified thatMr. ROHRABACHER. Okay. Well, let me accept that that is what 

the stated goal is. And again, what makes us weary of having that 

used as perhaps a fa ̃ cade to obtain what we clearly have as a goal 

of this Administration, which is to reduce America’s use of fossil 

fuel, even though it is now being presented to us as something 

about safety, let me ask you this: As compared to the loss of life 

and lack of safety in obtaining oil from offshore oil sources or the 

loss of life or lack of safety in coal-fired plants, the digging of coal 

and how to—coal plants and the transportation of coal, nuclear 

power—have there ever been any deaths caused from nuclear 

power? Is there any risk of nuclear power? And of course what 

about tanker-delivered oil from overseas? 

Now, when you compare all of those to the amount of risk that 

could be—that we could face from getting our oil domestically from 

the—from North Dakota, why did you pick North Dakota to focus 

on your time and effort and resources on rather than all of these 

others? Aren’t these others more dangerous than what has been 

going on in North Dakota? 

Mr. BUTTERS. Well, first off, I am going to defer the first part of 

your question to my colleague Mr. Smith from DOE. He is probably 

in a better position to respond to that. 

But again, to just reinforce the role of DOT in this arena is to 

ensure the transportation of energy and hazardous materials is 

done in a safe manner. There are a wide range of systems out 

there, of movements, and they all have a different level of risk. 

The Bakken Shale oil issue, the reason that PHMSA and DOT 

is focused on it is because of the volume of product that is moving 

out of that area by rail. The incidents in—that have occurred and 

Castleton, North Dakota; Lac-Me ́gantic in Que ́bec; Aliceville, Alabama; most recently in Lynchburg, Virginia, I went down to the incident scene on that derailment. This material poses a risk and we 

want to make sure that it moves safely. We are not trying to restrict the movement. We want to make sure it moves safely. That 

is our role. 

Mr. BROUN. The gentleman’s time is expired. I appreciate the colleagues in allowing Mr. Rohrabacher to speak. 
61 

And I will now ask unanimous consent to recognize Mr. Cramer 

for two additional minutes, realizing that—and this will be our last 

question of you guys. We have got votes in about 40, 45 minutes, 

so we are going to have to go to the second panel. 

Very quickly, Mr. Cramer, you are recognized. 

Mr. CRAMER. Thank you. 

Mr. BROUN. Unless I hear objection. No objection? 

Mr. CRAMER. Thank you, Mr. Swalwell and Mr. Chairman. 

We have been talking about the issue but we haven’t really 

talked about the two specific reports or at least named them. Of 

course there is the PHMSA report we referenced, but in a little bit 

we are going to have the second panel and we are going to have 

somebody from Turner Mason, and I just wanted to get some sort 

of a general statement from one or both of you. Did you see anything in the Turner Mason report that you found disagreement 

with or—because I know you relied on it. I have seen comments 

from time to time. But I am really interested frankly in reconciling 

if there are any differences and certainly in highlighting consistencies between the two, so if I could just get each of you to give 

a short comment on the Turner Mason report and your assessment 

of it. 

Mr. SMITH. Well, thank you for the question, Congressman. 

So I think it highlights that there are some uncertainties here. 

I mean this is an area of new study. When you go from 70,000 barrels per day to 700,000 barrels a day, you are in new waters in 

terms of risk and understanding the risks around complex systems. 

So PHMSA’s job is to make sure that these things are moved by 

rail safely and there isn’t a tremendous amount of research and development on the very complex question of the relationship between volatility, vapor pressure, ignitability, and flammability into 

the real world in which you have crude actually traveling in cars. 

I think that is probably what these different studies highlight is 

that there are things that we know, things that we understand 

about the chemical compositions of these different types of crude. 

But there are some practical matters that we don’t understand yet 

because we simply haven’t had the necessity to do that research 

and development until now. So that is what the DOE brought out. 

Mr. CRAMER. Thank you, Mr. Smith. Mr. Butters, just in the remaining seconds? 

Mr. BUTTERS. Certainly. In our review of those studies, their 

data is consistent with ours in terms of the flammability of this 

product and the need to ensure that it is again packaged properly, 

it is communicated properly before it is offered for transportation. 

It is a flammable—highly flammable liquid and their data that 

they published is generally consistent with the data that we have 

found as well. 

Mr. CRAMER. Thank you. I yield back. 

Mr. BROUN. I want to thank the witnesses for you all’s testimony 

here today and I thank the members for your questions. The members of this committee may have additional questions of you two 

guys and we ask that you respond to those questions in writing, 

and please do it so very expeditiously. The record will remain open 

for a very short period of time, so if you all would respond. And 
62 

if you want to flesh out anymore of the answers that you already 

gave to the oral questions, I encourage you to do so. 

The witnesses are excused and I now call up the second panel 

of witnesses. And while we are doing so, I just want to tell my 

friend Dan Maffei that I was frustrated with the lack of answers 

and the words I utilized to indicate the filibustering and maybe I 

should have used that word better. I certainly didn’t want to cause 

any hard feelings. But the thing is, we did ask for scientific technical witnesses and we were sent political witnesses by the Administration. And we could have, I think, had good answers from a scientific perspective. So if the second panel will please take your— 

Mr. MAFFEI. Would the Chairman yield? 

Mr. BROUN. Certainly. 

Mr. MAFFEI. Just in response. Yeah—no, look, first of all, as I 

just mentioned, I do believe that that the Chairman, if your—if the 

Administration is not supplying the witnesses that you request, 

should inform you exactly why they are not and why some other 

witness would be more qualified. I fully respect that. And all I was 

really trying to do was just make sure that at least in my view that 

these two witnesses were, you know, providing good information to 

the best of their ability and were not trying to avoid the question 

in my view again. So that is all I was interested in. 

Mr. BROUN. Well, I would agree with my colleague. I think they 

were trying to but the problem is that the Administration didn’t 

supply us proper witnesses to answer scientific question. Just from 

a scientific perspective, we can measure volatility. They couldn’t 

answer that question. We can scientifically measure flammability 

and those types of things and they were just not prepared because 

they just didn’t have that expertise and the Administration refused 

to give us the proper witnesses. 

Now it is time to introduce our second panel of witnesses. First 

is Ms. Kari Cutting, Vice President of the North Dakota Petroleum 

Council. Ms. Cutting brings over 30 years of experience in the 

North Dakota energy industry, and looking at her, she started very 

young at that—in that perspective. Previously, she has served as 

a Project Logistics Manager at the Dakota Gasification Company. 

The North Dakota Petroleum Council promotes environmentally responsible oil exploration and development, and we are all, on Republican as well as the Democrat side, believe that we have got to 

be good stewards of our environment. And you all audit and respond to oil and natural gas development impacts. 

Our second witness is Mr. John Auers, Executive Vice President 

at Turner, Mason & Company, an international energy consulting 

firm. Mr. Auers leads assignments in the area of refining economics and planning, modeling, downstream asset valuation, crude oil 

valuation, and capital investment and strategic planning. Previously, he worked with Exxon Corporation. 

And our final witness today is Mark—you want to pronounce it 

for me, please? 

Mr. ZOANETTI. Zoanetti. 

Mr. BROUN. Zoanetti, okay. Zoanetti. My family can’t spell or 

pronounce this Broun but it is spelled with a U. So Zoanetti, Deputy Chief of Special Operations, Syracuse Fire Department. His 

current role—in his current role Mr. Zoanetti is responsible for 
63 

oversight at the—of the hazmat airport and the urban search and 

rescue components of the fire department. Mr. Zoanetti has been 

a member of the Syracuse Fire Department for 29 years. He has 

received certification as a hazardous materials technician, as well 

as other state and federal training courses and hazardous materials. Mr. Zoanetti is also the Deputy Coordinator for the—you 

want to tell me what county? I don’t know how to pronounce that, 

too, so— 

Mr. ZOANETTI. Onondaga. 

Mr. BROUN. Say— 

Mr. ZOANETTI. Onondaga. 

Mr. BROUN. Onondaga, okay, County Department of Energy 

Management. 

As our witnesses should know, spoken testimony is limited to 

five minutes each, after which members of the committee have five 

minutes each to ask questions. Your written testimony will be included in the record of the hearing. 

Now, please, we have votes probably in 30 minutes now, 35 minutes, so if you can chop down to the time that you gave your oral 

testimony, and, Members, let’s try to keep our questions as concise 

as we can so that we can get through this before votes. 

It is the practice of Subcommittee on Oversight, which I chair, 

to receive testimony under oath. If you all would now please stand 

and raise your right hand. 

Do you solemnly swear or affirm to tell the whole truth and 

nothing but the truth, so help you God? 

Zoanetti? Okay. I didn’t hear you Mr. Zoanetti. Please be seated. 

Let the record reflect that all the witnesses participating have 

taken the oath. 

I now recognize our first witness, Ms. Cutting, for five minutes. 

TESTIMONY OF MS. KARI CUTTING, 

VICE PRESIDENT, 

NORTH DAKOTA PETROLEUM COUNCIL 

Ms. CUTTING. Chairman Broun, Ranking Members Swalwell and 

Maffei, thank you for the opportunity to testify today on Bakken 

petroleum, a substance of energy independence. 

The North Dakota Petroleum Council represents over 530 companies engaged in all aspects of oil and gas activity in North Dakota, 

South Dakota, and the Rocky Mount region. NDPC members 

produce 98 percent of all oil and gas in North Dakota. 

The State of North Dakota is one of the only States with a multiresource comprehensive energy policy. North Dakota is proactive 

and aggressive in addressing energy development and serves as a 

model for America in fostering innovation and long-term energy development to meet our nation’s growing demand and need for energy security in an environmentally responsible manner. 

North Dakota is now the second-largest oil-producing State in 

the Nation, reaching 1 million barrels of daily production in a 2014, 

up from 100,000 barrels in 2007. The industry has almost 11,000 

producing oil wells, employs tens of thousands of direct and indirect jobs, has a $30 billion economic impact, and contributes $11 

million per day to our state and political subdivision and oil reduction taxes. 
64 

The States of Texas and North Dakota combined produce nearly 

half of the crude oil produced in the United States and increased 

domestic production has helped stabilize energy prices despite turmoil overseas. In fact, this new domestic energy production has reduced imports by 4.4 million barrels per day since 2005. Imports 

from Saudi Arabia are down 25.3 percent while imports from Venezuela are down 47.8 percent. Because of shale oil and gas, North 

American energy security is now achievable and North Dakota is 

very proud of its role in this progress. 

Although North Dakota oil and gas production has grown substantially in recent years, pipeline capacity to key markets has not, 

requiring 59 percent of the Bakken crude to be hauled via rail in 

June. Since the increase of crude being transported by rail, there 

have been eight railway incidences involving crude oil that have 

raised questions as to the chemical characteristics of Bakken crude, 

how it compares with other flammable liquids under U.S. Department of Transportation regulation, and whether it can be safely 

transported across North America under the current regulatory environment as enforced by the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials 

Safety Administration. 

Three independent studies have now shown that Bakken crude 

is similar to other North American light sweet crude oils in gravity, 

vapor pressure, flashpoint, and initial boiling point, which are the 

key parameters in proper classification. According to these studies, 

Bakken crude oil chemical properties attest to its proper classification as a Class 3 flammable liquid. This category contains most of 

the valuable fuels and fuel feed stocks offered for transportation in 

the United States. 

One of the studies was commissioned by the North Dakota Petroleum Council to answer questions raised about the chemical properties and transportation safety of Bakken crude oil. The study included a comprehensive and—comprehensive sampling and analysis plan and was conducted by Turner, Mason & Company, an 

internationally known and recognized group of engineering consultants with extensive crude oil expertise, at a significant cost. 

The oil and gas industry in North Dakota has a very strong safety culture focused on zero incidences. All incidences large and 

small generate a safety investigation to determine the root cause 

of the safety incident. Procedural changes or additional safety 

measures are implemented to mitigate the root cause and prevent 

a recurrence of a similar incident. This is true whether the incident 

occurs during a drilling, completions, reduction, or transportation 

aspects of the industry’s activities. Commissioning of the Turner 

Mason study is an example of the industry’s desire to investigate 

safety incidences. 

The Turner, Mason & Company study was designed to provide 

scientific answers to address the growing perception that light 

crude oil is more hazardous than other flammable liquid or hazardous materials being transported in the United States. The results of the study do not support the speculation that Bakken crude 

in particular is more volatile than other crude oils or other flammable liquids. 

There are nine classes of hazardous materials transported by 

truck, rail, ship, and cargo air in the United States. Material from 
65 

all nine hazardous materials classes are transported safely every 

day in this country millions of times a year. Those who offer hazardous materials for shipment must be certified and are required 

to properly classify the material being offered for transportation. 

All classes of hazardous materials transported by rail arrived 

safely at destination greater than 99.997 percent of the time. The 

efforts of all stakeholders, including PHMSA, the oil and gas industry, tank car builders and owners, the railroads, and the State of 

North Dakota are focused on affecting an incremental safety improvement for the remaining 0.003 percent incidences. 

In conclusion, safety always has and continues to be a core value 

of the oil and gas industry. The NDPC and its members believe rail 

safety improvements must be developed using a holistic, comprehensive, and systematic approach that examines prevention, 

mitigation, and response. Safety solutions must be data-driven and 

produce measurable improvements to safety without creating new 

risks or inadvertently shifting the risks to other businesses or operations. To achieve this, collaboration is needed among government, 

shippers, railroads, and tank car builders. 

All stakeholders recognize the important of implementing additional safety measures to reduce the probability of the remaining 

0.003 percent. Efforts to improve safety of the rail car, routing 

analysis, infrastructure inspection and enhancements, as well as 

additional training and information for emergency management 

personnel, are all efforts being addressed. The oil and gas industry, 

it partnership with the railroads, is working to develop a common 

educational tool to be distributed broadly to fire departments either 

through web portal or DVDs. This information will also be available for companies to use in continued interaction with fire departments and other EMS personnel. Rail and oil industries in many 

States have worked collaboratively on drills and exercises, development of additional response resources, and periodic meeting to keep 

the lines of communication open to maximize information sharing 

of the latest data on emergency response for these type of 

incidences. 

We look forward to continuing this work with the state and federal leaders to enhance safety and bringing this product to market 

and ensuring our State can continue to improve energy security by 

providing a reliable energy resource for our nation. 

Thank you very much for allowing me to testify. I will be happy 

to answer- 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Cutting follows:] 
66 
67 
68 
69 
70 
71 
72 
73 

Mr. BROUN. Thank you, Ms. Cutting. 

Mr. Auers, you are recognized for five minutes. 

And again, I want to reiterate we are pressed because of votes 

so if you all could try to get—we are going to get through with this 

questioning as quickly as we can, too, so if you could make sure 

they stay within the five minutes, I appreciate it. 

TESTIMONY OF MR. JOHN AUERS, 

EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT, 

TURNER, MASON, & COMPANY 

Mr. AUERS. Okay. I want to first express my thanks to Chairman 

Broun, Ranking Member Swalwell and Maffei, and all the members 

of the Energy and Oversight Subcommittees for your time and attention. 

As a result of several high profile rail incidents, questions as to 

whether Bakken is materially different from other crude oils and 

if the current railroad materials classification is appropriate have 

been raised. To answer these questions, the North Dakota Petroleum Council commissioned Turner, Mason & Company to conduct 

a comprehensive sampling and testing program. One hundred and 

fifty-two samples were taken over a four-week period from seven 

rail terminals and 15 well sites. The crude producers that provided 

the well samples account for 50 percent of the total North Dakota 

production and the rail facilities sampled represent a similar proportion of the total North Dakota crude-by-rail capacity. 

The sampling locations covered the entire producing region and 

include those old and new wells, getting good representation of any 

property variation as a result from geography, production rate, or 

during processing and transit. I believe this program is the most 

thorough and comprehensive study of crude quality from a title 

production basin to date. 

The results of this study are being used to establish a bottom 

quality baseline and to ensure continued crude quality and consistency. The study was also used to evaluate the impact of field operating conditions on Bakken qualities. These study results, together 

with followup effort, will be used to establish management best 

practices for operating field production equipment to best meet the 

proposed quality specifications. 

Our study confirmed that Bakken crude is a light sweet crude oil 

with an API gravity generally between 40 degrees and 43 degrees 

and a sulfur content less than 0.28 percent. As such, it is similar 

to many other light sweet crude oils produced and transported in 

the United States and falls in the middle of the range defined by 

the Energy Information Administration for that category. Overall, 

over 60 percent of the crude produced in the United States falls 

into this or wider categories representing over five million barrels 

per day. 

During our sampling program, Bakken had an average vapor 

pressure between 11.5 and 11.8 psi with 90 percent of the well 

samples and all of the rail samples measuring below 13 psi. This 

means Bakken is more than 60 percent below the 43.5 vapor pressures threshold for liquids under the Hazardous Materials regulation and almost 90 percent below the 100 psi rating that the railcars use for transport. 
74 

Because of the dearth of consistent data for other crudes, comparisons are difficult. The data that is available show Bakken 

vapor pressure to be within 2 to 3 psi of other light sweet crude 

oils with some lower but most other tight oils higher. While sampling occurred during a shoulder period, data outside that period 

provided by an NDPC member company showed some seasonality 

in vapor pressure with summer results averaging about 3 psi lower 

than those in the winter. 

The light ends content, as defined by C2’s through C4’s, average 

just below 5.5 liquid volume percent for all the samples and under 

five percent for the rail samples. This is generally within one to 

two percent of most other light crudes with some showing lower 

levels and others having more light ends. 

The flashpoint of Bakken measured below 73 degrees Fahrenheit, 

initial boiling point generally averaged between 95 degrees Fahrenheit and 100 degrees Fahrenheit, both of which are a normal 

range for light crude oil. The data supports the current Department of Transportation and Pipeline and Hazardous Materials 

Safety Administration classification for Bakken crude as a Class 3 

flammable liquid which is similar to other crude oils, as well as 

gasoline, ethanol, and other materials containing light components. 

As a result, Bakken crude oil meets all specifications for transport 

using existing DOT 111 tank cars. 

Flammable liquids fall into packing groups depending on the IVP 

as defined by the ASTM D86 method. Our results show some variability, especially on samples tested by different labs. This is because D86 was not developed for wide-boiling range of materials 

like crude oil. The difficulty with achieving consistent IVP results 

between different labs, other groups are working on recommendations for an alternative approach to determine packing group classification with a goal of obtaining DOT approval. 

Based upon the findings of our study, the NDPC has decided to 

encourage all members to classify their Bakken crude as a Class 

3, Packing Group 1 flammable liquid until more definitive testing 

protocol is established. It is critical to note the determination of 

Packing Group 1 versus Packing Group 2 has no impact on the 

type of rail car used or on first responder response to an incident. 

It had no impact on any of the incidents in which Bakken was involved. 

We found that the qualities of Bakken were very consistent in 

our sample population and throughout the supply chain from wellhead to rail terminal to refining destination. Test results showed 

no evidence of spikes in natural gas leakage before a rail shipment. 

Due to the fact that crude from a number of wells is aggregated, 

samples taken at the rail terminal should have less variation and 

tighter averages than well readings. The test results from the 

study are also consistent with the recorded result of others, including the American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers’ Bakken report, the PHMSA Operation Safe Delivery report, NDPC membergathered data, and other recent studies and presentations on the 

quality of Bakken crude oil. 

The accuracy and precision of our test program was ratified by 

a series of round robin tests between both the SGS laboratories 

used in our study and Intertek, the testing company used by 
75 

PHMSA in their study. The results of the round robin testing 

showed excellent agreement on API gravity in vapor pressure. Significant variation did occur in the measured IVP from D86 testing 

due to the issues I mentioned earlier. 

While the test results from PHMSA’s report agree closely with 

the NDPC results, PHMSA did make some assertions in their executive summary which do not appear to be supported by their study 

or our findings. First, the PHMSA report makes a statement that 

‘‘we conclude that while this product does not demonstrate the 

characteristics of a flammable gas, corrosive liquid, or toxic material, it is more volatile than most other types of crude.’’ No comparative data was provided in the report to support this statement. 

Second, PHMSA also claims that a higher degree of volatility correlates with increased ignitability and flammability. Again, no support is provided for this statement in the report. While we are 

aware that some groups are studying this very complex subject, we 

are not aware of any final conclusions from those studies to date. 

I have submitted a separate written testimony which provides 

more detail and results from our study and our complete report is 

available on the NDPC website. With that, I conclude my prepared 

remarks and- 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Auers follows:] 
76 
77 
78 
79 
80 
81 
82 
83 
84 
85 
86 
87 

Mr. BROUN. Thank you, Mr. Auers. 

Mr. Zoanetti, you are recognized for five minutes. 

TESTIMONY OF MR. MARK ZOANETTI, 

DEPUTY CHIEF OF SPECIAL OPERATIONS, 

SYRACUSE FIRE DEPARTMENT 

Mr. ZOANETTI. Good afternoon, Chairman Broun, Ranking Members Swalwell and Maffei— 

Mr. BROUN. Please turn on your microphone. Is the red light on 

there? Speak and so you— 

Mr. ZOANETTI. Good afternoon, Chairman Broun, Ranking Members— 

Mr. BROUN. No, that is not—could somebody help him get his 

microphone on, please? Mr.—maybe you could use Mr. Auers’ 

microphone. 

Mr. ZOANETTI. Good afternoon, Chairman Broun, Ranking Members Swalwell and Maffei, of the Energy and Oversight Committee. 

I am here on behalf of the City of Syracuse at the request of Congressman Maffei. I want to thank you for allowing me to share my 

experience in dealing with hazardous materials and rail transportation and the challenges that first responders face on a daily 

basis. 

As a joint effort between the Syracuse Fire Department and the 

Onondaga County Department of Emergency Management, we contacted CSX for information about Bakken oil. Initially, shipment 

information was not made available. With persistent pressure from 

state and federal—and local government, CSX agreed to meet with 

the Syracuse Fire Department to discuss the movement of Bakken 

oil. In the meeting we received information about shipments and 

hazards associated with Bakken oil. We were able to establish a 

dialogue with CSX that eventually brought educational resources to 

first responders. 

With information about the light sweet crude, we made a hazard 

assessment to determine what if any gaps existed in our response 

plans to an accident involving Bakken crude trains. It was determined that additional training and planning were two key components in dealing with this hazard. 

Because of what we were—believed to be the lower ignition temperature of the crude as compared to other crude shipments, the 

hazard has increased. In reviewing incidents in Que ́bec and North 

Dakota and information from several resources we recognized the 

hazard of transportation of Bakken crude. We were advised that 

the rail lines that run along the northern border of our city and 

are being utilized for the movement of this product. CSX lines border Onondaga Lake at the southernmost end and is adjacent to 

Destiny USA, a large shopping and entertainment center. The rail 

proceeds past the William F. Walsh Regional Transportation Center, a minor-league ballpark, and a light industrial area. Once out 

of the city’s jurisdiction, the trains move to an East Syracuse rail 

yard, a village on the eastern border of the city. 

Following the issuance of an emergency order from the U.S. Department of Transportation that required railroads—railroad carriers to release information in writing to state emergency response 

centers in each State in which the rail carriers transporting more 
88 

than—transporting one million gallons or more of Bakken crude, 

CSX disseminated information of commodities transported through 

central New York. 

The data from the 2013 Hazardous Materials Density Study in 

Onondaga County reported the number of carloads and percentage 

of total hazardous materials as transported through our County. 

The Bakken crude compromised—comprised the greatest share of 

haz materials transported at 34 percent of the total. We found that 

many other hazardous materials were transported through the city, 

which we have known for a long time that these commodities move 

through the city, but were unaware of the amounts. There are 

large quantities of liquefied petroleum gas, sulfuric acid, propane, 

chlorine, and ethanol to name a few. There are shorter rail lines 

besides CSX that traverse through downtown Syracuse and move 

tank and bulk products. 

The Bakken crude is moved through central New York by rail 

every day. There are two trains that daily traverse Syracuse at approximately 100 tank cars in each train. When a concern—the concerned for potential hazard of this commodity were brought—was 

brought to light that these trains were in our community, we had 

little information about shipment outside of media reports. 

With information in hand, we determined a course of action. 

Training became the next step in our progression. A training program supplied by CSX was presented to our members that contained the DVD lessons that matched a workbook in dealing with 

rail emergencies. After completion of these lessons, CSX brought 

their safety training program into Syracuse for some hands-on 

training in working with DOT 111 tank cars. A total of 60 members of the Syracuse Fire Department attended this hands-on training. Those members are assigned to stations that respond to the 

rail incident should a Bakken crude train have an incident. Participants in this training include our hazardous material unit where 

the balance of our department is going to receive awareness training in rail incidents. 

From the perspective of the Syracuse Fire Department, Bakken 

crude trains do not present the only challenge for first responders. 

The vast array of other hazardous materials that move through our 

jurisdiction require us to be prepared for all hazards. The Syracuse 

Fire Department hazardous material team must train and equip to 

deal with whatever emergency might come our way besides establishing procedures for dealing with Bakken train trains at present. 

However, I am confident we are prepared to respond should an incident happen. Because of the potential for a transportation accident, we train to meet all hazards. The Syracuse Fire Department 

is also working with the Local Emergency Planning Committee to 

help protect the public from an incident. 

In November of 2011, a train derailed in a residential area of the 

city of Syracuse. Several tank trains and bulk hopper cars derailed. 

The tank car carrying non-odorized propane was our biggest hazard. Because of the potential hazard, we evacuated approximately 

100 home. This also caused the closure of a main highway, Route 

Interstate 81. The origin of the incident was determined to be a 

bad section of track. The deficient track was identified in July 

and—of that year and was not repaired. The section of track that 
89 

caused the derailment was in the middle of the city causing the 

cars to be dragged up to one mile further before overturning. Fortunately, there was not a release of propane and the cars were eventually righted without further incident. 

The city and the county have created a stockpile of firefighting 

foam and are acquiring appliances to deliver the foam at an incident. Additionally, with the production of an ethanol plant in the 

nearby city of Fulton, we are finding large quantities of ethanol 

being transported through central New York. 

The hazardous materials team of the Syracuse Fire Department 

is comprised of 36 highly trained hazmat technicians. All members 

meet or exceed the standards for training set forth by CFR 29 

1910.120 and NFPA 472. All hazmat officers as well as chief officers of the Syracuse Fire Department are trained in Hazardous 

Materials Incident Command. Syracuse Fire Department hazmat 

team is a regional response team for a three-county area in central 

New York. We are a FEMA Type I team, the only team in our region. We have responded outside of our area in New York State 

mutual aid assets for natural disasters that have affected the 

State. 

At a time when increasing demand for emergency services is— 

are becoming more complex, local resources are becoming financially strapped very quickly. The assistance from state and federal 

resources and shippers would provide for responder training, development of effective response capabilities, and planning to be able 

to safely mitigate an incident and protect the public from harm. 

I want to thank you for holding today’s meeting about transportation of the Bakken petroleum and rail safety. The hazards of this 

product are not unlike others that are—others, but because of the 

volume that is moved across America through many small communities, it has created a tremendous concern. Should an accident 

happened similar to the ones that have already occurred—excuse 

me—local resources will be overtaxed quickly. To be able to protect 

the public, emergency response agencies need the tools to respond 

and mitigate accidents. Prevention of accidents should the—should 

also be on the forefront of this endeavor whether through engineered controls, track maintenance, or product safer transportation. 

I will answer any questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Zoanetti follows:] 
90 
91 
92 
93 
94 

Mr. BROUN. Thank you, Chief. I thank the witnesses for your testimony. The Chair will now at this point open the first round— 

well, I guess we only have time for one round of questions. 

For Members’ information, the last report we got from the cloakroom is we are going to have votes somewhere between 4:15 and 

4:30, so just to inform the Members. 

The Chair now recognizes himself for five minutes. 

Ms. Cutting and Mr. Auers, the PHMSA report claims that 

Bakken crude is ‘‘more volatile than most other types of crude.’’ Is 

it a fair comparison? Should the report have compared it Bakken 

crude with other light sweet crudes since they are in the same category? Is this just stating an obvious fact that it is more volatile 

than just other types of crude? 

Mr. AUERS. As our report— 

Mr. BROUN. Turn on your mic. 

Mr. AUERS. As our report showed, Bakken is very similar to 

other crudes. Again, there is not extensive—the level of data on 

other crudes as there was on Bakken with ourselves, PHMSA, and 

othersMr. BROUN. And let me interrupt you because we are real tight 

on time. The question is PHMSA said it is more volatile than most 

other types of crudes. That includes heavy crudes, all crudes, and 

during your testimony you said that it is no more volatile than 

other light crudes if I remember correctly. So the question is is it 

just stating an obvious fact that they said that it is more volatile 

than other types of crudes? 

Mr. AUERS. Light crude will generally have more light ends, so 

the answer is yes, it is stating an obvious fact. 

Mr. BROUN. Ms. Cutting? 

Ms. CUTTING. Bakken crude is a light sweet crude. It is the same 

as other light sweet crudes. When compared to heavier crudes, as 

PHMSA kind of was talking about, it could be considered to be 

lighter, have different composition than real heavy crudes, but it 

is a light sweet crude similar to other light sweet crudes. 

Mr. BROUN. So you would agree that it is just stating an obvious 

fact in the PHMSA report that light—that Bakken crude is more 

volatile? And I take it from your answers, is that correct? Yes or 

no? I mean that is what we are trying to get at. 

Ms. CUTTING. There is a different chemical composition between 

a heavy crude and a light crude. 

Mr. BROUN. Well— 

Ms. CUTTING. We have stated that, right? Because volatility is a 

lot more complex question than we can address— 

Mr. BROUN. Well, I agree with that and that is the reason I am 

disappointed that we didn’t get the scientific folks from DOE and 

DOT. 

Ms. Cutting and Mr. Auers, you have heard me question the first 

panel about inconsistencies in their characterizations of the 

Bakken crude’s ignitability and flammability characteristics. What 

impact does this have on industry when regulating agencies such 

as PHMSA appears to make a more incendiary statement about 

Bakken crude characteristics than a scientific agency such as the 

Department of Energy? 
95 

Ms. CUTTING. I think that the real issue here is how the public 

perceives that information when a regulatory body makes a comment like that. Of course it causes concern in the public. And I 

think that the other part of the public that becomes very concerned 

is the emergency response people, and because they knew how to 

deal with flammable liquid, and now when they are saying this is 

somehow different, it causes them to go back to the drawing board 

and try to figure out how it is different and how they are going to 

respond. 

Mr. BROUN. Mr. Auers, do you want to make any comments? 

Mr. AUERS. Yeah, I would agree with that. Again, Bakken is, you 

know, a very typical light crude. It is not an unusual, particularly 

hazardous material and, you know, the public, to their credit, 

wouldn’t know the difference but when they hear that from an official source, Bakken is something different and more dangerous, 

that, you know, is sort of like screaming fire in an elevator, you 

know, or theater. It is just not something you should do. You 

should base it on facts, and the fact is Bakken is a very typical 

light crude, probably more similar to conventional light crude than 

most other tight oils. 

Mr. BROUN. Well, and that is the purpose of this whole hearing 

is PHMSA is recommending that Bakken crude be characterized as 

Class 1 whereas my question about ethanol and gasoline, which is 

Class 2, you are recommending Class 3, and this is the reason we 

are trying to get into the scientific aspects of all this. And I thank 

you all for your testimony. 

I yield now to—I guess Mr. Swalwell is gone so to my good friend 

Dan Maffei. 

Mr. MAFFEI. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate 

it. 

Just—I obviously am very, very pleased to have our deputy chief 

from the Syracuse Fire Department down here, and I appreciate 

yourself, the leadership of the Syracuse Fire Department and 

Mayor Miner for letting you come testify. 

I am focused on the safety aspects of this. If there is any theme 

out of this hearing I think it is that this Bakken crude, while not 

necessarily any more dangerous in and of itself than any of the 

other volatile chemicals that we in a modern society have and have 

to transport, it is a much broader volume than it has been between 

2011, 2012. It went from some 65,000 carloads to 257,000 carloads. 

The first panel was talking about basically a tripling—I am sorry, 

a multiplication by 10 over the period when we started doing this, 

so it is a lot more. 

Mr. Zoanetti—Chief Zoanetti, are you seeing enough additional 

resources to handle that additional risk created not by necessarily 

the quality of this particular material but the volume? 

Mr. ZOANETTI. Certainly improved training and planning. I know 

that in the other discussions safety features of either the railcars 

and train—track maintenance, things of that nature are going to 

help reduce risk. Resources for emergency service first responders 

is always going to be a need there. We need to increase our training capabilities and our capabilities to respond to that catastrophic 

incident that may or may not happen. We have to be prepared to 
96 

be able to meet the needs and the people are expecting us to meet 

those needs. 

Mr. MAFFEI. Do you feel that you and other local fire departments are getting enough information, scientific and otherwise, to 

be able to assess any potential threat that could occur if there was 

a train derailment for instance? 

Mr. ZOANETTI. I personally am often looking for information and 

most of the information I have received has not been completely 

scientific. I think I—not that I am a scientist, but I—more information would certainly be better. Information sharing is to me very 

critical. 

Mr. MAFFEI. Mr. Zoanetti, in upstate New York, as you know, we 

have a lot of volunteer fire departments. How does that put increased pressure on a professional department like Syracuse in 

terms of its regional leadership? 

Mr. ZOANETTI. Well, as I mentioned, we are the only hazardous 

materials team in the central New York region, so that responsibility does fall to us. Each volunteer department has a home responsibility if it happens in their districts, but quite honestly, if 

something does happen, they are going to be requesting our services and looking for us to help them solve their problem. 

Mr. MAFFEI. So the resources you get, even though your responsibility is just to the city of Syracuse, you may very well use in all 

sorts of cases in the State should there be some sort of incident? 

Mr. ZOANETTI. Yes, sir. 

Mr. MAFFEI. Let me ask you this. Do you feel that there is any 

particular kind of safety provisions on the railcars? This has been 

some point of controversy. Or do you have any—a way to assess 

that or are you, you know, feeling like a—there is enough precautions as there already are or are you being asked these questions? 

Mr. ZOANETTI. Well, I am not an engineer so I really don’t know 

about the engineering part of it. I know that my training has told 

me that if an incident happened, I have to respond and deal with 

it to the best of my ability and the engineering part comes from 

some folks other than myself. 

Mr. MAFFEI. In terms of mitigation, you were talking about the 

various foams used for this kind of hazardous material but also 

other things, liquid petroleum, other kinds of hazards, chlorine, et 

cetera. Is this foam expensive and are there varieties of it? Give 

us a sense of what that is. 

Mr. ZOANETTI. The foam is roughly about $50 to $75 a gallon. 

That is foam concentrate. So the cost is definitely significant. As 

I mentioned, we are trying to stockpile a certain amount but I am 

not sure that a catastrophic incident we would have enough. We 

would have to reach out to other resources at the state and possibly 

at the federal level to get enough firefighting foam to really accomplish the goals that we need to accomplish. 

Mr. MAFFEI. Has your budget gone up at all given this—because 

we have—I think in central New York has also seen about the 

same increase in the number of trains going through. 

Mr. ZOANETTI. That has not affected our budget in a positive way 

at all. 
97 

Mr. MAFFEI. All right. So basically trying to do the same with 

what you had before but with more incidents? 

Mr. ZOANETTI. Yes, sir. 

Mr. MAFFEI. All right. Well, Mr. Chairman, my time is up but 

I would like this committee and other committees to just consider 

the volume of this, not with any—well, let me say this, without 

prejudice to whether the material itself is any more volatile or any 

less volatile but any other industrial material or energy source that 

we have to transport is simply that the volume of it requires that 

we look at ways to make sure that emergency departments and 

first responders do have the amount of resources needed to make 

sure that no minor incident or accident becomes a serious incident. 

And I will yield back. 

Mr. WEBER. [Presiding] Thank you. 

The gentleman from North Dakota is recognized for five minutes. 

Mr. CRAMER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Ranking 

Member. 

I might just say with regard to the Ranking Member’s most recent statement, I certainly don’t disagree with that although I do 

think that Transportation and Infrastructure Committee is probably going to take up—and maybe the committee jurisdiction on 

some of those areas, so—but I appreciateMr. MAFFEI. I just want to send them our transcript. 

Mr. CRAMER. Yeah, very good. 

Mr. Auers, you heard the—did you listen to or watch the testimony of the previous panel? 

Mr. AUERS. I did. 

Mr. CRAMER. And so, again, Chairman Broun previously, much 

like he did with the first panel, started down talking about the 

comparison between refined fuels and light sweet crude. With regard to the packing designation of 1 versus 2, 1 being more I guess 

safeguarded versus 2, and yet 1 is the Bakken crude and 2 is the 

ethanol gasoline. Is that a mischaracterization, and if so, why? 

Mr. AUERS. Well, you know, I am not an expert on packing 

groups necessarily but ethanol is—and—you know, is flammable. 

So is gasoline. And I would—I did listen to the testimony earlier. 

I do believe if I threw a match in Bakken crude oil, it would not 

light. Gasoline and ethanol would. We don’t burn crude oil on Bunsen burners. You know, we do burn ethanol. It wouldn’t seem consistent that ethanol is in a less stringent packing group than crude 

oil, same with gasoline. 

Mr. CRAMER. Thank you. Because this gets to my concern about 

a calming scientific approach versus a sort of hysterical approach 

if you want to know the truth because when we start packing and 

considering crude oil to be as flammable, as volatile as refined 

product—and then—and let me ask you this. I was somewhat personally confused by the end of the discussion—it wasn’t a discussion; it was a question and it was an answer. Did you hear one of 

the witnesses say that because it is refined, somehow it—ethanol 

and gasoline should be safer? I mean because that didn’t make 

sense to me or did I mishear it? 

Mr. AUERS. Yeah, I mean there is no—I don’t see any basis for 

that. I mean, you know, gasoline is a refined product. I don’t think 

of ethanol as a refined product. It is a— 
98 

Mr. CRAMER. Sure. 

Mr. AUERS. It is a pure component. Another thing about ethanol 

that, you know, the issue has been brought up is whether the volatility makes something more ignitable or flammable, and volatility—I don’t really use that term. Volatility can’t be measured. It 

is a—you know, most people when they talk about volatility they 

talk about a variety of different physical and chemical metrics that 

can be measured like IVP— 

Mr. CRAMER. Um-hum. 

Mr. AUERS. —like flashpoint, which are in the packing regulation, and also vapor pressure and light ends contents. In the case 

of ethanol it actually isn’t volatile by those measures; it has actually got a very low vapor pressure, but it is only 2.3 psi. 

Mr. CRAMER. Sure. Help me maybe better understand that then. 

Is there a linear relationship between all of these things that leads 

to volatility or is there something more dynamic that we should be 

considering? 

Mr. AUERS. Well, again, the term volatility is defined by different 

people different ways so I don’t tend to— 

Mr. CRAMER. Sure. 

Mr. AUERS. —use that term. We in the refining industry sometimes will directly talk about volatility directly as vapor pressure, 

but we are not talking about something that is more subject to 

being—to flammability. It is just the fact that it has a higher vapor 

pressure. And vapor pressure—and as I mentioned in my prepared 

testimony, there are no direct correlations between all of these 

metrics and ignitability and combustibility. And there are groups 

studying that. It is a very complex issue and there aren’t any firm 

answers on that yet on what leads to—but certainly not a straightline correlation. As I mentioned, ethanol has a very low vapor pressure but it is extremely flammable and ignitable. 

Mr. CRAMER. And I do think—and I appreciate that all of the 

witnesses have said there needs to be further study and we are in 

sort of new territory. You clearly have done the most it seems at 

this point. 

Also then in fairness could you sort of characterize for us in the 

few seconds you have remaining the Turner Mason study? And I 

don’t want to say versus but compared to the PHMSA study, are 

there some stark differences or are they largely similar? 

Mr. AUERS. The results are extremely similar in terms of the 

testing. What we found when we compared their results to our results, they were very close. I heard Director Butters confirm that 

as well. The differences are in the conclusions. They do two conclusions that we don’t think were supported by any data that either 

they had or we have seen. 

Mr. CRAMER. My time is expired. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Thank you. 

Mr. WEBER. Thank you. 

Mr. Veasey, I believe you are up next or—Paul Broun recognized 

you, didn’t he, Mr. Maffei? 

Mr. MAFFEI. Yep. 

Mr. WEBER. Yeah, good. 

The gentleman from Texas. 

Mr. VEASEY. Thank you, Mr. Weber. I appreciate that. 
99 

I want to ask either Ms. Cutting or Mr. Auers about an article 

that was in the Wall Street Journal earlier this year that analyzed 

data from Capline Pipeline. I am not sure if you are familiar with 

the company Capline Pipeline in Louisiana, but it tested crude 

from about 86 locations worldwide for—to measure vapor pressure, 

and it—and from what they found according to this article was that 

the light sweet crude from the Bakken had a higher vapor pressure 

than crude from dozens of other locations around the world. And 

I just wanted to ask you, like one of the companies in here, for instance, Tesoro Corporation, a major transporter of Bakken crude, 

said it regularly received oil from North Dakota with even more 

volatile pressure readings, sometimes up to 12 psi. Does that sound 

unusual to you at all? 

Mr. AUERS. Twelve fits right in with what Bakken looked like. 

In our study it varied. And again, sometimes I get confused in talking about RVP and true vapor pressure and we use a true vapor 

pressure, which measures out about a pound higher than RVP 

does. But typically Bakken, from an RVP standpoint, will be 8 to 

12 pounds from a true vapor pressure standpoint, 9 to 13 pounds. 

Again, it does vary seasonally a little bit. So 12 fits right in that 

range. 

Mr. VEASEY. Is it—well, compared to other light sweet, was— 

would other light sweet be in that range as well? 

Mr. AUERS. You know, as I mentioned in my testimony, some— 

within two or three pounds of that, some higher, some lower. A lot 

of the conventional pipeline crudes like the LLS, the West Texas 

crude at Cushing, some of those will be generally a little bit lower, 

more in the five to eight range. Almost—most of the tight oils are 

going to be potentially higher, the Eagle Fords, the Niobraras, the 

Uticas. So it varies, but within those ranges I don’t know that 

there are substantive differences. What again others are studying, 

you know, and it was mentioned earlier, I don’t think anybody 

knows—certainly vapor pressure doesn’t correlate directly with 

flammability or ignitability as per the ethanol example, but to 

what degree it contributes to the ignitability or flammability, that 

is being studied. And we didn’t—we are not doing that study. That 

is being studied by other groups. 

Mr. VEASEY. Well, what about—it said by comparison that the 

Louisiana light sweet from the Gulf of Mexico had vapor pressure 

readings of 3.33 psi according to Capline. So when you compare 

that 3.33 psi compared to what is coming out of the Bakken, how 

large of a difference is that? Because you are talking about those 

being light sweet there. 

Mr. AUERS. LLS actually is one of the—and that is pure LLS. 

You know, right now, you know, Bakken is part of the LLS stream. 

When Bakken comes into St. James, it gets blended into LLS. So 

LLS actually—a typical LLS is probably about that level now. It is 

probably more than a 5 or 6 psi range. 

What is the difference between a three- or four-pound crude and 

a 10-pound crude as far as safety issues? I don’t know that. I don’t 

know the answer to that. People are studying that. I suspect that, 

again, in my example, ethanol has a vapor pressure of 2.3 psi, 

which is lower than LLS, but it is extremely flammable and ignitable. So it is a very—the ignitability and flammability question is 
100 

extremely complex, and one reason why there haven’t been any results, any conclusions from those studies to date is because there 

are a lot of factors that go in to it beyond just vapor pressure, beyond just light ends content, beyond just flashpoint or initial boiling point. 

Mr. VEASEY. I mean with your knowledge of, you know, transportation and quality issues related to the Bakken, I mean what is 

safer from a public safety standpoint? Is it better to transport this 

stuff by rail or is it more safe to have it in a pipeline? 

Mr. AUERS. I believe, you know, as I heard in earlier testimony 

and I am sure Kari say that as well, it all depends. You know, I 

think all those forms of transportation can be safe, including marine, which you didn’t mention. We transport crude oil products by 

all forms of—all those forms of transportation— 

Mr. VEASEY. You are transporting Bakken by marine around the 

United States? 

Mr. AUERS. Bakken will be—you know, they are putting in rail 

terminals on the West Coast. The idea is to rail it to the West 

Coast and transport by marine down to California. Bakken, as I 

said, does make it to the Gulf coast and some of those barrels do 

get blended in to an LLS stream. That—the potential is to transport that by marine around to the East Coast. So I anticipate that 

Bakken will be moved by marine at some point. Again, the plans 

are if those terminals on the Columbia River get built, then there 

will be Bakken moved by marine. So all forms of transportation are 

safe if they are done correctly. 

Mr. VEASEY. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. WEBER. Thank you. 

The Chair has a unanimous consent request. Our fellow member 

Jim Bridenstine from that North Texas community called Oklahoma isn’t on the Committee but he would like to act as a member 

of the committee. Without objection, so ordered. 

Mr. BRIDENSTINE. We are not North Texas. Texas is Baja, Oklahoma. Let’s be clear. 

The California guy laughs. 

Ms. Cutting, would the hazardous material regulation cause you 

to treat Bakken crude any differently than crude from Eagle Ford 

in Texas or the DJ Basin in Colorado? 

Ms. CUTTING. No. 

Mr. BRIDENSTINE. So the regulations would not cause you to 

treat one differently from the other? 

Ms. CUTTING. No. The regulations have a decision tree they must 

go through that initially you look at flashpoint in material and 

then you look at initial boiling point. And given that criteria that 

is used to determine packing group, all of those would be in either 

Packing Group 1 or Packing Group 2. And if I can take a moment 

to make a statement that part of the controversy that is going on 

as far as packing groups and some of what you have heard today 

is because the methodology—prescribed methodology used today 

with wide boiling range materials cannot tell the difference between Packing Group 1 and Packing Group 2. And that is really 

causing some of these issues. So I feel very safe in saying that all 

those materials would be Class 3 flammable liquids, Packing Group 

1 or Packing Group 2. Further, Packing Group 1, Packing Group 
101 

2 designation does not change the railcar that is used to move the 

material and it does not change the emergency response. 

Mr. BRIDENSTINE. Thank you for sharing that and clarifying. 

Mr. Auers, what are the most unique characteristics of Bakken 

petroleum and please explain to what extent those characteristics 

distinguish Bakken petroleum from other types. 

Mr. AUERS. Again, I don’t think Bakken is particularly unique in 

general, but there are some things that make a difference in some 

of the other titles. For one, it is very consistent across the whole 

basin. Most other titles tend to vary quite a bit. Eagle Ford crude, 

for example, varies from very gassy areas to natural gas liquid area 

to a very light condensate down to, you know, a heavier crude oil. 

So even in the liquid part of Eagle Ford basin can vary from 30 

gravity crude to 60 gravity crude. Bakken falls in a very tight 

range, generally between 40 and 43 API gravity. So it is a very 

mother’s milk crude to the refiners, very high yields of gasoline and 

diesel. Refiners love it. It fits really well into the East Coast refining systems, the way they are configured. It fits pretty well into 

the Pacific Northwest refining complexes as they are configured. 

And it is—you know, it is one of the examples of why, you know, 

that works that way. I mean it has been very easy for those refiners to back out waterborne light crudes. It fits very well and it is 

a replacement for those offshore international crudes. 

Mr. BRIDENSTINE. Is it true that petroleum produced from the 

Bakken region has an average lower sulfur content than the average sulfur content processed by U.S. refiners on average? 

Mr. AUERS. Oh, yeah, quite a bit lower. It is less than, oh, .28 

percent sulfur. I think the average sulfur of U.S. refinery crude 

runs somewhere in the 1.6/7 range. 

Mr. BRIDENSTINE. What are the consequences of petroleum with 

lower sulfur content? 

Mr. AUERS. It requires less intensive processing at the refinery 

level to produce clean products, you know, low sulfur transportation fuels. That makes it less expensive to process. 

Mr. BRIDENSTINE. So this would be a more marketable, you 

know, crude than other crudes? 

Mr. AUERS. It is a more valuable crude. The sulfur is not the biggest part of its value; it is the fact that it has very good distillation 

characteristics, again, a high yield of gasoline components and distillate diesel components, high-value transportation fuels. 

Mr. BRIDENSTINE. Is it true that increased Bakken production 

has led to the continued operations of certain East Coast refineries? 

Mr. AUERS. Yeah, I believe that is very true. Just 2 or three 

years ago there were several refineries that were threatened with 

shutdown. Before that time two or three—really four or five actually did shutdown. Once they were able to gain access to lower-cost 

domestic supply to be able to replace the high cost international 

barrels they were running, we were able to keep the Philadelphia 

Energy Systems plant, a big 330,000 barrel-a-day plant in Philadelphia operating. The Phillips 66, Conoco Phillips, was looking at 

shutting down their Marcus Hook plant south of—you know, close 

to the Philadelphia airport. Delta Airlines—that is a Monroe Energy subsidiary—bought that plant and it is operating. The Dela-
102 

ware City plant has—that was shut down for a while has started 

up. So we—and I think continued access to that crude is crucial to 

keep the East Coast refineries running. 

Mr. BRIDENSTINE. Thank you for sharing that. I am out of time. 

I just want to say it is true that what is happening in the Bakken 

is good for our country, and thank you guys for being here. 

Mr. WEBER. The gentleman yields back. 

Mr. Rohrabacher, did you have a question? 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Thank you very much. I guess we are going 

for votes so I will round things off. 

I mentioned earlier to the first panel that there are dangers with 

offshore oil drilling, and I have visited offshore oil platforms. I am 

a surfer and a scuba diver. And—but there are people who lose 

their lives in building these things and also we have had fire flame 

outs and flares and oil spills and things in the Gulf of Mexico, et 

cetera. 

We have had the of course Alaskan and Arctic oil production, 

which again is very expensive and many people probably over that 

time period of driving supplies and things lost their lives in making 

sure we had the production from the pipeline in Alaska. 

And let’s just note, by the way, we should all consider what our 

economy would have like in the last 20 years had we not thought 

through the Alaskan pipeline because the Alaskan pipeline only 

won by one vote in the United States Congress. And had we not 

had to that oil, what would our economy have been like during 

these last 30 years when the dependency on Gulf oil—meaning Persian Gulf oil—was sucking the life out of our system? You know, 

in coalmining there are people who die in coalmining and transporting coalmines, and of course in nuclear power we have got a 

waste left over that is there for 1,000 years. 

So maybe, it seems to me when you have all these other resources for energy and that is what you are facing, we should be 

thanking God that we found oil and gas in North Dakota of all 

places. 

And let me—I mean that was—and I am saying that as my father, mother were both from small farms in North Dakota and life 

was so tough in North Dakota on these small farms that my dad 

left the farm in order to fight in the Marine Corps to fight World 

War II. And life was so rough that the life of a Marine fighting 

World War II was actually more comfortable than the life on the 

farm and so he stayed in the Marine Corps. 

And I—when I look and see how people in North Dakota are living now and what this means to people—ordinary people’s lives, 

again, you should be thanking God rather than sending out an 

army of regulators to try to find—and using a microscope to find 

out any excuse to put a roadblock in the way and try to stop this 

wonderful gift that we have from being utilized to upgrading people’s lives in our country. So that is the number one point. 

Let me ask you about—and again, I think the motive that this 

Administration—that is why you are getting these type of very 

skeptical questions of the first panel is we can see that this Administration honestly believes in the global warming theory, and thus 

it really wants to stamp out the use of fossil fuels, and that would 

mean—and that is why we have the excuse of no pipeline, the Key-
103 

stone pipeline, after all of this time not being approved. We are 

paying the price. We are paying the price for that and ordinary 

people in this country, like the people in North Dakota in particular, but ordinary people who live in this country are going to 

pay a price for not having this wealth that God gave us as a gift. 

And of course with our intelligence and the new fracking system— 

let me ask one question about your production there. 

One thing—I have watched this develop in North Dakota because 

I have these family ties, gee, I sure hope there is some under my 

grandpa’s old land but we haven’t determined that yet so let me 

ask you this about flaring, which is one thing that I have been concerned about is that when you see these pictures at night, you see 

that there is enormous amounts of flaring going on in North Dakota. Now, flaring is a waste of resources. Flaring is a waste of natural gas and you are putting stuff into the air that you don’t necessarily want to put in the air. I understand that North Dakota 

now is going out of its way to try to bring the flaring of natural 

gas in the Bakken under control. Is that right? 

Ms. CUTTING. That is correct. The North Dakota Petroleum 

Council stood up a task force to look at this flaring issue and the 

industry itself identified the roadblocks to bringing infrastructure 

into place to capture that gas and a lot of that—the roadblocks had 

to do with landowner rights and easement. The fact that there 

needed to be better communication with companies who are building pipeline, this turned out to be a major roadblock. So through 

the effort of that task force and with working with the North Dakota Industrial Commission it was determined that one of the ways 

to better capture gas as quickly as possible was to have a gas capture plan required at the time of permitting, and that is now occurring. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. We are blessed with a great gift of oil and 

gas in North Dakota and I hope that we are able to get the flaring 

under control because that does reflect a waste of wealth and also 

something that could be harmful to people’s health. 

So with that said, thank you very much. This has been a very, 

I think, significant hearing. 

Mr. WEBER. The gentleman yields back. 

I will say, Dana—you know, he is being a little modest. He told 

me that his parents grew up on a farm that was so poor it took 

three acres just to rust one nail, so that is pretty poor. So perhaps 

they will find oil underneath your grandpa’s old farm. 

So with this, this hearing is concluded. Thank you for your testimony. 

[Whereupon, at 4:37 p.m., the Subcommittees were adjourned.] 

(105) 

Appendix I 

ANSWERS TO POST-HEARING QUESTIONS
106 

ANSWERS TO POST-HEARING QUESTIONS

Responses by Mr. Chris Smith 
107 
108 
109 

Responses by Mr. Timothy Butters 
110 
111 
112 
113 

Responses by Ms. Kari Cutting 
114 
115 
116 
(117) 

Appendix II 

ADDITIONAL MATERIAL FOR THE RECORD
118 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF FULL COMMITTEEE RANKING MEMBER

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON

Æ