James Regan + 1,776 September 1, 2019 (edited) https://www.linkedin.com/posts/joe-dancy-8069637_bakken-ugcPost-6573709566205321216-kGz0 How many refineries can handle this light API-43? Edited September 1, 2019 by James Regan Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SKEP + 229 SK September 1, 2019 (edited) 47 minutes ago, James Regan said: https://www.linkedin.com/posts/joe-dancy-8069637_bakken-ugcPost-6573709566205321216-kGz0 How many refineries can handle this light API-43? * 17 Petrochemical Plants GOM in development since 2013. There are 10 online  other 7 online next 18 months.  Send that record breaking 1.4 mm bbls/day light crude * Exxon expansion at Beaumont almost complete that will process 365k bbls/day of light crude. * ARAMCO just announced Motiva petrochemical expansion to process 300k bbls/day.  Construction to start soon. * Exxon /Saudi joint venture announced in July. * Valero has covered refineries to accommodate light crude. More to follow * Several refineries adding condensate splitters Bakken keep on producing . . . .  keep setting new records  Edited September 1, 2019 by SKEP 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
James Regan + 1,776 September 1, 2019 19 minutes ago, SKEP said: * 17 Petrochemical Plants GOM in development since 2013. There are 10 online  other 7 online next 18 months.  Send that record breaking 1.4 mm bbls/day light crude * Exxon expansion at Beaumont almost complete that will process 365k bbls/day of light crude. * ARAMCO just announced Motiva petrochemical expansion to process 300k bbls/day.  Construction to start soon. * Exxon /Saudi joint venture announced in July. * Valero has covered refineries to accommodate light crude. More to follow * Several refineries adding condensate splitters Bakken keep on producing . . . .  keep setting new records  What about getting it to these refineries ie Pipelines Transportation? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jan van Eck + 7,558 MG September 1, 2019 Bakken Light has been loaded directly into ship's bunkers on West Coast ports and used directly as ship's heavy diesel oil. Runs just fine! Getting back to the original title question: how risky is this material in terms of hazard in rail transportation? I suspect the real answer is that there are trapped gases in solute when Bakken comes out of the wellhead. Those would include butane, pentane, probably some propane. Now load all that material into a rail tank car and send it jostling down the track, while the sun outside is beating down on that black-painted tank car, and I suspect you will find that some of those entrained gaseous products will come out of solution. If the railcar derails and splits open, and creates lots of sparks in the process (and this is what happened at Lac Megantic, Quebec, causing a huge fire that burned down half the town and incinerated 47 people, mostly those attending a music jam session in a bar next to the RR tracks that Friday night), then the sparks of grinding metal will set the butane/pentane on fire and boom! there it goes. Can Bakken be safely refined right at or near the wells?  Of course it can. Is that the logical solution? Of course it is! Will it get done? Of course not!  1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wrs + 893 WS September 2, 2019 (edited) 16 hours ago, Jan van Eck said: I suspect the real answer is that there are trapped gases in solute when Bakken comes out of the wellhead. Those would include butane, pentane, probably some propane. Now load all that material into a rail tank car and send it jostling down the track, while the sun outside is beating down on that black-painted tank car, and I suspect you will find that some of those entrained gaseous products will come out of solution. Uh, all oil passes through separators that segregate the gas and liquids. The gasses are sent to a processing facility that dries out the gas by taking out the butane, ethane, propane and natural gasoline. The remaining oil is just about as volatile as regular api 38 WTI. I have peered down into plenty of oil storage tanks and the heavier oil is plenty volatile as well i.e. lot of fumes.  Edited September 2, 2019 by wrs Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jan van Eck + 7,558 MG September 2, 2019 1 minute ago, wrs said: I have peered down into plenty of oil storage tanks and the heavier oil is plenty volatile as well. The question arises as to its ignition point in the presence of sparks. If that heavier oil does not have a compatible ignition point, then it is only going to ignite when there is yet another component entrained in the oil. Apparently the oil that was loaded on that Lac Megantic train was not passed through separators as you describe. Or if it was, the separation stage was incomplete. My take on it is that the Megantic oil ignited due to the presence of various gas components entrained in the liquid. Cheers. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wrs + 893 WS September 2, 2019 48 minutes ago, Jan van Eck said: The question arises as to its ignition point in the presence of sparks. If that heavier oil does not have a compatible ignition point, then it is only going to ignite when there is yet another component entrained in the oil. Apparently the oil that was loaded on that Lac Megantic train was not passed through separators as you describe. Or if it was, the separation stage was incomplete. My take on it is that the Megantic oil ignited due to the presence of various gas components entrained in the liquid. Cheers. OK, well I think the risk is lower but not non-existent after having the gasses separated as described. 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Most Active Members
Recently Online
Popular Members
