Technically I suppose the 'best' comparison would be using lease condensate rather than 'gas condensate' -- the more critical question being where the condensates closer to 45 than 75 API gravity are being transported by rail in the United States. If I am not mistaken, much of the 'diluent' for things like oil shale or heavier crude to be pipelined is sourced from condensate, and I have seen discussions that diluent would become more and more extensively backhauled (by rail) if things like Keystone XL were built.
Here is a reference with a bit more detail on the actual differences in the 'spectrum' of these materials.
Labeling hydrocarbons as "oil" or "condensate" is pretty arbitrary. Even the "oil" vs "gas" distinction is only relevant at conditions where both could coexist together. Many reservoirs are at temperatures and pressures where only a single phase can exist, and there are quite a few for which the temperature is so close to the critical temperature of the mixture that it's not at all obvious whether reducing the pressure will evolve bubbles of vapor or droplets of liquid (those can be pretty tricky to produce efficiently). There are some for which the temperature, pressure, and/or composition variation with depth give them fluids which are "gas" in top (because they condense liquid on depressurization), "oil" in the bottom (because the evolve vapor on depressurization), with no gas-oil contact in between.
He also has some detail to add to how the distinction between the 'oil' and 'gas' derived fractions can be made or assessed:
Where it gets *really* interesting is when multiple parties own different interest in reservoir "oil" (and the gas evolved from it) and "gas" (and the condensate precipitated from it). There's at least one really important field where the distinction between "oil" vs. "condensate", and even "gascap gas" vs "solution gas" is really important to the involved parties' revenues ... In such a case there has to be a way to discriminate the fluids for equity determinations. While those methods are devised with some sort of technical justification to hopefully treat liquids derived from reservoir vapor as condensate and vapors derived from reservoir liquids as solution gas, in the final analysis they boil down to contractual terms. Mixing lawyers with engineers, geologists, and geophysicists is often interesting to watch but *never* much fun to do.
Overmod In case anyone is wondering about the technical difference between 'crude' and 'condensate'... here's a reasonable place to start. http://blogs.wsj.com/corporate-intelligence/2014/06/25/what-is-condensate-introducing-americas-new-oil-export/ Note the map at the bottom showing the run of the Eagle Ford Shale, and be sure you click on the 'depending on who you ask' link to understand that there's essential continuity between crude and condensate, with the delineation being somewhat arbitrary. There are certainly examples of crude with API gravity higher than those reported by PHMSA from the Bakken under Operation Classification, even if you want to make an artificial distinction that 'condensate' doesn't count as 'crude'.
In case anyone is wondering about the technical difference between 'crude' and 'condensate'... here's a reasonable place to start.
http://blogs.wsj.com/corporate-intelligence/2014/06/25/what-is-condensate-introducing-americas-new-oil-export/
Note the map at the bottom showing the run of the Eagle Ford Shale, and be sure you click on the 'depending on who you ask' link to understand that there's essential continuity between crude and condensate, with the delineation being somewhat arbitrary. There are certainly examples of crude with API gravity higher than those reported by PHMSA from the Bakken under Operation Classification, even if you want to make an artificial distinction that 'condensate' doesn't count as 'crude'.
[from the same article] " The distinction between crude and condensate is a matter of opinion. One standard the energy industry uses to compare different types of oil is called API gravity – a measure of how heavy or light petroleum is relative to water. Lighter crudes have higher gravity. For instance, West Texas Intermediate – known as WTI – is a predominant U.S. light crude and has traditionally measured an API gravity of 39 degrees on this scale. Anything above 45 degrees API can be considered condensate, depending on who you ask. Some of the stuff pouring out of wells in Texas, North Dakota, and Colorado is coming in at a range of 50 to 60 degrees API."
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
schlimm MidlandMike schlimm ... Ok, so tell us how many/which crudes transported in the US and Canada are more volatile than Bakken? Virtually any condensate will be more volatile. Condensates don't come under the ban on crude exports, so some are even shipped overseas. I think we alreadyknow that. I asked you to name some crudes that are more volatile than Bakken, since that was your contention.
MidlandMike schlimm ... Ok, so tell us how many/which crudes transported in the US and Canada are more volatile than Bakken? Virtually any condensate will be more volatile. Condensates don't come under the ban on crude exports, so some are even shipped overseas.
schlimm ... Ok, so tell us how many/which crudes transported in the US and Canada are more volatile than Bakken?
...
Ok, so tell us how many/which crudes transported in the US and Canada are more volatile than Bakken?
Virtually any condensate will be more volatile. Condensates don't come under the ban on crude exports, so some are even shipped overseas.
I think we alreadyknow that. I asked you to name some crudes that are more volatile than Bakken, since that was your contention.
I think I answered your question. Michigan alone has hundreds of gas-condensate fields. Many of them are Niagaran formation if you need a name.
Wizlish ... Does not change the observation that much of this crude is observed to belong in packing group I of flammable liquids, not the packing group III that ISTR the crude involved at Lac Megantic was shipped under.
Does not change the observation that much of this crude is observed to belong in packing group I of flammable liquids, not the packing group III that ISTR the crude involved at Lac Megantic was shipped under.
All the reports I've read, now put the Bakken crude nominally at Group II. There has been an agreement between the ND regulators and the producers to lable it minimally as Group II. Please let me know if you have some other info.
MidlandMike schlimm The Federal Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration last July released a report concluding that Bakken crude is highly volatile because of its tendency to vaporize. The agency concluded "that it is a 'light' crude oil with a high gas content, a low flash point, a low boiling point and high vapor pressure." "PHMSA concurrently released a report summarizing the analysis of Bakken crude oil data gathered by PHMSA and FRA between August 2013 and May 2014. The data show that crude oil from the Bakken region in North Dakota tends to be more volatile and flammable than other crude oils. So Midland Mike may say, "I can tell you there are both crudes that are more volatile, and less volatile," the PHMSA and FRA differ. I already said that the Bakken was very volatile. I don't see how you can conflate "tends to be more volatile and flammable than other crude oils." into meaning that there are no other more volatile crudes. What you have gleaned from PHMSA does not contradict what I have said.
schlimm The Federal Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration last July released a report concluding that Bakken crude is highly volatile because of its tendency to vaporize. The agency concluded "that it is a 'light' crude oil with a high gas content, a low flash point, a low boiling point and high vapor pressure." "PHMSA concurrently released a report summarizing the analysis of Bakken crude oil data gathered by PHMSA and FRA between August 2013 and May 2014. The data show that crude oil from the Bakken region in North Dakota tends to be more volatile and flammable than other crude oils. So Midland Mike may say, "I can tell you there are both crudes that are more volatile, and less volatile," the PHMSA and FRA differ.
The Federal Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration last July released a report concluding that Bakken crude is highly volatile because of its tendency to vaporize. The agency concluded "that it is a 'light' crude oil with a high gas content, a low flash point, a low boiling point and high vapor pressure." "PHMSA concurrently released a report summarizing the analysis of Bakken crude oil data gathered by PHMSA and FRA between August 2013 and May 2014. The data show that crude oil from the Bakken region in North Dakota tends to be more volatile and flammable than other crude oils.
So Midland Mike may say, "I can tell you there are both crudes that are more volatile, and less volatile," the PHMSA and FRA differ.
I already said that the Bakken was very volatile. I don't see how you can conflate "tends to be more volatile and flammable than other crude oils." into meaning that there are no other more volatile crudes. What you have gleaned from PHMSA does not contradict what I have said.
I'm not going to get into a parsing war here, but you are the one who disputed what Firelock76 said the Fred Frailey had to say about Bakken.
You said: "I can tell you there are both crudes that are more volatile, and less volatile,"
schlimm "PHMSA concurrently released a report summarizing the analysis of Bakken crude oil data gathered by PHMSA and FRA between August 2013 and May 2014. The data show that crude oil from the Bakken region in North Dakota tends to be more volatile and flammable than other crude oils.
What is the link to this report, or what are the cites? I believe it is this:
http://www.phmsa.dot.gov/staticfiles/PHMSA/DownloadableFiles/Hazmat/07_23_14_Operation_Safe_Delivery_Report_final_clean.pdf
I would like to be sure I see what the report says for myself, rather than reading a summary from an information page. What I see in the linked PHMSA report about Bakken crude volatility is qualified pretty quickly (by the 7th paragraph in the executive summary) and also in the conclusion on page 16, by words like "more" or "most", which is in line with what Mike said.
Any hydrocarbon can be dangerously volatile if it's hot enough. The building I worked in 11 years ago was within a minute or so of being burnt to the ground by the carelessness of the roofers working on it. They had set the heat on the tar pot high enough that the tar flashed over and ignited the "rolls" of solid tar next to the pot. Fortunately this happened on a weekend, and the fire department arrived in time to put out the fire before it broke the windows facing the fire - the damage to the concrete exterior was impressive.
FWIW, the roofers were hired by the landlord, not the company I was working for.
- Erik
North Dakota has enacted regulations to decrease the volitility of Bakken Crude for shipment.
http://www.desmogblog.com/2014/12/11/north-dakota-s-meaningless-new-regulations-will-keep-bomb-trains-rolling
Article is written by the anti concerns, thus the negative slant.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
Firelock76 Several weeks back, maybe months now, there was a Fred Frailey column that stated YES, Bakken crude is a lot more volatile than run-of-the-mill crude oil. If Mr. Fred says it I'll have to go with it. I also recall during the Iran-Iraq War back in the 80's several supertankers took hits from anti-ship missles. The Iraqi crude in the holds was so dense it smothered the explosion without igniting, or so the news reports said.
Several weeks back, maybe months now, there was a Fred Frailey column that stated YES, Bakken crude is a lot more volatile than run-of-the-mill crude oil. If Mr. Fred says it I'll have to go with it.
I also recall during the Iran-Iraq War back in the 80's several supertankers took hits from anti-ship missles. The Iraqi crude in the holds was so dense it smothered the explosion without igniting, or so the news reports said.
Really? does Fred Fraily have any education in chemistry? NO! Does he have any education in transportation? NO! He has a degree in journalism and a lifelong career in finance until he came to Trains. And now he knows everything?
Firelock76 Several weeks back, maybe months now, there was a Fred Frailey column that stated YES, Bakken crude is a lot more volatile than run-of-the-mill crude oil. If Mr. Fred says it I'll have to go with it. ...
I follow Fred Frailey's blog, and I know he follows CBR closely. I know he has said that Bakken crude is very volatile, but I don't remember him saying it in the way you put it. I think we mostly agree that Bakken is very volatile, however, as a career geologist in the oil fields, I can tell you there are both crudes that are more volatile, and less volatile. I have seen less volatile crudes explode. There is no grade of crude oil I know of called "run-of-the-mill crude". The regulatory Emergency Response Guide calls for all crude oil (UN 1267) to be handled as potentially explosive. My fear is that some railfans may have the fanciful idea that if the Lac Megantic train was full of "run-of-the-mill crude", that a 2 million gallon crude train run-away wreck would not have been a catastrope.
Thank you very much, I sit corrected.
Patrick Boylan
Free yacht rides, 27' sailboat, zip code 19114 Delaware River, get great Delair bridge photos from the river. Send me a private message
gardendance I'm still not sure what your blackboard reference is, or what it has to do with Dan Quayle. I remember he was a judge at a spelling bee, and incorrectly judged against someone who spelled potato correctly, but I don't remember that it involved a blackboard.
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
I did not type "you misspelled expulsion" in any tone. You are certainly welcome to think that I was "unwarrantedly superior and condescending" but I don't think you have any evidence to support that conclusion. I also don't see where I made a mistake, we're supposed to spell the variations of how to pull an ex differently than how the author had.
I don't remember any time where you and I " had decided to stop correcting people on this forum 'in public' when they made mistakes in English grammar or usage". That sounds a lot like Braveheart, Wallace's reply to the accusation that he broke his oath to the king was that he took no such oath. If you'll point me to where I ever agreed to such a convention please let me know. I have no problem with folks correcting my spelling or grammar, at least not in the manner I did in this case.
I'm still not sure what your blackboard reference is, or what it has to do with Dan Quayle. I remember he was a judge at a spelling bee, and incorrectly judged against someone who spelled potato correctly, but I don't remember that it involved a blackboard.
gardendanceI don't believe anything in my thread is arrogant or snarky. Is there anyting in it that isn't a fact?
It is that you presumed to correct somebody, in a ... well, shall we say unwarrantedly superior and condescending tone ..with that correction itself being mistaken both in "correcting" what the poster had meant and in its use of the language.
I had thought we had decided to stop correcting people on this forum 'in public' when they made mistakes in English grammar or usage. When I see something that's a typo, I PM the person and let them know, so they can change it without being embarrassed in public. Personally, I think this is a better idea, and I recommend it to your attention. (For better or worse, when I see typos in text I quote, I usually try to emend them quietly without comment.)
I have no idea what you mean about 'a certain blackboard, and the word "potatoe"'. Do you mena you know of someone who misspelled patatoe on a blackboard? Even I know it's suppsed to be spelled ptatwo.
The reference was to Dan Quayle.
Wizlish gardendance You misspelled expulsiveness in the thread title. Reminds me a bit of a certain blackboard, and the word "potatoe"...
gardendance You misspelled expulsiveness in the thread title.
Reminds me a bit of a certain blackboard, and the word "potatoe"...
I complained recently about your arrogance and snarkiness in another thread, but I can't recall any other threads for quite a while in which I complained. I don't believe anything in my thread is arrogant or snarky. Is there anyting in it that isn't a fact?
BaltACD Ever heard of fat fingers! I have never expuled, I misspelled explosive....deal with it! I guess you haven't been keeping current on the comments of ND oil interests have been making on the safety of their commodity and how it is the RR's fault there have been explosive incidents with the commodity.
Ever heard of fat fingers! I have never expuled, I misspelled explosive....deal with it!
I guess you haven't been keeping current on the comments of ND oil interests have been making on the safety of their commodity and how it is the RR's fault there have been explosive incidents with the commodity.
Has it really taken this long for the Lac-Mégantic tragedy to cause some people to come to their senses about how dangerous this product is?
*EDIT* Perhaps I missed your point.
BaltACD My purpose in posting this article is that ever since the Lac Megantic incident, the ND oil interests have been stating that only railroad inepteness in handling their commodity has been the cause of the explosions and fires from this commodity during transportation. This article shows that they can't even get it in their storage tanks without incident.
My purpose in posting this article is that ever since the Lac Megantic incident, the ND oil interests have been stating that only railroad inepteness in handling their commodity has been the cause of the explosions and fires from this commodity during transportation. This article shows that they can't even get it in their storage tanks without incident.
Oil movement during loading causes static electricity, hence the requirement for the static lines. Tanks and trucks can explode this way in any oil field, and is nothing unique to the Bakken. The Bakken production recently passed the 1 million barrels per day mark, so the other 998,400 bbls that day were loaded without incident, and the previous days 1,000,000 bbls were loaded without incident, and apparently many millions more barrels were loaded since the last reported incident, but I can't recall the last incident. All the rail tank car incidents I can recall, involved derailments, or in the case of Lac Megantic, a catastrophic run-away wreck. I have heard things like "if they kept the tank cars on the tracks they wouldn't explode". Yes the statement is sarcastic, and we all know that derailments will never be totally eliminated, but the derailment is still the event that causes CBR explosions. Apparently the railroads have realized this, and have not had an explosion incident in a while.
gardendance You misspelled expulsiveness in the thread title. I don't see anything in the article that compares Bakken crude with any other crude, and it doesn't even say if the crude oil that burned, or even if it exploded, just that "residents reported hearing and feeling an explosion" was Bakken. And the article doesn't mention railroads.
You misspelled expulsiveness in the thread title. I don't see anything in the article that compares Bakken crude with any other crude, and it doesn't even say if the crude oil that burned, or even if it exploded, just that "residents reported hearing and feeling an explosion" was Bakken.
And the article doesn't mention railroads.
gardendanceYou misspelled expulsiveness in the thread title.
And you were the one complaining about arrogance and snarkiness in other threads?
Static electricity and improper grounding procedures are most likely the culprit.
This can happen with any combustable material, based on the flashpoint and the dryness of the air.
"The true sign of intelligence is not knowledge but imagination."-Albert Einstein
http://gearedsteam.blogspot.com/
schlimm gardendance You misspelled expulsiveness in the thread title. I don't see anything in the article that compares Bakken crude with any other crude, and it doesn't even say if the crude oil that burned, or even if it exploded, just that "residents reported hearing and feeling an explosion" was Bakken. And the article doesn't mention railroads. The correct word is "explosiveness" from explode. "Expulsiveness" from expel is usually used in conjunction with anal, as in anal expulsiveness. I doubt if you meant the latter. If residents heard and felt an explosion, doesn't that count?
Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.