Synthetic Crude Oil or Syncrude

[MidlandMike]

samfp1943

...

And another point, are the last several sentences of the article, linked and posted by BaltACD:

[snipped] 

If Reuters news is right that President Obama himself ordered PHMSA to back off from requiring the treatment of crude oil before transportation, what looks on the surface like an inexplicable bureaucratic failure may prove to be an even bigger case of ill-advised interference in the regulatory process. The country deserves an explanation.

...

 

This is in reference to the fact that the administration was going to allow the new North Dakota Bakken crude seperation order become effective before the feds might step in.  Oil and gas regulation has been a state's function since the beginning, over a hundred years ago.  Not only would this have been seen by Congress as a big federal power grab, but it would have been bitterly contested by the States.

 

[MidlandMike]

Wizlish

 

 

BaltACD

The bitumen is a very viscous liquid - to ship it - and have it flow into and out of tank cars a solvent is added to it. The solvent is much more explosive and hazardous than is the pure bitumen.

 

 

More to it than that.  Midland Mike will have more to add in detail, but there is a substantial difference between dilbit and synbit.  Here is one reference from a company that works with 'syncrude'.  A quick Google on 'synthetic crude oil' will quickly provide other references that go into key differences in the diluents and general product purity that make the 'synthetic crude' more useful to refiners than the various proprietary dilbits are.

 

I am less familiar with synthetic crude (as a geologist my work was with natural crude oils) and I was hoping that Greasemonkey (who is familiar with Alberta) would fill in the details, which he has now done.

In addition, there are some other advantages to synthetic crudes:

-They are a more readily usable feedstock to more refineries than bitumen.

-They avoid the tare weight/volume of carrying additional dilutant.

-They cut down on the petroleum coke piles that are a byproduct of bitumen refining.

-And their redued sulfur content cuts down on already contentious air quality problems at refineries that are often located in urban areas.

[Greasemonkey]

Sam, what we are looking at here are actualy three different products.

Dilbit, is essentially raw bitumen that has had it's viscosity reduced by mixing it with a diluent.  In most cases, the diluent is naptha.  The naptha eases the handling of the bitumen, and allows for transport and processing at it's destination.

Synbit, is bitumen that has been mixed with synthetic crude oil in order to reduce the viscosity, and compared to the other two products, is relatively rare.  A significant portion of the product, is synthetic crude, so it's value is much higher.

Synthetic crude oil is the result of upgrading bitumen through coking and sulphur removal.  There are several different grades of synthetic crude, ranging from products that are very comparable to conventional oil, to premium products that look very much like refined motor oil.  The premium products have many different fractions mixed in them.....as in feed suitable for refining into many different products accross the oil spectrum.

I'm unaware of which of the above three categories the oil in question fits into, as I do not know which source they came from.  However, Dilbit is the most volatile, due to the diluent content.  Synbit is quite stable, being that it doesn't contain the quontities of substances such as naptha or petroleum distillates that dilbit does.  Synthetic crude is also very stable.  In reality, it's not much more volatile than conventional motor oil.  That being said, it is a bit more hazardous due to lighter fractions still contained in it.  Like pretty much all hydrocarbons, it will burn, and burn ferociously once ignited, but it's quite a bit harder to light off than Bakken products.

Incidentally, synthetic crude is usually referred to as SCO, and not Syncrude.  Syncrude is actually one fo the companies that produces one of the premium SCO products, called Syncrude Sweet Premium.

[samfp1943]

Euclid: This is a link to a site I had found; but not included before. It contains information on the distilates added to the'Dilbit product' to enhance its ability to flow:See @ http://www.crudemonitor.ca/crude.php?acr=SYB

And another point, are the last several sentences of the article, linked and posted by BaltACD:

[snipped] FTA:'...Let’s hope that someone in the White House Office of Management and Budget asks the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) why it did not assess the risks of dilbit and synbit before submitting its timeline for tank car transition. It is unquestionably an astonishing regulatory failure by the nation’s highest authority for the classification and handling of hazardous materials.

The entire strategy underlying the proposed oil train reforms is now simply nullified by facts on the ground. The problem of exploding oil trains cannot be fixed by an extra eighth-inch of steel. The lading is exploding, not the cars.

If Reuters news is right that President Obama himself ordered PHMSA to back off from requiring the treatment of crude oil before transportation, what looks on the surface like an inexplicable bureaucratic failure may prove to be an even bigger case of ill-advised interference in the regulatory process. The country deserves an explanation.

The error could become scandalous should the White House approve the current proposals for the perverse assignment of DOT-111 cars to tar sands service. An entirely fresh start on oil train safety is required, based on the knowledge that the cargo, not the cars, is the explosive factor.."[snip]

[and continues, several more sentences to the end of the linked article.]

and then there was this paragraph in the article I had posted earlier in this Thread:                      FTL:[snipped]"...This odds-defying reprise in the remote wilds of northern Ontario was like a testy reminder from an impatient deity: The two-year lucky streak that has spared other North American communities from the fate of Lac-Mégantic cannot run indefinitely. Familiar big city names may well substitute for the backwaters of Gogama, Aliceville, Casselton, Plaster Rock, Boomer, and Galena in future reports of exploding oil trains. That warning comes from both eminent railroaders and the U.S. Department of Transportation itself.

The Associated Press reported Feb. 23 that since June 2014 the U.S. DOT has maintained silence on its own forecast of tank car disasters in the decades ahead: “The federal government predicts that trains hauling crude oil or ethanol will derail an average of 10 times a year over the next two decades, causing more than $4 billion in damage, and possibly killing hundreds of people if an accident happens in a densely populated area.”[snip] [my emphasis, added]  from this link @ http://www.railwayage.com/index.php/safety/fireballs-strike-again-in-northern-ontario.html  

[Euclid]

That article seems to conclude that the discovery of the explosion hazard of tar sands oil shipped by rail leads to the conclusion that tank cars cannot be made safe.  That seems like a red herring to me.  All the recent tar sands derailments prove is that tar sands oil is just as much of an explosion hazard as Bakken oil.

The tank car problem is not changed by the discovery of the tar sands oil explosiveness.  The tank car problem is only related to the ability of the tank cars to wreck without breaching.  The industry has been assuring us that the 1232 tank cars and the even newer 117 cars will solve the breaching problem.  Apparently that is now seen to be false. 

Consider this quote from the article, and note the sentence that I have highlighted in red:

“We now know, thanks to Gogama 1 and Gogama 2, that neither dilbit nor synbit, the synthetically diluted variant of tar sands oil, are safer than untreated Bakken crude. Consequently, the strategy for renewal of the tank car fleet is based upon an entirely erroneous premise. The whole schedule must be recalculated, based on the evidence that bitumen, diluted for transportation, is simply not an ordinary crude oil fit for carriage in general-purpose tank cars.”

 

The conclusion that the revelation that tar sands oil is as explosive as Bakken oil certainly does NOT show that the strategy for renewal of the tank car fleet is based on an erroneous premise.  That is the red herring.  It is trying to obscure the fact that the promise of adequate safety by strengthening tank cars has failed. 

The strategy for renewal of the tank car fleet does indeed appear to be based on erroneous premise. But that premise is that the cars cannot be made strong enough to avoid breaching without adding so much weight to the car that the resultant loss of carrying capacity makes shipping the oil by rail uneconomical.  It has nothing to do with the explosiveness of tar sands oil compared to Bakken oil.    

[BaltACD]

http://www.railwayage.com/index.php/blogs/david-thomas/bitumen-fireballs-expose-shortcomings-of-tank-car-tweaks.html?channel=

[samfp1943]

Thanks: Wizlish;

   This is turning into a somewhat' educational' Thread.

    Dilbit (?) was not aware of what that was, so went Searching: See link @ http://insideclimatenews.org/news/20120626/dilbit-primer-diluted-bitumen-conventional-oil-tar-sands-Alberta-Kalamazoo-Keystone-XL-Enbridge

"A Dilbit Primer: How It's Different from Conventional Oil"      "                                           

"Bitumen extracted from tar sands has the consistency of peanut butter and must be diluted to flow through pipelines. And that's just the beginning." by Lisa Song  Inside Climate News: 26 June  2012

[Admittedly, the article concerns Dilbit moviang by a pipeline and what happened when it escaped the pipeling at Marshall, Michigan in July of 2010]   The explanation seems to be pretty thorough of Dilbit and its properties(?)

Synbit: is a a product also coming out of the Tar Sands in Alberta, It has undergone more processing before transportation; This linked story is about the 2nd  CNR 'Gogama' derailment and has some interesting statements and information about the products transported. I had not seen them discussed in this Forum. See Link @  http://www.railwayage.com/index.php/safety/fireballs-strike-again-in-northern-ontario.html

The following link is to a site that contains a set of illustrations of the extraction of Dilbit and Synbit is accomplished at the Alberta Tar Sands sites: onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/dilbit/Segato102312.pdf

The folowing linked site explains more about the Dilbit Product, and what it takes to transport it via pipeline. @ http://blog.transcanada.com/dilbit-what-is-it/

[CSSHEGEWISCH]

Another thing to consider is that not all crude oils are alike.  Bakken crude is similar to Brent (North Sea) crude in that it is sweet (less sulfur) and contains more high-end hydrocarbons.  West Texas crude is sour, Venezuelan crude is heavier and has more low-end hydrocarbons, more suited for lubes than fuel.

[Wizlish]

BaltACD

The bitumen is a very viscous liquid - to ship it - and have it flow into and out of tank cars a solvent is added to it. The solvent is much more explosive and hazardous than is the pure bitumen.

More to it than that.  Midland Mike will have more to add in detail, but there is a substantial difference between dilbit and synbit.  Here is one reference from a company that works with 'syncrude'.  A quick Google on 'synthetic crude oil' will quickly provide other references that go into key differences in the diluents and general product purity that make the 'synthetic crude' more useful to refiners than the various proprietary dilbits are.

[BaltACD]

samfp1943

The TRAINSNewswire of this date March 10,2015  Contains the headline:

"Both CN derailments involved synthetic crude oil"

FTA:"...QUEBEC CITY, Quebec – Two Canadian National crude oil trains that derailed in northern Ontario in the past month were carrying synthetic crude for Valero's refinery near Quebec City, Reuters reports. Synthetic crude is created from bitumen, which undergoes a chemical treatment that makes it suitable for refining.

"We take safety very seriously, so we're concerned anytime there's an incident," Valero spokesman Bill Day says. "Despite the number of rail incidents recently, it is very rare for cargo not to be delivered to its destination safely."[snipped]                                                                              Most readers here are very aware of the discussions taking place in this Forum; referencing the mentioned incidents on CNR's Ruel Sub. 

I can't speak for everyone, but I generally, picture 'crude oil' being the product that comes out of wells in oil fields.  Bakken Crude, being the product of similar oil bearing shale strata [ failry near the surface, rater than down very deep in the earth], and pumped to the surface.  Oil from 'Tar Sands' is a product that is more or less open pit-mined in Western Canada, and maybe to a lesser extent in other locales(?) The oil from the Tar Sands is heated, processed, and a 'liquid is extracted(?). Some of us have seen the Threads with the Schnabel Cars transporting huge vessels from Duluth Ports to the areas of the canadian Tar Sands for new production facilities.

    I know it it probably a much, over-simplified set of ideas; but they are what they are. It helps me rationally identify petroleum on the way to being turned into gasoline for consumers. I would rely on the 'professionals' who post around here to set me straight.

   The above referenced post on the 'Newswire'  was the first time I had seen the term 'synthetic crude oil', or 'syncrude'.  It made sense, it seems that for ease in reporting of product movements; as they used to say up in Jersey or Brooklyn, "...'Earl' is 'earl'..." but that's another tale.   There never seemed to be a distinction made; crude oil was simply crude oil.  There was a discussion after the wreck at Lac Megantic of the 'extreme volitility' of the trains cargo of curde oil; I am beginning to think that maybe the distinction is the product of the reduction of tar sand bitumen is different than the Bakken Shale product, or even the product gotten by hydraulic fracturing?  It is all being lumped into a category called 'Crude oil'. Might that be the problem with the derailments?  Crude oil is not always going to react the same when it derails?

 Maybe some one here can set me straight. ericsp?? or someone else? 

Thanks;

 

 

The bitumen is a very viscous liquid - to ship it - and have it flow into and out of tank cars a solvent is added to it.  The solvent is much more explosive and hazardous than is the pure bitumen.

[samfp1943]

The TRAINSNewswire of this date March 10,2015  Contains the headline:

"Both CN derailments involved synthetic crude oil"

FTA:"...QUEBEC CITY, Quebec – Two Canadian National crude oil trains that derailed in northern Ontario in the past month were carrying synthetic crude for Valero's refinery near Quebec City, Reuters reports. Synthetic crude is created from bitumen, which undergoes a chemical treatment that makes it suitable for refining.

"We take safety very seriously, so we're concerned anytime there's an incident," Valero spokesman Bill Day says. "Despite the number of rail incidents recently, it is very rare for cargo not to be delivered to its destination safely."[snipped]                                                                              Most readers here are very aware of the discussions taking place in this Forum; referencing the mentioned incidents on CNR's Ruel Sub. 

I can't speak for everyone, but I generally, picture 'crude oil' being the product that comes out of wells in oil fields.  Bakken Crude, being the product of similar oil bearing shale strata [ failry near the surface, rater than down very deep in the earth], and pumped to the surface.  Oil from 'Tar Sands' is a product that is more or less open pit-mined in Western Canada, and maybe to a lesser extent in other locales(?) The oil from the Tar Sands is heated, processed, and a 'liquid is extracted(?). Some of us have seen the Threads with the Schnabel Cars transporting huge vessels from Duluth Ports to the areas of the canadian Tar Sands for new production facilities.

    I know it it probably a much, over-simplified set of ideas; but they are what they are. It helps me rationally identify petroleum on the way to being turned into gasoline for consumers. I would rely on the 'professionals' who post around here to set me straight.

   The above referenced post on the 'Newswire'  was the first time I had seen the term 'synthetic crude oil', or 'syncrude'.  It made sense, it seems that for ease in reporting of product movements; as they used to say up in Jersey or Brooklyn, "...'Earl' is 'earl'..." but that's another tale.   There never seemed to be a distinction made; crude oil was simply crude oil.  There was a discussion after the wreck at Lac Megantic of the 'extreme volitility' of the trains cargo of curde oil; I am beginning to think that maybe the distinction is the product of the reduction of tar sand bitumen is different than the Bakken Shale product, or even the product gotten by hydraulic fracturing?  It is all being lumped into a category called 'Crude oil'. Might that be the problem with the derailments?  Crude oil is not always going to react the same when it derails?

 Maybe some one here can set me straight. erikem?? or someone else? 

Thanks;