Does anyone know if the same grade of crude oil is inherently more flammable (lower flash point) when it is 'fracked' rather than just 'pumped' out of the ground.
As I understand the fracking process, it requires some sort of solvent to be pumped down the well to thin the oil so that it can be brought to the surface. If this solvent isn't being removed from the crude oil before shipping, how does this affect the flammability of the product? Is the problem not the crude oil itself, but the combined chemistry of a solvent and the crude oil together?
David
Solvents are something that would be used in tertiary recovery and not necessarily frac'ing, so the answer is that frac'ed oil would not be more flammable than oil pumped out of the same reservoir. The flammability of Bakken oil is due to the properties of Bakken oil itself and not the means to extract it.
The primary constituent of frac'ing fluid is water, with a small amount of additives to improve flow through the cracks initiated by the fracturing process. One of the recent changes to hydraulic fracturing is the addition of sand to prop open the cracks formed by the fracturing process and prevent geological pressure from re-sealing the cracks.
- Erik
Fracking is a term applied to drilling and searching for oil and gas and has nothing to do with the nature of the gas or oil itself. The oil and gas companies also claim fracking is safe, not polluting to soil, ground water, or air, perfectly safe in every way. The oil and gas companies lie about a lot of other things, too. So, could the solvents become mixed with the final product? Who will you believe? My take on the way the oil and gas companies have handled matters concerning fracking and now the composition and safety of their products by not revealing the truths and proper facts, is that I am hard pressed to believe much of what they say because too much of what they say has blown up in their faces,
RIDEWITHMEHENRY is the name for our almost monthly day of riding trains and transit in either the NYCity or Philadelphia areas including all commuter lines, Amtrak, subways, light rail and trolleys, bus and ferries when warranted. No fees, just let us know you want to join the ride and pay your fares. Ask to be on our email list or find us on FB as RIDEWITHMEHENRY (all caps) to get descriptions of each outing.
This whole situation needs a very detailed chemical study. How does the fracking chemicals react with the Baken ? Does it stay as a mixture or does some chemical reaction cause it to become a high explosive not inerted by the oil ? There are so many possibilities that only a complete chemical analysis is done. Also it may be time limited or maybe occurs over time ?
The oil and gas drillers have been very deceptive and deceitful about fracking. They've lied,lied about lying, and lied about them lying about lying. Because of what I have witnessed concerning fracking, it is hard for me to accept anything they and their politician supporters have to say. A very independent investigation into these dealings should be conducted...preferably by a committee formed by those from outside the US business and governmental structures.
Interesting- looks like Fred Frailey's been following this thread...
http://cs.trains.com/trn/b/fred-frailey/archive/2014/01/04/fear-at-headquarters.aspx
Brian (IA) http://blhanel.rrpicturearchives.net.
I have tried desperately to stay out of this, but I am startled by the attitudes of the knowledgeable rainfans and some of the comments.
You guys do realize the product under discussion is pretty tame compared to a lot of the other stuff that routinely runs through your towns, like gasoline, naphtha, ethanol, raw chlorine, ammonia, phenol, butadiene and a lot of other methyl ethyl awfuls?
Even metal alkyds, which, if it catches on fire, your local fire department better have access to a big heavy duty foam pumper, because water just makes it worse.
The major reason this seems to be an issue at all is because the politicians like the press coverage it affords them, same with the local law officials and fire departments.
Yup, the Quebec accident was horrible, but blaming the tank car is kinda silly…after all, unless you build them all to the same impact requirements that the containers for spent nuclear reactor rods/fuel use, any tank car that derails at 65 mph plus and impacts a building is going to rupture…if fact, if it hits anything at that speed its time to duck and tuck!
Same with this one…a loaded grain car hits a tankcar and guess what happens to the tankcar?
Loaded grain cars are massively heavy and solid, and just the right shape to destroy pretty much anything they impact.
After Granitville, the big issue wasn’t that the tank cars ruptured, but the product itself…the lawsuit Mudchicken and other point to came about from this accident, but no one screamed to do away with or redesign the tank cars.
Trust me, I would much rather have a DOT111A tank car full of this crude derail and rupture than have a ruptured chlorine tank car anywhere near me or my crew!
23 17 46 11
EDBLYSARD..the truth is that the oil industry has known about the unstable properties of this crude and failed to notify carriers...rail and other...about it and precautions that should have been taken. Nor did they notify first responders, et al, about it, what to expect and what was needed. In the MMA incident everyone was saying the cars struck some LP cars in a siding by the way the cars exploded when in fact the Bakken crude will do that....I am sure MMA would not have just tied down the cars at the top of a hill if they knew the real story of Bakken crude. NO! The oil and gas companies have acted criminally in my mind, and have to bear the responsibility and the consequences..
Henry,
Not picking a fight, ok?
The only difference between the way I handle class 3 combustible and class 3 flammable is that the combustible ones I can kick as many in a group as I want up to four, and can use them for cover cars, flammables I can let go in cuts of 2 or less and can’t be cover cars, or placed next to shiftable loads and certain other cars..
That’s about it; no other special handling is done with the two.
Would the MMA have parked the train where they did if the cars were placarded class 3 flammable?
Most likely, yes.
If it had been loaded with clearly marked “gasoline” tank cars, odds are they still would have tied it down where they did….after all, they didn’t plan on it rolling away in the first place, and had parked trains like this in the same place for a year.
Did the shipper deceive the railroad by miss-labeling the product?
Maybe, maybe not, that’s up to a court of law to determine.
Are the Dot 111A cars inherently dangerous?
Not any more dangerous than most other.
They have successfully carried millions of loads of very volatile product without exploding or catching fire…these are two isolated incidents with different causes, both involving severe impacts beyond what most tank cars in use today could handle.
Most railroads don’t have firefighting squads or equipment beyond what is in their yards…if something goes boom, we dial 911 and get out of the way.
Would having known that the product was more volatile than what they thought made a lot of difference to the way the first responders acted?
I doubt it, they were pretty much overwhelmed in La Mantic from the get go, although without being a professional fire fighter, I can’t definitively say what they would or could have done differently…we have a professional firefighter or two here, so I will let them address that.
With this last derailment, the firefighters did what I would…tank cars out in the middle of nothing burning crude oil, no matter how volatile, means I would evac anyone downwind within a few miles, and then stand back and watch it burn, (Dang, that’s hot!) no real reason to risk anyone’s life putting out a fire that will run out of fuel on its own accord.
You are expressing a sense of moral outrage, which I grant you is your right, so I won’t address that, but you are also hinting at some type of oil industry wide conspiracy to violate laws, which, coming from you, surprises me, you most often seem to be the rational one on these threads.
Assuming they knew, the product would still have traveled in the same tank cars, just placarded differently.
Did and does the rail industry and most shippers know the DOT111A tank car in not the best, and has some issues?
Yes, but we have no replacement yet, and unless the issue with the car is problematic across the board with every one of the cars and presents a clear and identifiable danger at all times, the cars will be used.
Like any industry, say air lines, once the problem is identified, unless it disables all the airplanes in a manner that can’t be corrected, they will continue to fly the craft, retro fitting or repairing the planes on a schedule of some sort.
Same will apply here…the DOT111A car will be phased out as replacements come on line, BNSF and UP both have huge orders in at Union Tank Car for new tank cars specifically designed to handle the Balkan crude…I think they both have placed orders with GATX as well, and I know lease companies have done the same.
If, and I emphasize the if part, there is a conspiracy with the shippers, then it is a clumsy and crude one, (no pun intended)
Consider this…the shippers have to have known that at some point, an accident with one of the cars was going to happen, that’s a given in the industry.
Knowing that, they would have also known that if an accident happened, and the car caught on fire, someone was going to notice the product burned hotter or differently from, say, plain West Texas crude.
Given that an accident was inevitable, as would be someone noticing the difference, I doubt they would knowingly take the risk of miss labeling their product on a systematic basis.
Granted, they pay a little less per car with the class 3 combustible placard both in shipping cost and insurance, but the saving can’t possible offset the risk.
On any given day, my railroad has 10,000.cars on property, most of which have something to do with petrochemical products.
TxDot has an inspector who hits all of our yards, checking random tank cars, making sure what’s in the car is what’s on the shipping papers, and checking to make sure the car is buttoned up properly, no leaks, drips or excess splash over when filled,
I have actually watched him follow a cut of tank cars out of Shell Deer Park to North Yard, then have the track they ended up in locked out and blue flagged while he went over the cars with the proverbial fine toothed comb.
He tagged a few of them, had Shell send out car techs, and replace a seal in the load out valve cap because they had used one that was not made out of the appropriate material.
Not that they were leaking, or on any danger of leaking, but as he put it, the book says this is the approved seal, and the only seal allowed, so….
In the case of Le Mantic, again, until a board of inquiry or a Canadian court, possible an American one too, find evidence of intentional miss labeling with the intent to defraud, I can’t see condemning the shipper of that particular shipment, or all shippers of this type of crude by association.
You and a few others seem to be buying into some type of apocalyptical event with this product endangering the planet, or at least North America.
Not really, its no more dangerous that a tank car full of gasoline.
Will there be another Le Mantic…hopefully not, but the odds are in favor of something like it.
Another Graniteville chlorine accident or another Chatsworth?
Yup, no matter how much technology we thrown at the problem, no matter how strict the rules, no matter how severe the enforcement, the odds are still in favor of an accident….the trick is to progressively improve what we do until we minimize the likely hood of the event causing death and massive damage.
I would hope and think that if I were a railroad and an oil company came to me and told me the product was more flammable than what he had been giving me and that it would explode more like LP than sweet crude, the I would be remiss as a railroad to take extra precautions and rule. The fact remains the oil companies did not make these facts known to the railroads nor the first responders so did not give the railroads a chance to make decisions of safety nor were the first responders prepared for the explosions that did occur. The oil companies have committed a crime.
henry- Please re-read Ed's post directly above yours. As I'm reading it, had the railroad done what you described, it doesn't sound like the cars would have been handled any differently, nor that following your precautions would have made any difference in the end. Do you read that differently? I'm suggesting that a railroader, who is more familiar with this sort of thing than you or I, is giving you the straight information, and that you are refusing to give it any credibility because it doesn't fit your pre-conceived idea of *how it really is*. Your thinly veiled allusion to *Big oil* conspiring against the *little man* makes me think of Lucy VanPelt in A Charlie Brown Christmas, talking about the commercialization of Christmas. "It's all run by a big eastern syndicate, don't you know".
Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.
Murphy: So let me get this clear. Are you saying Ed is saying there is nothing that would make the transport of the Bakken crude safer anytime soon? He says "the rail industry and most shippers know the DOT111A tank car in not the best, and has some issues? Yes, but we have no replacement yet, and unless the issue with the car is problematic across the board with every one of the cars and presents a clear and identifiable danger at all times, the cars will be used."
So because there is no replacement, we will continue to have to hope the next major derailment does not involve Bakken in a populated area? IMO, that sort of response just does not cut it anymore, nor does calling genuine concern as "political" or "apocalyptic."
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
What I took from Ed's writing is that he would rather work with Bakken crude in DOT111A tank cars than chlorine in tank cars approved for chlorine. He also mentioned that there are other cargoes routinely carried by trains that are far more hazardous than Bakken crude.
Schlimm,
What I wrote, when taken in context and content with the rest of the sentences before and after conveyed the general sense of people becoming more frightened of a product that, compared to most of the other stuff riding the rail, is pretty tame.
It was not intended as a insult nor a poke at Henry specifically.
So let’s do this…
You are a railroad that was just informed that the 70 tank cars of crude oil you just picked up is really a class 3 flammable, not a class 3 combustible.
Please explain, in detail, exactly what you would do differently with the cars during transit, and in the unlikely event of an accident.
Remember, you can refuse to move the cars until the shipper comes out and replaces the placards with the correct ones, and delivers the correct shipping papers properly identifying the contents as a class 3 flammable.
Once that happens, under law you must accept the cars for transit.
Would both you and Henry provide details as to how these cars must now be handled?
Should you require, please reference “Instructions for Handling hazardous Materials” form 8026 (pb208000) published by the Union Pacific Railroad for placement in train instructions and switching restrictions.
The same basic publication is used by BNSF and KCS, CSX and NS, just under their own publication label.
Would it not make sense for all seven of the Class I's, and all the regionals to get together NOW, and figure out how to best route these trains to (1) keep them from populated areas, and (2) not tie up main lines by running at reduced speed, say 40mph, with passings arranged so that only one of the two trains is moving. For example, I'm sure Posner would be happy to have the traffic running west from Chicago toward Omaha, with the trains passing through the Chicago commuter zone between 11pm and 5 AM.
This procedure would be in effect until their are sufficient improved tank cars to handle all this business.
Murphy Siding henry- As I'm reading it, had the railroad done what you described, it doesn't sound like the cars would have been handled any differently, nor that following your precautions would have made any difference in the end. Do you read that differently? I'm suggesting that a railroader, who is more familiar with this sort of thing than you or I, is giving you the straight information, and that you are refusing to give it any credibility because it doesn't fit your pre-conceived idea of *how it really is*. Your thinly veiled allusion to *Big oil* conspiring against the *little man* makes me think of Lucy VanPelt in A Charlie Brown Christmas, talking about the commercialization of Christmas. "It's all run by a big eastern syndicate, don't you know".
henry- As I'm reading it, had the railroad done what you described, it doesn't sound like the cars would have been handled any differently, nor that following your precautions would have made any difference in the end. Do you read that differently? I'm suggesting that a railroader, who is more familiar with this sort of thing than you or I, is giving you the straight information, and that you are refusing to give it any credibility because it doesn't fit your pre-conceived idea of *how it really is*. Your thinly veiled allusion to *Big oil* conspiring against the *little man* makes me think of Lucy VanPelt in A Charlie Brown Christmas, talking about the commercialization of Christmas. "It's all run by a big eastern syndicate, don't you know".
If the railroad were informed of the volatility and flammability of the crude they may had done things differently...like meet and pass trains at restricted speeds or stopped the other train while passing or whatever steps they may have deemed necessary. The MMA might have not tied their train down at the top of a hill and leave it unattended. OR they could have refused to move in the available cars..who knows what precautions the railroads would have taken if they were forewarned of the dangers? To support me now is the warnings issued by the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials group and the AAR now that this is known to both railroads and up to now unsuspecting first responders.
YOur second paragraph has no merit based on my paragraph above. Further railroaders were under the assumption that they were carrying regular crude and did not have to note any further precautions than alrady dexcribed for regular crude.
Third graph: Well, being in a targeted fracking area the lies, deceptions, deceits, and other underhanded actions of the oil companies coupled with their not informing the railroads and the first responders about Bakken crude makes me suspicious of them and their ways. I know the lies and deceptions and cover up they've performed so I have no reason to trust them.
schlimm Murphy: So let me get this clear. Are you saying Ed is saying there is nothing that would make the transport of the Bakken crude safer anytime soon? He says "the rail industry and most shippers know the DOT111A tank car in not the best, and has some issues? Yes, but we have no replacement yet, and unless the issue with the car is problematic across the board with every one of the cars and presents a clear and identifiable danger at all times, the cars will be used." So because there is no replacement, we will continue to have to hope the next major derailment does not involve Bakken in a populated area? IMO, that sort of response just does not cut it anymore, nor does calling genuine concern as "political" or "apocalyptic."
But Schlimm, would you care to comment on my (hopefully constructive) suggesting in my earlier post?
henry6 ..................If the railroad were informed of the volatility and flammability of the crude they may had done things differently...like meet and pass trains at restricted speeds or stopped the other train while passing or whatever steps they may have deemed necessary. The MMA might have not tied their train down at the top of a hill and leave it unattended. OR they could have refused to move in the available cars..who knows what precautions the railroads would have taken if they were forewarned of the dangers? To support me now is the warnings issued by the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials group and the AAR now that this is known to both railroads and up to now unsuspecting first responders........... .
..................If the railroad were informed of the volatility and flammability of the crude they may had done things differently...like meet and pass trains at restricted speeds or stopped the other train while passing or whatever steps they may have deemed necessary. The MMA might have not tied their train down at the top of a hill and leave it unattended. OR they could have refused to move in the available cars..who knows what precautions the railroads would have taken if they were forewarned of the dangers? To support me now is the warnings issued by the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials group and the AAR now that this is known to both railroads and up to now unsuspecting first responders...........
.
daveklepper Would it not make sense for all seven of the Class I's, and all the regionals to get together NOW, and figure out how to best route these trains to (1) keep them from populated areas, and (2) not tie up main lines by running at reduced speed, say 40mph, with passings arranged so that only one of the two trains is moving. For example, I'm sure Posner would be happy to have the traffic running west from Chicago toward Omaha, with the trains passing through the Chicago commuter zone between 11pm and 5 AM. This procedure would be in effect until their are sufficient improved tank cars to handle all this business.
Dave: I think your suggestion makes some sense in terms of movement with lower traffic levels. These options need to be considered, but what I am hearing from the railroaders and their "spokesperson Murphy" is resistance to addressing the problem.
I have maintained since Lac Magentic that the danger is serious and that the problem needs to be addressed by the oil producers, shippers and the rails. If not, the issue will be addressed by regulators and a solution, possibly draconian and overreaching will be imposed.
"spokesperson Murphy" As I understand it, you live in the Chicago area-no? What do you think it would do to traffic flow in the Chicago area, if, for example, something like Dave the recommendations mentions above were put in place?
I do not know the specifics of the impact of Dave's suggestion, other than movement when there is less rail traffic might be safer. At night the commuter trains do not run, for example.
However, the point, which you either miss or attempt to avoid is the one I made above. Dodging around to avoid dealing with the problem is not a satisfactory response for the rails if they wish to retain credibility. They need to recognize the problem and address it proactively.
There are critical spots where it would not work, and where very careful management would be required. I certainly hope it would mean most movements rerouted from the most populated Chicago areas. But across the country, there are reginals and short lines that could benefit from the extra business and where lower than normal main-line speeds would not impact them adversely. High revenue time-sensitive stack trains require lines with improved clearances. There are lines where clearances has not been improved and where traffic has fallen. Would the Moffat line, now owned by UP, be a good candidate, avoiding the UP's densist traffic area, as one example? Similarly, to get to Southern Californian, the Moffat and the Salt Lake - LA line would be preferred over the dense Sunset? Or the dense BNSF Transcon?
Maybe this is a good reason for BNSF to have another look at the La Junta Raton Pass route?
Maybe a revived old Ulster and Delaware route is a good way to get to the New York area? Or the Sesquahana? Then the remains of the Southern Tier Erie-Lackawanna?
Everybody's missing my point. The railroad can say no to transporting an item that is deemed unsafe to their property and the property and lives; but with good reason and with an effort to alleviate the problem in conjunction with the shipper and not just dismiss out of hand. Second, there has to be a better way but both the railroad and the shipper have to find that way. If the railroad is informed of the problem in advance, proper precautions can be deemed necessary or not. But the railroad has to be informed and given a chance to work out any perceived problems and determine what steps, precautions, procedures, etc. might be necessary to assure safe passage. It is incumbent on the shipper to make the railroad aware and it is incumbent on the railroad to make determinations and make proper steps. It just makes sense. Nobody is thinking beyond the concept of running trains for the sake of running trains here, doing it because they have to by law or to make money by chance. Just because a railroad...or trucker or barge or whatever...has common carrier status does not mean it has to jeopardize its business, its employees, its property, and its neighbors; it has to take the proper steps to assure safety for all. (I think the refusal issue was so that a railroad couldn't play favorites or raise rates for the sake of raising rates more than for anything else.)
Henry: I think you and I and others are in agreement with what you have said. I simply did not want to inflame matters by suggestions of motivation, which you have brought up. The relevant parties need to work together with the regulatory agencies and find a series of temporary measures that lead to some solution, if they aren't already doing so.
schlimmThese options need to be considered, but what I am hearing from the railroaders and their "spokesperson Murphy" is resistance to addressing the problem.
How are we (railroaders) supposed to address the problems? New tank cars are being built ( I see them a lot on the oil trains that go through town), but there's what? a 40,000 backlog of new orders last I heard?
They don't grow on trees.
It's been fun. But it isn't much fun anymore. Signing off for now.
The opinions expressed here represent my own and not those of my employer, any other railroad, company, or person.t fun any
henry6Everybody's missing my point. The railroad can say no to transporting an item that is deemed unsafe to their property and the property and lives; but with good reason and with an effort to alleviate the problem in conjunction with the shipper and not just dismiss out of hand.
Railroad A says they won't haul them. That's ok - railroad B will have their engines ready to take the business (and money).
Brotherhood and alliances only go as far as the wallet.
The biggest question that needs answers before everyone starts implementing 'solutions' - What is it about the Bakken Crude that makes it Explosive, rather than just flammable as most other crudes are. Wall Street Journal article of January 2, 2014 indicates that both Rail and Pipeline interests are starting to pressure the Bakken Crude producers for answers - real answers, not PR sound bites. Until real answers are received anyone suggesting any solutions is tilting at windmills and wasting time and money. Only real answers can lead to real solutions.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.