Given the situation at Lac-Mégantic, you should have head the panic in the voice of the news anchor last night.
A CP train derailed at Lloydminister, AB yesterday. The loco and seven crude oil tank cars tipped over. There was no product leaks or fire.
There is a cool picture of the underside of an EMD 4-acle loco in the first link:
http://globalnews.ca/news/745373/train-carrying-crude-oil-derails-in-lloydminster-no-leaks-reported/
http://edmonton.ctvnews.ca/cp-investigating-train-derailment-in-lloydminster-1.1386436
Bruce
So shovel the coal, let this rattler roll.
"A Train is a Place Going Somewhere" CP Rail Public Timetable
"O. S. Irricana"
. . . __ . ______
Greasemonkey ... MidlandMikeKeystone/TransCanada seems to be one of the exceptions Greasemonkey was talking about. They were already transporting dilbit to the midwest US when they had a very large spill in Michigan about 3 years ago. The dilutent which has a lot of volatile components, such as benzene, caused hazardous air quality, and the bitumen sunk below the water. I think you will find the dilbit you are mentioning is most likely partially upgraded heavy oil. Not actually bitumen at all. It likely comes from one of several upgraders that deal with the conventional heavy oil fields that are currently worked. This heavy oil, is partially upgraded, to a level that is lower than the upgrading done to oil sands bitumen. The partially upgraded oil is then mixed to create blends such as Western Canada Select. This is not Bitumen, or dilbit.
...
MidlandMikeKeystone/TransCanada seems to be one of the exceptions Greasemonkey was talking about. They were already transporting dilbit to the midwest US when they had a very large spill in Michigan about 3 years ago. The dilutent which has a lot of volatile components, such as benzene, caused hazardous air quality, and the bitumen sunk below the water.
I think you will find the dilbit you are mentioning is most likely partially upgraded heavy oil. Not actually bitumen at all. It likely comes from one of several upgraders that deal with the conventional heavy oil fields that are currently worked. This heavy oil, is partially upgraded, to a level that is lower than the upgrading done to oil sands bitumen. The partially upgraded oil is then mixed to create blends such as Western Canada Select. This is not Bitumen, or dilbit.
I should not have relied on my memory of media reports. I checked out Enbridge's site, and the spilled oil was 23% Western Canada Select and 77% Cold Lake. Imperial's site says that Cold Lake is an Oil Sands operation that produces bitumen. I could not tell if their final product was dilbit or syncrude.
http://response.enbridgeus.com/response/main.aspx?id=12783#Type_of_oil
http://www.imperialoil.ca/Canada-English/operations_sands_cold.aspx
This stuff is the bottom of the barrel as far as world reliance on hydrocarbons. While Harper was in the US trying to get them to build Keystone, Peter Kent, the environment minister, was in Europe unsuccessfully trying to stop the EU from labeling Canadian tar sands oil a dirty fuel. It looks like this fall they will pass a piece of climate legislation labeling tar sands-derived oil as more polluting than conventional oil. Known as the ‘Fuel Quality Directive’, it would strongly discourage future large-scale imports of the fuel. Canada is ruining its international reputation with this stuff. This article showed up in the Toronto Sun a week before the Quebec disaster. And it looks like the PQ will win the next set of elections in Quebec, and BC isn't happy about the things running through the mountains either, so the only way to ship it will be through or to the US.
I sure hope that EHH hasn't bet the farm on Tar Sands oil.
Again, just a couple of clarifications.
AgentKidThank you, until this Keystone XL pipeline business started that is always how I assumed it was done. But there is all this talk about shipping "dangerous bitumen" and needing dilutents because it is so corrosive, and needing to ship the dilutent back north after it is extracted at a refinery and on, and on.
In truth, the bitumen, and diluted bitumen is no more corrosive than conventional oil shipped in these lines. This is a misnomer created by peoples misunderstanding of the products involved. The wet bitumen, which is what is recovered from the sand, is corrosive due to it still containing fine abrasive particles. This bitumen is processed before shipping to remove the water and solids, creating dry bitumen. In the cases where dilbit is shipped in any form, this is always the dry bitumen that is used, and is not, as I stated, any more corrosive than conventional oil.
AgentKidSo producer owned pipelines are moving the synthetic oil to Hardisty then?
It is actually producer contracted pipelines used to move the oil south from the sites. The producers contract with companies like TransCanada Pipelines, or Enbridge to deliver the products by pipeline to either the destination, or a further shipping option, such as another pipeline.
AgentKidSo how does the question of whether this is dangerous "Tar Sands Oil" come up every time a drop of oil is accidentally spilled, if all of it is already processed into synthetic oil?
Simply put, fear mongering. The groups putting out such information choose to play off of peoples emotions, and as such use tactics as we regularly see. They don't care if the information is factual, just that is creates the reaction they want. One example, is a video on youtube that looks to discredit the oil sands industry, and in the video, it shows the "horrible scar" created by the mining of the oil sands. The scar it shows is in a view from space, and is of the Great Salt Lake. Not correct, but it plays on peoples emotions.
Keystone/TransCanada seems to be one of the exceptions Greasemonkey was talking about. They were already transporting dilbit to the midwest US when they had a very large spill in Michigan about 3 years ago. The dilutent which has a lot of volatile components, such as benzene, caused hazardous air quality, and the bitumen sunk below the water. Also the dilbit which goes to the Detroit refinery has a building mountain of pet coke blowing around a pile along the Detroit River, a Great Lake connecting waterway. Environmental activist usually bring up these things when talking about Keystone's latest project.
GreasemonkeySecond, product from the oil sands is primarily shipped as an already upgraded synthetic oil product. It is generally not shipped as bitumen.
Thank you, until this Keystone XL pipeline business started that is always how I assumed it was done. But there is all this talk about shipping "dangerous bitumen" and needing dilutents because it is so corrosive, and needing to ship the dilutent back north after it is extracted at a refinery and on, and on.
I could not understand how Hardisty could be a distribution centre if it didn't have a product to distribute, so I assumed the refining was done there. But if the bitumen is upgraded to synthetic oil at the production site, then distributing that from Hardisty make sense. So producer owned pipelines are moving the synthetic oil to Hardisty then?
So how does the question of whether this is dangerous "Tar Sands Oil" come up every time a drop of oil is accidentally spilled, if all of it is already processed into synthetic oil? Once again I have to complain about our governments and industry not getting on top of this issue every time there is an incident, until people no longer need to ask.
I have had an interest in the Athabaska Tar Sands since I was a kid. My uncle was an electrical construction foreman with Canadian Bechtel when they built the Great Canadian Oil Sands plant in 1966. After waiting for so long for it to become a viable proposition, it is sad to see all of the trouble that has erupted recently.
AgentKidThe Keystone pipeline begins at Hardisty, AB. This was already a refining centre dealing with Lloydminister Heavy Oil since the late '80's, and was therefore chosen as the ideal location to handle both Lloydminister Heavy Oil and Oil Sands bitumen, as well. This is where they turn the bitumen into a product that can be shipped by any common carrier pipeline. And it can be blended to meet any spec. the Gulf coast refineries require.
I'd just like to clear up some misconceptions here.
First off, Hardisty is not a refining center of any kind. It is merely a distribution center for already upgraded oil.
Second, product from the oil sands is primarily shipped as an already upgraded synthetic oil product. It is generally not shipped as bitumen. Bitumen is the product that is extracted from the sands, and is then upgraded into synthetic crude oil. Of course, there are exceptions.
In the way of major producers in the oil sands, three upgrade on site, one ships downstream to an off site upgrader, and one (that has only started production less than 4 months ago) ships diluted bitumen to the US for processing. But in most cases, major producers upgrade the bitumen to oil before shipping it to the US via any means of transport. Of the seven active mines in and around Fort McMurray, four use local upgrades, two use a remote upgrader located in Fort Saskatchewan, Alberta, and one direct ships dilbit south.
Smaller operations, also ship to upgraders for processing in most cases, but I cannot guarantee they all do.
In any case, the bitumen must be diluted at the mine site before it can be shipped by pipeline, and this is not done in Hardisty for oil sands products.
The Lac-Megantic derailment is likely to raise the cost of shipping oil by rail, thus making it less competitive with pipelines. But in the largest persepctive, this is not going to be a contest between shipping oil by rail versus shipping it by pipeline.
It is going to a contest between shipping oil versus not shipping oil.
schlimm Ironic to hear the rants of the anti-NIMBY crowd just before the latest train disaster. Tell the folks in Lac-Megantic, Quebec that they are NIMBYs and see what happens.
Ironic to hear the rants of the anti-NIMBY crowd just before the latest train disaster. Tell the folks in Lac-Megantic, Quebec that they are NIMBYs and see what happens.
If not for the NIMBY's we would not have many of the technologies that promote the many safety features we take for granted. As well as the push for cleaner and more efficient sources of energy.
Ken G Price My N-Scale Layout
Digitrax Super Empire Builder Radio System. South Valley Texas Railroad. SVTRR
N-Scale out west. 1996-1998 or so! UP, SP, Missouri Pacific, C&NW.
The original thread on this topic was rather informative as to possible cause of the Quebec wreck. Rather eerie Article on page 6 August issue.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
The cars involved in this wreck are DOT-111s, which have had studies noting their flaws since 1991. They have a high incidence of tank failure. The last cars were built in 1989, IIRC. So, what will likely occur from this is that the DOT-111s will have a retirement mandate enacted. But, they make up 69% of the tank car fleet, and I believe the current tank car backlog for builders is at least 30 months. So, some may last until the end of their 40 year service lives.
Regarding "impenetrable" tank cars, this is a Murphy situation. Even if they cannot be penetrated, they still will...
http://www.ntsb.gov/news/events/2012/cherry_valley/presentations/Hazardous%20Materials%20Board%20Presentation%20508%20Completed.pdf
NW
Oh, they can make tank cars infallible, Titanic lessons notwithstanding. The only problem will be that tougher tank cars will cost more and haul less. So it will raise the price of shipping oil by rail.
Bucyrus They will just require tank cars that cannot burst open or get punctured in wrecks.
They will just require tank cars that cannot burst open or get punctured in wrecks.
Don't forget the Titanic was "unsinkable".
Norm
The backlash resulting from the oil train runaway is going to thrust in two different directions.
One direction is that that accident should be a reason to approve pipelines.
The other direction is that oil is so dangerous to ship by rail or pipeline that both methods must be limited, and not be allowed to ramp up for the new production that is suddenly coming on line.
I expect that second direction to be the position of our current Administration. They would not prohibit oil shipping by rail. They will just require tank cars that cannot burst open or get punctured in wrecks.
CEO of company backing Keystone XL Pipeline says there is no silver lining for his company after rail derailment:
http://home.mytelus.com/p/news/source/news_cp/category/national/article/24148061
An article prompted by the derailment at Lac Megantic, QC was published yesterday, after the markets closed. It hits on many of the points already raised in this thread.
That is part of the NIMBY problem aka Out of Sight Out of Mind for them. Where my Family is up in IL you should have heard the NIMBY's scream when they found out after 60 years of the Gas Company doing it that they store 40% of the Volume they need for the winter Underground near the town they live in. They where like we live on a BOMB. Yet these same people do not care that there is a pair of 400 MW PWR's that are beyond their Service life they where designed for now running on a 20 Year Extension from the NRC.
NIMBY's suffer from RCIS and HIC they do not want their Ideal life blown away by Progress. Yet they demand every new Gadget and gizmo their is and the largest of everything their is. Think of them as a 80's Yuppie kid on Meth and Steroids at the same time.
What concerns me most is the feeling that a rail disaster is inevitable. The Jim Hall quote that says, basically, "when there is a rapid increase in rail traffic, there is a always a major crash"...and doesn't give an example...worries me how the public will take it. The last quote basically says to me "the railroads don't care about federal laws and want to hurt the public for profits". Wow. Very balanced. The article ignores the fact that when pipelines spill, hundreds of thousands of gallons of oil spill, such as the 1999 Olympic Pipeline explosion in Bellingham that dumped 277,000 gallons of oil into a creek. (Edited as to be less of a rant)
NorthWestHere in the NW, we are getting lots more oil trains, and so, there is lots of NIMBY reaction. Most want an "environmental impact statement" just to allow BNSF to operate oil trains along the Columbia River, believing an oil spill that will kill all the salmon is inevitable. Most articles seem to take an anti-rail bent, such as this one:http://www.king5.com/news/business/185072141.html. What are your thoughts?
The tone of the article is ominous.
The opposition constantly makes the point that an oil train derailment is more likely than a pipeline breach. But the key point goes to the amount of oil likely to be released in either type of mishap. I suspect a pipeline breach is likely to release a lot more oil than a derailment. But that does not make any difference because the point is that the opposition does not want oil to be transported either by rail or pipelines.
What they are arguing is that they have stopped a pipeline because it is hazardous to the planet, and they are equally justified in stopping the oil trains for the same reason. This does not look good for the sudden rail boom in oil. Eventually an oil train is going to pile up and spill a lot of oil. When it does, it will become the symbol for the greens to advance their case that oil trains should be banned or regulated out of existence.
It will make no difference how much actual damage the first oil train spill does. It will simply demonstrate what is possible. It will be the trigger for the kneejerk reaction in the regulatory community. As such, it will be the most costly train wreck in history due the damage it will do the oil hauling rail business.
BroadwayLion NorthWestMost articles seem to take an anti-rail bent, such as this one:http://www.king5.com/news/business/185072141.html. What are your thoughts? LION does not think much of the NIMBYS and their lackey , wacky, environmental imposters. IF they wish to speak, they must FIRST put their cars up on blocks, and take their homes off of the energy grid, otherwise they are nothing more than frauds and cheats. AND BIG LION WILL MONITOR THEIR COMMS. ROAR
NorthWestMost articles seem to take an anti-rail bent, such as this one:http://www.king5.com/news/business/185072141.html. What are your thoughts?
LION does not think much of the NIMBYS and their lackey , wacky, environmental imposters.
IF they wish to speak, they must FIRST put their cars up on blocks, and take their homes off of the energy grid, otherwise they are nothing more than frauds and cheats. AND BIG LION WILL MONITOR THEIR COMMS.
ROAR
LION's comment tells me that the people opposed to using oil for fuel have not carried their thinking through to the point of the result of their desires.
Johnny
Bucyrus They are only focused on the importation of Canadian tar sands oil because it is easier to stop something by preventing it from happening as opposed to stopping it after it is under way. But in the final analysis, the elephant in the room says that no use of fossil fuel is acceptable no matter where it comes from. That is going to be a tough elephant to manage.
They are only focused on the importation of Canadian tar sands oil because it is easier to stop something by preventing it from happening as opposed to stopping it after it is under way.
But in the final analysis, the elephant in the room says that no use of fossil fuel is acceptable no matter where it comes from. That is going to be a tough elephant to manage.
To use that current expression: "True, that!"
AgentKidYes, there are additional greenhouse gasses compared to conventional oil production. But the differences in greenhouse gasses incurred by buying our oil compared to what would be incurred buying someones else's oil is manageable. Or, so the theory goes. The size of the elephant in the room has yet to be determined, but there is an elephant. And just how easy will it be to manage.
Or, so the theory goes. The size of the elephant in the room has yet to be determined, but there is an elephant. And just how easy will it be to manage.
It is true that the greenhouse gas production will be the same no matter where the oil comes from, but in the larger perspective, the oil opposition does not want the oil to come from anywhere. I think that is the elephant in the living room. They are only focused on the importation of Canadian tar sands oil because it is easier to stop something by preventing it from happening as opposed to stopping it after it is under way.
Both of you are correct.
The moniker of "World's Dirtiest Oil" is earned by combining the greenhouse gases caused by the extraction and special refining processes, added to the greenhouse gasses produced by normal oil use.
Both the federal and provincial governments lost a lot of time on this issue by not realizing their opponents were combining these numbers. The governments kept blissfully going along saying that the refined synthetic crude was no more polluting in use, or dangerous to transport, than conventional oil totally missing the fact that that was not what the opponents were saying.
This is why the replacement oil stance came about. Yes, there are additional greenhouse gasses compared to conventional oil production. But the differences in greenhouse gasses incurred by buying our oil compared to what would be incurred buying someones else's oil is manageable.
Bucyrus I do not believe that the EPA is objecting to the greenhouse gas production arising from producing the oil. I interpret them to be objecting to the greenhouse gas production arising from converting the oil into energy.
I do not believe that the EPA is objecting to the greenhouse gas production arising from producing the oil. I interpret them to be objecting to the greenhouse gas production arising from converting the oil into energy.
There are some environmentalist that believe that an oil project stopped for any reason is a good thing, however, these setbacks are usually temporary. The oil industry has a long history of innovation to overcome man-made and natural obstacles. Forty years ago they tried some way-out experiments to open up tight shale oil and gas (one proposal involved an underground nuclear explosion in Colorado). But eventually drilling technology evolved to the point where the shales are some of the largest new producers. I hope the same thing happens to the Oil Sands, where different technologies are being tried, and perhaps a more environmentally acceptable production method will be found.
MidlandMikeI don't believe the US EPA is trying to project jurisdiction into Canada. They seem to be saying that they just don't want us to contribute to what they see as a step increase in CO2 emissions generated by unconventional oil production.
AgentKid ... It has come to pass that our Federal Government is not prepared to talk with anyone who does not come to the table understanding that all issues surrounding the Oil Sands need to be looked at as a replacement of existing supply sources, as opposed to a whole new influx of oil. After all, no new refineries are contemplated for the US, to specifically deal with this product, and demand for oil will not be affected one way or another by where the oil comes from. Price will always be the determining factor But since the Keystone project, exacerbated by the ideologies of our Prime Minister(and I am no fan), and your President, relations on the whole Oil Sands, International Pipelines and Greenhouse Gas issues have taken a turn for the worse. The last encounter between the two at the last G8 meeting seemed to be more frosty. This latest demand by the EPA that all new sources of oil have to be looked at in terms of the global impact of greenhouse gasses, even projects in countries where the EPA have no jurisdiction, has really annoyed us. Especially when you consider the political and religious behavior of many of the countries you already buy oil from. This should be considered as a market based decision, like it always has been. Bruce
It has come to pass that our Federal Government is not prepared to talk with anyone who does not come to the table understanding that all issues surrounding the Oil Sands need to be looked at as a replacement of existing supply sources, as opposed to a whole new influx of oil. After all, no new refineries are contemplated for the US, to specifically deal with this product, and demand for oil will not be affected one way or another by where the oil comes from. Price will always be the determining factor
But since the Keystone project, exacerbated by the ideologies of our Prime Minister(and I am no fan), and your President, relations on the whole Oil Sands, International Pipelines and Greenhouse Gas issues have taken a turn for the worse. The last encounter between the two at the last G8 meeting seemed to be more frosty. This latest demand by the EPA that all new sources of oil have to be looked at in terms of the global impact of greenhouse gasses, even projects in countries where the EPA have no jurisdiction, has really annoyed us. Especially when you consider the political and religious behavior of many of the countries you already buy oil from.
This should be considered as a market based decision, like it always has been.
The Tar Sands project may have started out with the Canadian government saying "that all issues surrounding the Oil Sands need to be looked at as a replacement of existing supply sources, as opposed to a whole new influx of oil.", however, unintended consequences and free markets can waylay the best of intentions. Some refineries in the midwestern US have already expanded capacities to handle the new heavy crude. Also there is less need for replacement crude, with expanding domestic supply. Although demand seems to follow supply: when there is more oil supply, the price goes down, and everyone buys SUVs or other gas guzzlers.
I don't believe the US EPA is trying to project jurisdiction into Canada. They seem to be saying that they just don't want us to contribute to what they see as a step increase in CO2 emissions generated by unconventional oil production. And while it is not EPA's mission to worry about the ideologies of foreign governments we buy oil from, I think other agencies are more pragmatic about the situation. Even as Venezuela was railing about the US, their refineries had become so broken down since nationalization, that they had to send a lot of their crude to US Gulf Coast refineries, and then imported back so they had enough gas for their cars.
AgentKid MidlandMikeI presume it's produced thru the wellhead, perhaps with some form of EOR. While I was out for supper this evening I realized I hadn't properly addressed your question. My employment in the oil and gas industry was as an accountant. I never did get into the fine points of the processes involved. I found a link to Husky Energy's Lloydminister Heavy Oil Upgrader, which might help answer your questions. This is one of several Heavy Oil Upgraders. http://www.huskyenergy.com/operations/downstream/facilities/heavyoilupgrader.asp Bruce
MidlandMikeI presume it's produced thru the wellhead, perhaps with some form of EOR.
While I was out for supper this evening I realized I hadn't properly addressed your question.
My employment in the oil and gas industry was as an accountant. I never did get into the fine points of the processes involved. I found a link to Husky Energy's Lloydminister Heavy Oil Upgrader, which might help answer your questions. This is one of several Heavy Oil Upgraders.
http://www.huskyenergy.com/operations/downstream/facilities/heavyoilupgrader.asp
Thanks for the link. Where heavy/oil/sands are to be produced, I am a fan of upgraders near the production area. They clean up the oil and then send the syncrude on the way with no further need for dilutent. I crused the website and found that most of the heavy oil was produced normally, pumped from wells, with another 20% needing steam assist. I was glad to see that they were also planning to produce their Tar Sands with steam assist. While this requires extra energy to generate steam, IMO this is better than wholesale tar sand formation mining with processing.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.