A recent editorial in “TRAINS” indicated that some crude must be “degassed” before a pipeline will accept it. Would this process make movement by rail safer? would it solve the explosive combustion problems?
I also wonder if the problem is the crude itself or the fracking chemicals in the crude although it seems more and more from what I read that the crude itself is the culprit. Anyone have any ideas?
(I suspect that much of the degassing question involves overpressure issues that may be more important for pipelines and their technology than for 111A and similar ‘flammable-ready’ tankcars)
In my opinion, a qualified yes, and no. We have covered much of this in some of the other Bakken-crude-related threads, but you have to ‘fish’ for it.)
Degassing will remove some proportion of the volatile material that makes for a more immediate ignition hazard in case of accident. On the other hand, with the high likelihood of ignition sources in a railroad accident, and the proportion of volatile fractions that would remain after cost-effective degassing, I think you would still have ample potential for ‘explosive combustion’ in too many cases.
My understanding is it’s inherent in the crude composition. Raises another question, though: in operations involving diluent, how much volatility or propensity to critical-mixture explosion might the diluent itself add?
Why do pipelines have product required to be degased ? What are the specifications ? Was the crude in the tank cars not so treated ?
I was thinking along these lines when reading the “Reid Vapor Pressure” thread. Would it be feasible to separate the more volatile components (by distilling or whatever) so that the bulk of the heavier oil could be shipped without special precautions? The lighter components could be shipped separately as hazmat. The cost may be prohibitively high, but I was just thinking…
After injecting the fracking fluid, the spent fluid is recovered, and the water soluble chemicals are separated out from any test oil. This is all done before the start of regular oil production.
An upper limit of the amount of flammable chemicals used in frac’ing fluid is placed by simple economics. Flammable chemicals would generally be useful as a fuel with a value at least equal to the amount of crude with the same energy content. Considering all the other costs associated with crude production, it would make no economic sense to ave the frac’ing chemicals being more than a very few per cent of the crude.
Do not confuse “crude” with “fracking compounds”. Crude is as defined by the word: right out of the ground untouched or altered. Fracking is a chemical mixture of unknown ingredients concocted by oil and gas drilling companies to be forced into deep and spidery wells to cause the rock to fracture and release gas or oil. The recipe for these fracking fluids are held secret by the individual drillers in fear competitors will use it. Or because they really don’t want the public to know what they are injecting into farmland and water supplies. It has been an argument here in the east in the Marcelus Shale because of the environmental impact is not addressed nor are fire departments and emergency personnel prepared to fight chemical spills, fires, and first aid.
An article yesterday in the Wall Street Journal said rail costs twice as much as a pipeline but producers are finding they can ship to the highest paying customer which offsets the differential price and is more profitable rather than be tied to one end point.
Somewhere earlier it has been stated that existing rail is cheaper than pipeline and that shippers have found it easier and cheaper to reroute in transit than by rigid and unconnected pipelines. There are many in this battle who are trying to discredit either the railroads or the pipelines in order to discredit the policies of given politicians.
Perhaps my earlier explanation was not clear. The bottom line is that fracking fluid and production crude oil for shipment are not mixed together. Also, while the exact composition of fracking chemicals is proprietary, the classes of hazardous chemicals are known, as required by law, for both worker protection and environmental response. Fracking only takes place in wells that have adequately engineered casing and sealing to protect other formations and groundwater.
Exactly, Mike. But the real story is that we are being deceived, lied to, put in danger, and otherwise being used or abused by the oil, gas, and drilling companies solely for their financial gain. We can blow up or be poisoned to death as long as they get their huge returns on investment.
Crude involved in the Lac Megantic incident had the volitility of gasolene
Balt
Now the fun begins re: assessing crude oil at source and labeling oil loads for rail transport. The lawyers must be gleefully rubbing their hands…
Charlie
Chilliwack, BC
Methane is the primary Gas, and its “natural gas” so it can be captured but at colder temps it may not separate as easily. Mixing with the fracking fluid? Well, oil and water dont mix, all you have is water and silica at high pressure for fracking. The oil rises and the gas as well. The Bakken crude, as has been discussed elsewhere here, is not all liquid, and some gases are trapped in small pieces of coal or rock, requiring a different classification and packaging rating.
In Saudi Arabia they pump water into oil wells to make them flow faster
The Alaskan pipeline has been nothing but good for the environment ( many animals like it and seem to congregate around it, like a sunken ship used for a REEF) ,and the economy. That is crude oil, not the same as Bakken, BUT it does get “thinned some” for transport at times.
Tree made a comment a few days ago that the Lac Megantic would have happened pretty much as it did if the tank cars were filled with gasoline instead of Bakken crude.
Reading the Railway Age link from the recent post, while it’s obvious that the Packing Group was a category too low, it also quoted the Canadian agency as saying there was no fracking chemicals or hydrogen sulfide, and BTEX was consistent with a light crude. I am awaiting to find out why the Packing Group was labled wrong, however, as referenced in previous threads, the handling is the same for both PGs.
With the point being that if that had been a trainload of gasoline, everyone would have simply said “well, duh!”
Methinks that at least part of the issue is that people seem to think that crude oil is some thick, inert liquid that you couldn’t set fire to with a welding torch. So when it turns out that it’s quite flammable, everyone is aghast.
Lac Megantic and North Dakota were anomolies. Both involved a “perfect storm” of circumstances. Given the proximity of the affected businesses to the rails in Lac Megantic, a single flammable car in a manifest freight exploding at the right place might well have still killed all of the people in that bar.
BTEX = Benzene, toluene, ethyl benzene, xylenes
Quite interesting. However, I was not familiar with the depiction of the ethyl group, which has a bend at the point of the CH2 part of the ethyl group. For those not familiar with the nomenclature, an ethyl group has its empiric formula represented as C2H5; methyl is CH3.
For anyone who wonders why “xylenes” is in the plural, it is because there are three different xylenes–ortho, meta, and para. Ortho xylene has two methyl groups on adjacent carbon atoms in a benzene ring; meta xylene has one carbon atom between the two groups, and para has the two groups on opposite sides of the ring. All three have about the same boiling points–a little over 144, 139, and 138 degrees Celsius, respectively.