Dave, Teflon is not a pure hydrocarbon; it has fluorine in it. Teflon's advantage is that it resists many things, including hydrofluoric acid. When it is continually exposed to hydrogen fluoride, it eventually is worn away, but it is used to protect the workings of a pump that moves hydrogen fluoride. It is cheaper to recoat with Teflon than to replace the complete pump. I write from experience.
Johnny
What material is used for HOPE liners? Could it be replace by Teflon, which cojld simply be melted into the oil, since it is a pure Hyhdrocarbon product?
The points you raise concerning oil transport are well-taken, and only my comment concerning other "sticky" freight is valid.
daveklepper I think all the problems with sealed gondolas can be solved, and the idea can be reserved for one petroleum application: Cases where petroleum MUST be shipped over line where there is opposition to the use of tankcars, and the shipment of petroleum must be disguised. Other than that, Euclid's "cupcake technique" should have applicability to other shipments that leave residue sticking to the car interiors. The idea is tha the lining should be made of something that works as a lining, and is still similar enough to the product being shipped that disolving it into the product does not contaminate the product.i
I think all the problems with sealed gondolas can be solved, and the idea can be reserved for one petroleum application: Cases where petroleum MUST be shipped over line where there is opposition to the use of tankcars, and the shipment of petroleum must be disguised.
Other than that, Euclid's "cupcake technique" should have applicability to other shipments that leave residue sticking to the car interiors. The idea is tha the lining should be made of something that works as a lining, and is still similar enough to the product being shipped that disolving it into the product does not contaminate the product.i
In most tank car derailments the tanks don't leak, whereas with a sealed gondola, any big derailment is going to brake or pop the seal and spill the contents. People are not so gullible that they won't see past the gondola "disguise", especially after a few spills.
I have a lot of experience with oil field HDPE liners, and they become a disposal headache. They have to go to a proper landfill, and they are not accepted oozing oil. They must be solidified with soil, kiln dust or similar.
Overmod Euclid That is my general understanding as well, but on Fred Frailey's blog, I understood he and others to be saying that rail shipping may end up being cheaper than pipeline because it requires less diluent, and therefore, less handling to return diluent to its origin. If I understood them, they were saying that rail may evenutally be the lowest cost method because, with a new type of unloading facility, bitumen can be shipped by rail without any diluent being used. Whereas a pipeline will require the use of diluent. All of that seems to conflict with what has been said about the use of diluent in this thread. Bitumen of a viscosity that is easily handled in tank cars, particularly those with steam-heat coils, may not be optimal or even suitable for pipeline use. Therefore a comment that 'more diluent' is necessary for pipelining is not a contradiction in my opinion, at least.
Euclid That is my general understanding as well, but on Fred Frailey's blog, I understood he and others to be saying that rail shipping may end up being cheaper than pipeline because it requires less diluent, and therefore, less handling to return diluent to its origin. If I understood them, they were saying that rail may evenutally be the lowest cost method because, with a new type of unloading facility, bitumen can be shipped by rail without any diluent being used. Whereas a pipeline will require the use of diluent. All of that seems to conflict with what has been said about the use of diluent in this thread.
That is my general understanding as well, but on Fred Frailey's blog, I understood he and others to be saying that rail shipping may end up being cheaper than pipeline because it requires less diluent, and therefore, less handling to return diluent to its origin.
If I understood them, they were saying that rail may evenutally be the lowest cost method because, with a new type of unloading facility, bitumen can be shipped by rail without any diluent being used. Whereas a pipeline will require the use of diluent.
All of that seems to conflict with what has been said about the use of diluent in this thread.
Bitumen of a viscosity that is easily handled in tank cars, particularly those with steam-heat coils, may not be optimal or even suitable for pipeline use. Therefore a comment that 'more diluent' is necessary for pipelining is not a contradiction in my opinion, at least.
The contradiction that I referred to was based on my understanding that diluent was needed for processing, and for transport, so nothing is gained by a new method of transport that requires less diluent or none at all.
That was my conclusion based on Greasmonkey saying this:
“Yes, Fred is partially correct in that diluent is a cost. Adding any product, to any other product will incur a cost. However, what Fred apparently fails to mention, is that the diluent is necessary for processing the bitumen into upgraded synthetic crude oil. Heating the bitumen alone, will not get it to a state that renders the material pumpable, which it must be to go through the upgrading process.”
Now, as I understand the latest explanations, pipelines require more diulent than is needed for processing and rail does not.
Okay, so overall, as I understand it: You need X amount of diluent added to bitumen for processing. Shipping by rail needs X amount or less to handle in tank cars. So there is no cost benefit in reducing the amount of diluent used for rail shipping below X amount because that amount is needed for the processing anyway.
However shipping by pipeline requires X + Y amount, or more than what is needed for processing. So rail shipping may be lower cost than pipeline because it does not require a quantity of diluent greater than what is necessary for processing. Whereas a pipeline does require a quantity of diluent greater than what is necessary for processing.
Although, I suppose there are a variety of other pricing tradeoffs between rail and pipeline, such as time for shipping, investment cost, labor, etc.
But if this is all true, it does conflict with what has been said in Fred’s blog about rail reducing the cost of transportation by eliminating the need for diluent for rail shipping. That cannot be true according to the information given here.
That is precisely what I have been trying to say Euclid. The only thing I am going to say differently, is that it's not true that the use of diluent does not add to the cost of shipping the bitumen from it's source to the refinery. It will definitely add cost, as you are having to ship more product, since adding the diluent, will add to the volume being shipped. However, the costs added, are not likely to exceed the costs of the extra handling and special treatment that would be required to ship the bitumen in an undiluted state (factoring in the removal, and then reintroduction of the diluent at each end).
Just to add to the whole idea, when the original pilot plants were operated to develop the process and investigate the viability of extracting oil from the sands, all of the bitumen was shipped dry, undiluted. This proved to be very impractical, though to be fair, it was all shipped in barrels, since it was pretty much the only way to handle it with the technology of the day.
It's quite possible that rail could end up being the cheaper method as techniques develop versus using pipelines. The less infrastructure that is needed to build and maintain, the less the overall cost is going to be. I'm not disputing that in any way. My only argument comes with the idea of dry shipping the bitumen, as the work required on both ends would be substantial, and quite expensive,to be able to do it.
I think one thing needs to be clarified though. I think it's important to note that, bitumen shipped by rail, would not require any ADDITIONAL diluent to be added (over and above the amount used in processing), where pipeline transport would.
tatans greasemonkey: I was very confused on my description, I got ahead of myself, bitumen is a very coarse sandy-like tar like material, fine asphalt would describe it, it is refined on site to varying viscosities and sent to refineries for more refinement, bitumen extracted on site is never sent great distances for any type of refinement as it makes no sense, ever wonder what happens to the sand that is exracted from the bitumen? want to see a huge white desert? fly over the project, and remember, most of the tar sands (in situ) are in Saskatchewan, not in Alberta.
greasemonkey: I was very confused on my description, I got ahead of myself, bitumen is a very coarse sandy-like tar like material, fine asphalt would describe it, it is refined on site to varying viscosities and sent to refineries for more refinement, bitumen extracted on site is never sent great distances for any type of refinement as it makes no sense, ever wonder what happens to the sand that is exracted from the bitumen? want to see a huge white desert? fly over the project, and remember, most of the tar sands (in situ) are in Saskatchewan, not in Alberta.
Tatans, just to clarify, it is not correct to say that bitumen is a very coarse sandy-like tar like material as you suggest. Oil sand is what you are describing. Bitumen is one component of the oil sand, but oil sand is not bitumen. To add to that, the bitumen is not refined, it is upgraded. Simply put, the bitumen is processed to remove excess coke and sulphur, which is called upgrading. Refining is separating the material into different products such as gasoline, diesel, etc, etc. That is not really any issue here, just clarifying what you said.
I, in fact, do not wonder what happens to the sand removed from the oil sand during processing. I live and work in Fort McMurray, in one of these facilities, and am very familiar with the processes involved.
On another note, the deposits in Saskatchewan have the potential to hold more oil that the sands deposits in Alberta. But seeing as how they have not yet fully defined the Sask deposits, it's not a sure thing yet. As the resource is further explored and defined, it will no doubt grow, and quite possibly become recognized as a larger resource than the deposits in Alberta.
Here's the ad that came up in my email with the latest installment of this thread:
I think greasemonkey may need to add some backgrounding on pipeline operations to help answer this, but there are a couple of things to note here:
Most pipelines aren't dedicated to 'just one product'; they carry slugs of material separated by 'pigs' or other methods. Presumably the viscosity involved in these different slugs has to be within a common general range, and the materials can't preferentially stick to the pumps and valves, etc.
It follows that, if all the economics of providing, utilizing, and 'recycling' the diluent are included, there will be a fairly clear point at which the net cost of transporting 'dilbit' in TANK CARS will be less than either providing a compatible pipeline or arranging to slug further-diluted dilbit in a general pipeline infrastructure. This is not quite the same situation as for ethanol trains (where the material is inherently unsuited to share a pipeline infrastructure) but similar enough that no one here should have any difficulty with the situation involved.
The original idea, of transporting either 'hard' bitumen, or viscous enough that it would flow more like pitch than the 'dilbit' in tank cars, has substantial practical drawbacks, some of which (like the particulate contamination) are not amenable to technological solution *more cost-effectively than cycling an appropriate flow of diluent*. That is, unless I am missing something significant about refinery operations, and I think I am not. That's a bit of a shame, because continuous rotary dumping of gooey black stuff could be highly interesting to watch!
I agree. There does appear to be a contradiction.
That is my general unerstanding as well, but on Fred Frailey's blog, I understood he and others to be saying that rail shipping may end up being cheaper than pipeline because it requires less diluent, and therefore, less handling to return diluent to its origin.
If I undstood them, they were saying that rail may evenutally be the lowest cost method because, with a new type of unloading facility, bitumen can be shipped by rail without any diluent being used. Whereas a pipeline will require the use of diluent.
Euclid To continue from the preceding set of fact statements (assuming they are true) it follows that the use of diluent does not add any cost to the transportation of bitumen from the mine to the refinery. Therefore, there can be no cost advantage of rail over pipeline because rail might requires less diluent than a pipeline.
To continue from the preceding set of fact statements (assuming they are true) it follows that the use of diluent does not add any cost to the transportation of bitumen from the mine to the refinery. Therefore, there can be no cost advantage of rail over pipeline because rail might requires less diluent than a pipeline.
Pipeline certainly beats rail for the shipping of most liquid or semi liquid commodities but, like crude oil, the current lack of pipeline capacity is the reason semi-processed tar sands derived bitumen may well be a significant rail commodity in the near future.
"I Often Dream of Trains"-From the Album of the Same Name by Robyn Hitchcock
Greasemonkey,
So, as I understand it, you are saying that diluent is not added to bitumen for the exclusive purpose of making it flowable for the purpose of transportation by pipeline or rail. There is another purpose for adding, which is to make it flowable for plant processing. Therefore, diluent has to be added to bitumen for plant processing even if it were not transported to another location by rail or pipeline.
And, as I understand it, you are saying that heating bitumen alone without the addition of diluent will not make it sufficiently flowable for pumping it into or out of tank cars; or make it sufficiently flowable for plant processing.
Therefore, if you eliminated the need for adding diluent for the purpose of transportation, it would still be needed to be added for the purpose of plant processing. And once that processing is finished, the diluent is no longer needed, so it is recovered and re-introduced to the new stock of bitumen.
Is that information all correct?
If so, it would follow that there would be no advantage in shipping bitumen in a way that does not require diluent.
I have not worked with bitumen, but I am familiar with crude oil enough to see what Greasemonkey is saying, and that he knows what he is talking about. Also, I can see another problem that would make a covered tub car problematic. Any petroleum will have some volatility, and to control vapors coming off the product, the car would not only need to be air-tight, but would have to hold at least some slight pressure. This is easily done with a tank car hatch, but not so easy with a tub car lid. Otherwise the load would degrade on the days long trip to the refinery.
Paul, Gilsonite is a solid, where as bitumen is more liquid than solid. They aren't really the same thing.
Tatans, I fear you are confusing synthetic crude with bitumen. Bitumen does not resemble most of the descriptions you listed. While it does have different viscosities depending on it's makeup, it is still very heavy and tar like. Synthetic crude, however, does meet some of the descriptions you listed as well. Just to clarify though, no bitumen is the consistency of sand.
Euclid, I'm sorry, but I have no intention of giving a lesson on the use of diluents. It's a far too in depth field to try and explain in the detail you seem to want. I think Fred has misunderstood the whole situation involving diluents, as he seems to believe they are a one use product, that isn't necessary for the processing of the bitumen. This simply isn't the case.
Something else to consider, is that only one of the large operations doesn't upgrade their own bitumen to oil. One other operation has their own upgrader that is located remotely, but they still do their own upgrading. Most of the raw bitumen shipped, comes from small operations, and is either sent to local upgraders for processing before being shipped as synthetic crude. Or it's hauled in it's diluted state to either a pipeline terminal, or a railhead. There is no rail connection to any of these plants, so handling it in a non diluted state would complicate things greatly, adding to costs. The small operations wouldn't have a large enough production capacity to justify the costs involved in building facilities to recover the diluent. And extending the rail lines to the plant sites is just not an economically feasible option.
Like I said, every time you add a step to the process, you add costs. To add the diluent for initial processing, then remove it for shipping, then add it again for further processing, then remove it again, adds more cost than most would be willing to bear.
It's a nice thought, but it doesn't seem to add any value to the whole system. Only create more handling, and more work and cost.
Don't know why the gondola car idea wouldn't work. The Uintah Rwy. apparently used to ship its Gilsonite in sacks on flat cars - see:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gilsonite
http://www.abandonedrails.com/Uintah_Railway
http://www.amazon.com/Uintah-Railway-The-Gilsonite-Route/dp/0911581367
http://bpratt15.home.bresnan.net/a_longer_history.htm
- Paul North.
Bitumen has various viscosities, from asphalt like material, sand consistency, very thick tar, lighter tar-like liquid, heavy crude, light crude even a fine flowing oil like substance, the crude from the tar sands is not extracted directly from the ground and stuffed into tank cars, it is run through a refining process (a very EXPENSIVE process!) and many types of extracted bitumen is shipped out, why all bitumen is not refined and processed on site is still a big mystery to most Canadians, but we like to ship out all our basic raw resources to other countries so they can refine and process the material so Canada has to buy it back in a finished product.
There seems to be some interest in the fact that tank cars used to transport bitumen have to have steam heated coils. This is not limited to bitumen; many bulk chemicals transported in tank cars need to be heated to unload.
One that I had experience with in my early years as a young engineer was liquid sodium hydroxide (caustic soda, lye), which is commonly used in the chemical/petrochemical industry. I spent so much time working with this stuff (usually in winter, on the midnight shift), that I still cringe when someone mentions it.
daveklepperAlso, if Euclid's lining was Teflon, which I understand to be a petroleum product, just Carbon and Hydrogen and possibly Oxigyn atoms, could not the lining just stay with the product and be melted as part of it?
Dave, I thought you were more of an engineer than that. What part of polytetraFLUOROethylene do you suppose might cause problems if it stayed with the ... for want of a better term let's call it 'melbit'?
I, personally, think that all the operant questions about why dilbit is what is shipped in this operation have been satisfactorily answered, and why a solution 'other' than tank cars isn't exactly worth pursuing. That does not mean y'all can't have more fun with the alternative-history engineering -- just that it's not going to produce anything amounting to a 'breakthrough technology' or a replacement for current practice.
I would like to see a comprehensive explanation of the logistics and process involving the use or diluent. This has been widely written about here and in Fred Frailey’s blog. However, there is a lot of conflict between the various explanations and descriptions there and with Greasemonkey has explained here. Until that is 100% clear, I would set it aside from my proposal for shipping in open top cars instead of tank cars.
However, I still see an advantage of much quicker unloading with less thermal energy input and less cost overall. I see this idea of shipping in an open top car similar to the improvement offered by shipping grain in covered hoppers as opposed to shipping in boxcars. Why did it take so long to make that obvious improvement?
Here's the problem. The Bitumen is not melted and sent for processing. It has to be diluted and pumped into the process, so I'm not sure how a liner could be worked into the process. Plus, it would be kind of pointless to remove the diluent, to ship the product, then reintroduce it so the product could be processed, to remove the diluent again.
It's a neat idea, but a bit impractical given that the product requires the diluent that the idea is trying to remove. Incidentally, the cost of such a liner would likely be fairly high, and teflon has a very high melting point. Much higher than the processing temps of the bitumen.
Greasemonkey, before we give up on Euclid's basic idea, what about these factors: A high-side "bathtub" gondola with fitting air-tight cover looks very different than a tank car and may be permit Betumin to be shiped through places where people are fearful of tankcar trains. Also, if Euclid's lining was Teflon, which I understand to be a petroleum product, just Carbon and Hydrogen and possibly Oxigyn atoms, could not the lining just stay with the product and be melted as part of it?
Thanks for the detailed post Greasemonkey. that makes sense. I'm not married to the idea of shipping bitumen by dump gondola, was just wondering if it could be done. You've been quite thorough in your answer.
Carnej1 already covered the point on the mining of the sand, but I'll expand on it a bit. The bitumen is locked in a mixture of sand, shale, silt and clay that scours the buckets on the shovels clean, as well as the truck boxes to some extent. The truck boxes still require occasional scraping to clean out buildup in areas where the normal wear of the material sliding out doesn't scour the box clean.
Yes, Fred is partially correct in that diluent is a cost. Adding any product, to any other product will incur a cost. However, what Fred apparently fails to mention, is that the diluent is necessary for processing the bitumen into upgraded synthetic crude oil. Heating the bitumen alone, will not get it to a state that renders the material pumpable, which it must be to go through the upgrading process.
I haven't read Fred's article yet, as my copy hasn't arrived yet, however..............it seems as though, from your description, that it is assumed that all of the diluent is used only once. This is not the case. The diluent is recovered from the dilbit, and sent back to the extraction plant to be reused....over, and over and over.
Something I intended to touch on, but somehow missed last night, is that the majority of the product moving out of the oil sands has already been upgraded to synthetic crude oil. Basically, it comes out looking and behaving much like refined motor oil you buy for end use. It has the approximate consistency of about 40 weight motor oil, and it's even the same colour, as most of the excess carbon which makes crude oil black, has already been removed in the upgrading process.
Please don't mistake my input here as me laughing at you. I am well aware of the fact that there are always ways things can be improved, and I am all in favour of improvements. Unfortunately, the improvements you are suggesting, would actually be a step back.
To do as you are suggesting, the diluent would have to be extracted at the source, then the bitumen would have to be handled in a way that is much more cumbersome, involved, and costly than it is currently. Then, once the bitumen is at the upgrader, the diluent would have to be reintroduced, as it's necessary in the upgrading process.
As for the point about the experts defiling the Alberta landscape, please don't believe everything you hear in the media. The amount of land actually affected is very small. Most reports are based on the total size of the deposits, not the land that is actually disturbed by the mining process. Add to that, the fact that reclamation occurs for every bit of land that is disturbed, and actually produces land that is in better shape for the native vegetation and wildlife, and it downplays the significance and accuracy of these reports considerably. The problem is, reporting the truth doesn't make for the sensational stories the media aims for these days. Nor does it give anything to back up the claims made by some environmental groups.
I'm certainly not against innovation, and finding better ways to do things. I'm all for them in fact. The issue is that, the more times you try and convert a product from one state to another, and back again, you drive up costs. Like it or not, low cost is the ultimate goal of any industrial process.
As for Euclid's question on viscosities at different temps, the bitumen has a lower viscosity at higher temps, of course, but at lower temps, it is still pliable. I'm sorry, but I don't have the info on what viscosity it is at different temps.
You guys need to realize, bitumen and crude oil are very different animals. I keep seeing references to things like Lac Megantic, and while the diluent is a volatile product, the bitumen mixed with the diluent is really no more hazardous than the normal crude oil that gets transported/handled/processed in most places. It is no where near the same as the highly volatile Bakken crude that was involved in Lac Megantic. Now, I realize that the diluent adds a different flare to this example, but raw bitumen is almost inert. You can, and I have, actually hold a torch to it without it lighting on fire. With enough heat, it will burn, but the temperature you need to get it to so that the lighter components flash off and burn, is considerable. That's not really part of this discussion, but I thought I'd toss it in there to help you folks understand what this stuff is really like.
As for the idea of shipping the raw oil sand to the gulf coast, I can say with absolute certainty, you wouldn't want to pay for that. The low end ore runs around 6% bitumen content, and the high grade runs up to around the 20% mark. That may not sound that bad, but understand that you cannot recover all of the bitumen. Typically, around 85% is recoverable, and then it needs to be upgraded. There is a loss of volume in the upgrading process, because there is a considerable amount of sulphur and coke removed in the upgrading process. You can't confuse the cost per barrel of oil, and the cost per barrel of bitumen. Bitumen is a far less valuable product.
The shipping costs alone would be out of this world. Can you imagine how high the price of gasoline would go to compensate for that?
I know I have missed some of what was asked, but there's one of me, and a bunch of you, so I have to skim over things just to try and keep up...LOL. If I missed something, feel free to ask again, I'll answer anything I can, and I am not intentionally avoiding any questions.
I must clarify that I am not proposing to "ship bitumen in a gondola," implying just dumping the raw material into a garden variety existing type of gondola. Of course that would be absurd.
Thanks for the clarification. What is the ratio of bitumen to sand? Maybe the extraction plant could be located near the refinery then. Instead of extracting the bitumen at the source, take it out at the refinery. The extracted sand may also be marketable in LA/TX.
Ulrich If the bitumen is so sticky then why doesn't it gum up the power shovels and trucks that take it out of the ground? I get your point about dilbit, but according to Fred's article the conversion to dilbit and then the removal of the diluent at the refinery is a cost. As he put it, it's the packaging the bitumen comes in. He also noted that rail transport requires less diluent than pipeline, thereby bringing the cost of shipping rail more in line with the cost of shipping via pipeline. So the whole dilbit cost thing is indeed a factor to consider, at least according to his article (he put a lot of time into that aspect). I mentioned "cumbersome" ,again, in the context of applying and then removing the diluent. Again, referring to the article, Fred states any diluent used would have to be manufactured/refined and transported to the mine site for use, and then must also be disposed of/recycled at the refinery (which is btw..cost, cost & cost). Don't laugh too hard at us. There's a difference between asking questions and pointless speculation. There just might be a better way than the status quo (i.e. tank cars), and a good starting point is often a question presented by someone who isn't directly involved in the current process and who thus has no vested interest or preconceived ideas on how "it's done". We're just talking here...apparently the rail & tar sands people don't have all the answers either. Every time I turn on the news there's a story about a tank train derailment and more bad news about how "the experts" are defiling the landscape in Alberta. I'm no expert, but I'm pretty sure that's not how its supposed to work.
If the bitumen is so sticky then why doesn't it gum up the power shovels and trucks that take it out of the ground? I get your point about dilbit, but according to Fred's article the conversion to dilbit and then the removal of the diluent at the refinery is a cost. As he put it, it's the packaging the bitumen comes in. He also noted that rail transport requires less diluent than pipeline, thereby bringing the cost of shipping rail more in line with the cost of shipping via pipeline. So the whole dilbit cost thing is indeed a factor to consider, at least according to his article (he put a lot of time into that aspect). I mentioned "cumbersome" ,again, in the context of applying and then removing the diluent. Again, referring to the article, Fred states any diluent used would have to be manufactured/refined and transported to the mine site for use, and then must also be disposed of/recycled at the refinery (which is btw..cost, cost & cost). Don't laugh too hard at us. There's a difference between asking questions and pointless speculation. There just might be a better way than the status quo (i.e. tank cars), and a good starting point is often a question presented by someone who isn't directly involved in the current process and who thus has no vested interest or preconceived ideas on how "it's done". We're just talking here...apparently the rail & tar sands people don't have all the answers either. Every time I turn on the news there's a story about a tank train derailment and more bad news about how "the experts" are defiling the landscape in Alberta. I'm no expert, but I'm pretty sure that's not how its supposed to work.
The tar sand material is what the power shovels scoop up, this is (as the name implies) sand with a high bitumen content.
Trucks haul the tar sand to an extraction plant where the bitumen is extracted in the form of a thick, heavy liquid tar -like material, not something you could ship in a gondola.
The bitumen itself must go through further refining to produce "syn-crude"..
the refineries receiving bitumen are not equipped to utilize raw tar sand and shipping the material in this form would be inefficient.
I put the matter on the two major builder's website contact forms and will get back to you when and if there is a response. I did work for EMD in 1952, but wished to be fair to both builders. You do the same with the railcar builders, please!
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.