This link is a good intro to the capability of pipelines to handle different commodities, the resulting "transmix" problem, and some ways that it is dealt with:
http://www.innovative-sensor.com/Brochures/Transmix.pdf
Thanks for the 1st link, eric !
- Paul North.
erikem da_kraut: Correct me if I am wrong but I believe it is not possible to transfer different grades of Gas, Diesel and other products via pipeline. Frank, You're wrong... Transferring different grades of Gas, Diesel and Jet Fuel in one pipeline is done all the time. Some additives have to be added after delivery as they are incompatible with other products. San Diego is served by one petroleum products pipeline that was originally built by a joint venture between the AT&SF and SP. The pipeline has a tap-off point at MCAS Miramar and there is a branch to the main USN base in San Diego Bay. - Erik
da_kraut: Correct me if I am wrong but I believe it is not possible to transfer different grades of Gas, Diesel and other products via pipeline.
Correct me if I am wrong but I believe it is not possible to transfer different grades of Gas, Diesel and other products via pipeline.
Frank,
You're wrong...
Transferring different grades of Gas, Diesel and Jet Fuel in one pipeline is done all the time. Some additives have to be added after delivery as they are incompatible with other products.
San Diego is served by one petroleum products pipeline that was originally built by a joint venture between the AT&SF and SP. The pipeline has a tap-off point at MCAS Miramar and there is a branch to the main USN base in San Diego Bay.
- Erik
http://www.ask.com/web?l=dir&qsrc=0&o=ffx&q=transmix
"No soup for you!" - Yev Kassem (from Seinfeld)
da_kraut Correct me if I am wrong but I believe it is not possible to transfer different grades of Gas, Diesel and other products via pipeline.
Hello everybody,
it is a interesting posting to read. Here people are upset about a pipe line going through their state or area, BIG DEAL. Have any of you actually been up to Fort McMurray and seen the destruction of the strip mining. The pollution that is produced by this process to create the bitumen is immense, the natural gas that is used in the process is astronomical. If you take google maps and go to the tar sands and look at the destruction of Boreal forest and the huge sludge ponds you will see that a pipeline is peanuts compared to the destruction going on up there. How do I know, worked next to the Suncor plant for 7 months, after two weeks the snow is a dark grey. When the weather conditions were right the main smoke stack had a layer of grey pollution in the air that stretched for miles. At least a half a dozen flare stacks were burning all the time.
Also we have to change our policies up here in Canada, we will only ship finished products. Never mind a pipeline down south. If you want any of the products that come from the tar sands then they will be refined products. Correct me if I am wrong but I believe it is not possible to transfer different grades of Gas, Diesel and other products via pipeline. So the only logical solution would be the railways. At least that is how I think this should be done. AS for profit, Shell Scotsford build a mirror image of their refinery near Fort Saskatchewan in Alberta. It cost over 12 Billion Dollars to build. The plant will pay for itself in a YEAR!!! This area is actually a great place to see SD40-2's in action. That is the preferred switcher for both CP and CN.
Frank
"If you need a helping hand, you'll find one at the end of your arm."
Paul,
I understand what you mean. My thoughts about the story morphing were mainly directed at the media news flow on the pipeline delay. I only meant to mentioned this thread as seeming to reflect that.
But as I understand this further, the evolving story is related to the pipeline cancellation in this way: The segment through the Sand Hills from Canada was not the most urgently necessary part, and will not be needed until after 2015. The OK to TX segment is the more urgently needed part of the pipeline, and its loss will be compensated for by reversing the flow on the existing Seaway pipeline on that route.
Odd as it may seem, the answer is no.
The cost of building a new refinery with the projected capacity would be close to building, from the foundations and infrastructure up, 2 maybe 3 medium to small towns, plus the cost of meeting the new EPA regulations, all of which places this option beyond the cost recovery.
They would have to have rail, water and roadway access to boot.
That's one of the major reasons there are so many refineries along the Houston Ship channel, they can receive and ship by water and rail...the majority of product arrives and leaves by ship and pipeline.
Norm48327 I have to claim ignorance, but wouldn't it cost less to build a refinery close to the source of the oil than a long pipeline?
I have to claim ignorance, but wouldn't it cost less to build a refinery close to the source of the oil than a long pipeline?
23 17 46 11
Bucyrus Paul, Strangely, it seems like the news of killing the pipeline project has morphed into news about eliminating an oil transport bottleneck out of Cushing, OK. I don’t get the connection unless it is just to put market happy-face on killing the tar sands pipeline. I can’t tell if this turnabout is the actual news media thrust, or if it is just something happening in this thread.
Although I made several posts related to the Cushing, OK crude oil supply situation, that wasn't done to divert or distract from the pipeline politics, in which I have little interest, nor in its effects on the global warming debate. Instead, my posts were made primarily to share and better inform other members about more of the facts about this matter, because for sure I don't claim to fully comprehend all of it. My interests are more in the nature of whether there's an opportunity for a rail move of the oil, perhaps at the expense of - or in conjunction with - this or another pipeline, depending on what the market wants.
Interestingly, this week's events and their effect on the crude oil prices at Cushing pretty much disabuse the "efficient markets" theory, which in brief is that markets and their participants collectively 'know all and see all' and take that information into proper account in their pricing. That sudden of a change in the local price and the differential with the Brent North Sea crude benchmark tells me that no one (or at least not many) saw this change in the Seaway pipeline's ownership and flow direction coming, and they were mostly caught flat-footed by it.
So I'm just trying to understand the principal forces on this market, and see what role - if any - the rails can play in moving crude oil. I prefer and tend to focus more on the more objective and deterministic fundamentals of supply, demand, capacity, operations, etc. than the fuzzier and subjective political aspects, that's all.
The efficiency model has to transport the crude oil (pipeline, tanker, etc.) to the refineries nearer to the centers of population, and then to locally distribute it's many products. If you build the refinery near the oil source, then you still must transport all the products to the population centers, buy separately in less efficient smaller batches, some by different means.
Norm
Bucyrus But if they needed the extra capacity of the short-cut line through the Sand Hills, how does the "reverse flow" link from OK to TX solve the problem of losing the needed extra capacity of the line through the Sand Hills?
But if they needed the extra capacity of the short-cut line through the Sand Hills, how does the "reverse flow" link from OK to TX solve the problem of losing the needed extra capacity of the line through the Sand Hills?
The OK-TX existing line only has about half of the capacity of the planned line and is only a temporary fix for present flow. If they build the extra capacity short-cut (now proposed to skirt the Sand Hills) they will also need more capacity in the OK-TX lane.
While reading some news sites I monitor, I found the following linked article. It is from a site that belongs to the Daily Mail site: [blogs.Daily Mail.com] .
The newspaper is the Charleston (W.Va.) Daily Mail. The article is by Don Surber.
Since it references how the write of the blog views the current administration and it position with Warren Buffett and his ownership of the BNSF RR, and its ties to the current topic. I thought it bore posting here for thoughts and comments.
link: http://blogs.dailymail.com/donsurber/archives/46466
I can’t tell if this turnabout is the actual news media thrust, or if it is just something happening in this thread.
The line thru the Sand Hills is only an extra capacity short-cut to existing Keystone lines that already connect Canada with Oklahoma. Additionally they were going to continue the line from Oklahoma to Texas, but for now may simply reverse the flow direction on some one else's idle line between those points.
Strangely, it seems like the news of killing the pipeline project has morphed into news about eliminating an oil transport bottleneck out of Cushing, OK. I don’t get the connection unless it is just to put market happy-face on killing the tar sands pipeline.
Link to a much shorter on-line version of the article I referenced above (that notably doesn't include the mention of the inaugural 103-car unit train of crude from North Dakota last month which is in the print version . . . ):
"Oil Jumps on Pipeline Deal" by Chip Cummins:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203699404577041901234224874.html
See also "Oil Refiners After the Pipe Dream" by Liam Denning, also published Nov. 17, 2011, at:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204517204577042102007987684.html
Paul_D_North_Jr Big article on that in yesterday's (Thurs., Nov. 17, 2011) Wall Street Journal. The analysis there was that oil (and hence gas) prices have been artificially low because of the glut of oil at Cushing, OK. However, reversing the flow of the Seaway pipeline and installing the Cushing to Gulf Coast segment of the Keystone XL pipeline will solve that problem (for the oil producers), and allow the price to be more nearly in line with market levels elsewhere (bad for refiners). There was also a follow-on article back on page C12 or so about how diesel and other 'middle distillates' is the stuff that's really in demand,,and even more expensive. It's all a complictaed web, connected in many places . . . - Paul North.
Big article on that in yesterday's (Thurs., Nov. 17, 2011) Wall Street Journal. The analysis there was that oil (and hence gas) prices have been artificially low because of the glut of oil at Cushing, OK. However, reversing the flow of the Seaway pipeline and installing the Cushing to Gulf Coast segment of the Keystone XL pipeline will solve that problem (for the oil producers), and allow the price to be more nearly in line with market levels elsewhere (bad for refiners). There was also a follow-on article back on page C12 or so about how diesel and other 'middle distillates' is the stuff that's really in demand,,and even more expensive. It's all a complictaed web, connected in many places . . .
In this new scenario, does this mean Canada will just accept the status quo with existing U.S. pipelines handling their tar sands output? Or will Canada push ahead with their own plans to sell their oil to new markets in anticipation of their expanded output?
Also, did anyone notice, that as soon as the delay was announced, gas prices spiked way up?
RJ
"Something hidden, Go and find it. Go and look behind the ranges, Something lost behind the ranges. Lost and waiting for you. Go." The Explorers - Rudyard Kipling
http://sweetwater-photography.com/
erikem miniwyo: In reality, how many accidents happen per year? 1? Those are usually caused by extenuating circumstances, like the Yellowstone River leak or construction activity hitting the line. So, chances are, during the life of the line, odds are a leak will not happen. That's pretty much what I wrote earlier in this thread, nice to see someone with pipeline operating experience validate my guesses. - Erik
miniwyo: In reality, how many accidents happen per year? 1? Those are usually caused by extenuating circumstances, like the Yellowstone River leak or construction activity hitting the line. So, chances are, during the life of the line, odds are a leak will not happen.
In reality, how many accidents happen per year? 1? Those are usually caused by extenuating circumstances, like the Yellowstone River leak or construction activity hitting the line. So, chances are, during the life of the line, odds are a leak will not happen.
That's pretty much what I wrote earlier in this thread, nice to see someone with pipeline operating experience validate my guesses.
Pipes font just leak. There is usually some kind of outside force. Sadly, the most common is dozer operators not paying attention and cutting it with the ripper. Usually causing an explosion. :(
A new refinery isn't economical, the owner would never make thier money back on the investment for a new refinery. Pipe is cheaper to get it to an existing refinery.
With the TCP delay Canada is now seriously thinking of going to the west coast, lots of talk and interest, a sidebar to the tarsands and as large as it is in Alberta, the largest part of the tarsands lies in Saskatchewan which is yet untapped.
miniwyo In reality, how many accidents happen per year? 1? Those are usually caused by extenuating circumstances, like the Yellowstone River leak or construction activity hitting the line. So, chances are, during the life of the line, odds are a leak will not happen.
Two possible game-changing 'wild cards' on this came to light today:
See this article in the NY Times' on-line edition at:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/17/business/energy-environment/route-proposals-may-ease-an-oil-pipeline-bottleneck.html
blue streak 1 [snipped] So the reduction in tank cars needed would certainly reduce the overall costs of tank cars but requires the same costs for locomotives.. . . . Just uncouple ahead of the 1/3 and 2/3 DPUs which would speed up positioning tank cars maybe saving 1 - 2 Hrs in and out ?? Would need a qualified conductor / engineer and maybe one additional engineer or a quick van trip ?
Kneiling also had a dismissive expression for the usual railroad approach to this kind of opportunity back then - it was nothing more than "How do we route the pipe ?" - which meant that the competitive rail movement of the oil wasn't even being considered or attempted.
Also a good point about the extra qualified personnel to perhaps help separate the train into segments and spot them on each unloading track. Although those arrangements are very site specific, after further thought I ennvision that my suggested 272+ car train would use pairs of locos spaced out in blocks of 30 to 35 cars or so = about 8 or 9 blocks per train, each 2,600 ft. or so long (1/2 mile), all DPU's and close enough that radio Locotrol and ECP signals would still be strong enough to repeat reliably. At the terminals it would be a quick shuttle to cut each block apart and then run it independently into a separate loading/ unloading track - say, a yard that's 10 tracks across x 1/2 mile long on each track from the clearance point to the end, with a loading/ unloading rack between each pair of tracks, plus probably another 1/4 mile or so for a ladder to connect all the tracks back together again. Since the train is going back where it came from, and is being broken up anyway to keep the overall length of the yard and the racks within reason, the yard doesn't need to be double-ended for a run-through move, or use a loop to turn the train; that also provides an opportunity to refuel the locos, and maybe cut them off for movement to a local service facility for sand, etc. So to get that done pretty promptly with an 8 or 9 block train, it might take as many as 3 qualified engineers/ hostlers plus a couple carmen seems about right - with each one taking a block at about 5 min. intervals, the entire train could be cut apart and moved up in about 20 minutes, and likewise for reassembly before then performing the Initial Terminal Air Test, etc.
Paul_D_North_Jr Keep in mind that per the above, each trainset would be roughly $110 million for cars and $130 million for locomotives, for a total of $240 million. Speeding-up the over-the-road portion of the operation from 20 to 40 MPH cuts the size of the fleet required by half (of course), from 9 or 10 to 5 trainsets - a saving of 4 or 5 trainsets at $240 million each ==> $960 million to $1.2 billion. Much faster or slower than these ranges, and the number of locomotives per train should be adjusted as well for a different HP/ ton level. - Paul North.
Keep in mind that per the above, each trainset would be roughly $110 million for cars and $130 million for locomotives, for a total of $240 million. Speeding-up the over-the-road portion of the operation from 20 to 40 MPH cuts the size of the fleet required by half (of course), from 9 or 10 to 5 trainsets - a saving of 4 or 5 trainsets at $240 million each ==> $960 million to $1.2 billion. Much faster or slower than these ranges, and the number of locomotives per train should be adjusted as well for a different HP/ ton level.
Paul great numbers. What I have read indicates the HP needed to move 10 train sets ( of X cars ) at 20 MPH is only slightly less than the HP needed to move 5 train sets at 40 MPH. So the reduction in tank cars needed would certainly reduce the overall costs of tank cars but requires the same costs for locomotives.. 5 train sets would have ~ 2-1/2 + times HP to move the cars at 50 MPH. Probably would require both mid train and end of train DPU. If DPU were placed at 1/3 and 2/3 locations of the train quick breakdown of the train at the terminals would be possible for the 3 parallel tracks. Just uncouple ahead of the 1/3 and 2/3 DPUs which would speed up positioning tank cars maybe saving 1 - 2 Hrs in and out ?? Would need a qualified conductor / engineer and maybe one additional engineer or a quick van trip ?
Granted that the empty car trains probably would return at 50 - 60 MPH even if they ran loaded at 20 MPH so savings are not as much as RT trains that have same approximately same trailing tonnage.
Move it west by 100 miles or so... Wyoming will take the Right of Way money!
Just to put it in perspective, On sunday, I got a call from one of our customers that buys our liquids. They had a reported leak, and needed me to quit pumping into the line. I did, and within an hour I got a call back that it was a false alarm. Moral of the story, if a leak should happen, the operators know right away and are on top of the situation.
I understand the concern of contaminating the ogalala aquifer, but Nebraska doesn't know what they are missing out on. Right of way Leases will give a much needed financial boost to both the state and private landowners.
If Leonard DiCaprio and Julia Louis-Dreyfuss are against it, it must be stopped!
rrnut282 I just have one question for those opposed to the pipeline. Whose smokestack do you want it to go up? One here in N America where it is regulated, monitored, and kept reasonably clean, or in China where anything goes(up the stack)??
I just have one question for those opposed to the pipeline. Whose smokestack do you want it to go up? One here in N America where it is regulated, monitored, and kept reasonably clean, or in China where anything goes(up the stack)??
But when it goes up the stack in China, we are told that it reduces global warming. I think it has something to do with whirlpools spinning backwards over there.
http://www.tgdaily.com/sustainability-features/57022-chinese-coal-use-slows-global-warming
Link to GATX "Tank Train" webpage - so glad to see it's still listed:
http://www.gatx.com/wps/wcm/connect/GATX/GATX_SITE/Home/Rail/Rail+North+America/Products/Equipment+Types/Tank/Tank+Train/
Note that it says unloading rates is 3,000 gals. perminute, and a 90-car train can be unloaded in less than 5 hours. So with 3 parallel tracks of just over a mile long - each for 1/3 of the train, my 4 hypothetical 272 car trains daily theoretically could be loaded and unloaded in a 6-hour window, so that part of the cycle can be set.
As to the rest, if it's a 2,000 mile 1-way route (this is confusing to me - see this webpage for a lot more details than I ever knew before, esp. about Phases 1 and 2 having been completed, and the 'stitch together' nature of Phases 3 and 4, etc., though the usual disclaimers apply: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keystone_Pipeline ), let's look at some possible average speeds, cycle times, and hence the implications for equipment needs:
Avg. speed 20 MPH ==> 100 hrs. (4.2 days) each way + 0.25 day to load/ unload = 4.45 days 1-way x 2 ways = 8.9, say 9 or 10 days, hence 9 or 10 x 1,087 cars, etc. as above.
Avg. speed 30 MPH ==> 66.7 hrs. (2.8 days) each way + 0.25 day to load/ unload = 3.05 days 1-way x 2 ways = 6.1, say 6 or 7 days, hence 6 or 7 x 1,087 cars, etc. as above.
Avg. speed 40 MPH ==> 50 hrs. (2.1 days) each way + 0.25 day to load/ unload = 2.35 days 1-way x 2 ways = 4.7, say 5 days, hence 5 x 1,087 cars, etc. as above.
By the way, at 6% interest over 30 years ($6.00 per month = $72 per year per $1,000 borrowed or invested), each of those $240 million trainsets would cost about $48,000 per day = $2,000 per hour in interest and amortization (capital recovery) alone, so there's a big incentive to provide the management staff and talent and physical and oeprational improvements to run them as fast as practically possible.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.