Join the discussion on the following article:
FRA: shippers mislabel crude oil
Seems that crude that to flows from a well that has to have fracking chemicals to make the trip from well to tank car is NOT crude. It’s another stuff crying for another hazmat classification…bringing different reg’s, safety procedures, evacuation suggestions, temporary remission procedures…
This crude-chem mix versus crude-unblended compares nuclear bombs to a soggy matchbook…oops, matchbooks went away…uh, a spark emanated…didn’t ignite anything 'cause it was so weak working against mud-like crude; the Balkan Blend could very well be horrifically able to Lac-?Megantic a town?
Seems that crude that to flows from a well that has to have fracking chemicals to make the trip from well to tank car is NOT crude. It’s another stuff crying for another hazmat classification…bringing different reg’s, safety procedures, evacuation suggestions, temporary remission procedures…
This crude-chem mix versus crude-unblended compares nuclear bombs to a soggy matchbook…oops, matchbooks went away…uh, a spark emanated…didn’t ignite anything 'cause it was so weak working against mud-like crude; the Balkan Blend could very well be horrifically able to Lac-?Megantic a town?
PG I not PG III big difference is requirements. Also calls into question the Certificate of Analysis (COA) . This has implications not just to transport also to refining.
Appears that at least one of the shippers is screwing up big time in a major way. How many more are taking shortcuts? Of course, as always, the environ-mentalists will blame fracking because they don’t want any fuel other than wind and solar. Meanwhile, I get the feeling American regulators and Canadian regulators are busy comparing notes.
The TSB in Canada took samples of the crude at Lac-Megantic. While they have not publicly shared any results, I wonder if their preliminary findings were what triggered the FRA investigation. If the crude was wrongly classified that will play in the various lawsuits and definitely bring in the original shipper(s).
33,000 gallons of oil has enough fracking components to cause corrosion?! Obviously some propaganda thrown in by the feds.
Let’s just see the facts as to volatility of chemicals added to enhance fracking.
Some would appear happy if matchbooks and nuclear power and petroleum went away.
Hopefully it ain’t gonna happen!
OK, a little quick education on crude, dilute materials, and frac chemicals. First, crudes are as varied as fruit salad. Some crude is so thick it could be hauled on a flat car, some is as thin and volatile as gasoline all by itself. Dilute is used with heavy crude, such as from the oil sands, it has nothing to do with fracking chemicals. (I can’t speak of the dilute material itself, but I would assume it’s simply a crude distillate to thin down viscous crude) As for fracking chemicals, They are most often highly diluted in water before being pumped downhole. (Remember that oil and water don’t mix, the frac water flowback is decanted off the produced oil) Also remember that a frac job is a one time thing for a few days. Its not something done continuously. Any frac chemicals that would be mixed with the produced oil would be an extremely small fraction of the crude being transported. I don’t believe it could have any affect on the corrosiveness of the oil itself.
So, basically what I’m saying is that Mr. Carlin is wrong, fracking chemicals have no effect what so ever on the crude oil.
I would think that chemicals used to remove the oil would be just as hazardous in a pipeline as in a tank car. anything that would weaken the steel used in either could cause a major disaster. Certainly, the carrier need to be aware of what is being transported and it should be incumbent upon the shipper to make whoever transports the oil aware of the contents.
I would think that chemicals used to remove the oil would be just as hazardous in a pipeline as in a tank car. anything that would weaken the steel used in either could cause a major disaster. Certainly, the carrier need to be aware of what is being transported and it should be incumbent upon the shipper to make whoever transports the oil aware of the contents.
One mislabeled shipment and many speculations. This letter is not a scientific report but a political shot across the bow to satisfy the tree huggers. Out of thousands of shipments of everything there are going to be mistakes. Not to make light of the mistake, but errors occur. The railroad safety record is still much better than any other bulk shipment mode.
Ian: I don’t know if Bakken is light, sweet, heavy, sour, or somewhere in between, but the direct answer to your question (“What is the difference between lite sweet and heavy sour in terms of combustion?”) is that heavier (thicker, more viscous) oil is less combustible than lighter (thinner, less viscous, more volatile). Consider: grease, lubrication oil, Diesel fuel, gasoline, and aviation gasoline are all nothing but different names for different oil weights. Which is more combustible?
It is important to note that gas and oil companies have fracking chemical mixtures the ingredients of which they refuse to reveal causing all kinds of problems to first responders in times of emergencies and creates dangerous conditions to the general population. To add to it, Dick Cheney arranged for those involved in fracking to be exempt from EPA rules and regulations. The industry has taken this to mean they can do as the please with utter disregard for people, population centers, environments including water, air and soil. This is an industry gone wild evidently not even caring about those they rely on for services!
Mr Mcwilliams. What is the difference between lite sweet and heavy sour in terms of combustion? I had thought that bakken was a lite sweet.
The shipper is responsible for the proper classification of any hazardous material that is shipped; the preparer of the bill of lading, who must hold current certification in the preparation of shipments of hazmat, takes the information he is given as to the nature of the shipment.
The shipper is responsible for the proper classification of any hazardous material that is shipped; the preparer of the bill of lading, who must hold current certification in the preparation of shipments of hazmat, takes the information he is given as to the nature of the shipment.
The shipper is responsible for the proper classification of any hazardous material that is shipped; the preparer of the bill of lading, who must hold current certification in the preparation of shipments of hazmat, takes the information he is given as to the nature of the shipment.
Sad to see this degenerated into political name calling. Obviously the extent of the fire in CA was a concern as to the actual product being transported. A prudent regulatory agency would take a pro-active view at doing some spot checking and may indeed find some problems that need addressing. Again, wild speculation does nothing positive.
So, nobody knows what is in the tank cars, no one is checking, there is no system in place and trying to rectify that is a “political shot across the bow to satisfy the tree huggers.” Just seems like common sense to me.