Moving Oil, Train vs Pipeline Bakken Deposits.

Grab a rock, have a seat, and talk about the real world of trains.

Moving Oil, Train vs Pipeline Bakken Deposits.

Unread postby Ericmopar » Sun Dec 07, 2014 12:49 pm

I just learned something new this morning.
It turns out trains are cheaper than a pipeline when it comes to moving Bakken crude.
The reason is that Bakken crude is a very thick oil called Bituminous crude. In fact it's not officially an oil at all.
The oil does not go through a pipe without a very expensive process that involves diluting it with chemicals called "condensates" then removing the chemical at the refinery.
That process is very expensive.
New build. i7-7700k, MSI Z270 Gaming M5 Mobo, Hyper 212 Evo, Corsair DDR4 3200 Mhz RAM, Klipsch Pro Mediea 2.1 Speakers, Samsung 850 Evo SSD, HAF XM Case, Asus Strix GTX 1070 and Cooler Master Storm XT Keyboard.
Slick with Pretty Rainbow Colors.
User avatar
Ericmopar
 
Posts: 2797
Joined: Mon May 13, 2013 12:35 am
Location: Henderson NV.

Re: Moving Oil, Train vs Pipeline Bakken Deposits.

Unread postby philmoberg » Sun Dec 07, 2014 1:39 pm

This is one of those things that folks outside the industry are generally not aware of, but which often get a "don't confuse the situation with facts" response at the policy level. Crude oils differ widely from field to field, in this case being essentially similar to "residual oil" usually used for mixing bituminous concrete (a.k.a. "asphalt") or tar madacdam pavements. The additional advantage is that, being heavy and viscous, it tends to be safer to transport because it takes a lot of energy to get it burning.

Of course, if your railroad wasn't prepared for the consequent upsurge in traffic, and was power-short as a result, you'd be hustling to get new power on the roster but quick ... !*hp*!
User avatar
philmoberg
 
Posts: 425
Joined: Fri Feb 20, 2009 8:50 pm

Re: Moving Oil, Train vs Pipeline Bakken Deposits.

Unread postby buzz456 » Sun Dec 07, 2014 1:58 pm

I don't think Bakken crude is what you are referring to as it is light crude similar to WTI. It generally has a api of 36 to 42 which is right in the range WTI. I think the heavy oil you are referring to is the oil coming from the tar sands of Alberta.
Buzz
39 and holding.
"Some people find fault like there's a reward for it."- Zig Ziglar
"If you can dream it you can do it."- Walt Disney
Image
User avatar
buzz456
Site Admin
 
Posts: 21087
Joined: Sun Mar 21, 2010 8:30 am
Location: SW Florida

Re: Moving Oil, Train vs Pipeline Bakken Deposits.

Unread postby Ericmopar » Sun Dec 07, 2014 4:51 pm

buzz456 wrote:I don't think Bakken crude is what you are referring to as it is light crude similar to WTI. It generally has a api of 36 to 42 which is right in the range WTI. I think the heavy oil you are referring to is the oil coming from the tar sands of Alberta.


I just read an article in Trains magazine saying this stuff is very thick. They have to remove it from oil shale and sands. They were showing some of it in unprocessed form. It looked a little like manure.

They were talking about Canadian and N. Dakota deposits. It's such a large area that there could be more than one type.
Last edited by Ericmopar on Sun Dec 07, 2014 6:53 pm, edited 1 time in total.
New build. i7-7700k, MSI Z270 Gaming M5 Mobo, Hyper 212 Evo, Corsair DDR4 3200 Mhz RAM, Klipsch Pro Mediea 2.1 Speakers, Samsung 850 Evo SSD, HAF XM Case, Asus Strix GTX 1070 and Cooler Master Storm XT Keyboard.
Slick with Pretty Rainbow Colors.
User avatar
Ericmopar
 
Posts: 2797
Joined: Mon May 13, 2013 12:35 am
Location: Henderson NV.

Re: Moving Oil, Train vs Pipeline Bakken Deposits.

Unread postby thecanadianrail » Sun Dec 07, 2014 5:16 pm

buzz456 wrote:I don't think Bakken crude is what you are referring to as it is light crude similar to WTI. It generally has a api of 36 to 42 which is right in the range WTI. I think the heavy oil you are referring to is the oil coming from the tar sands of Alberta.


"oilsands" * sorry, just a pet peeve of mine.

The oil coming out of the north is extremely heavy and thick and does require I believe a 2:1 ratio of condensate mixed in with it in order for it to flow through the pipelines, and with condy being so expensive and dangerous (actually way more dangerous than oil, it will kill you if you breathe it in) its just more economical to ship by rail in large unit trains.
User avatar
thecanadianrail
 
Posts: 2613
Joined: Fri Oct 29, 2010 8:36 am
Location: Manitoba, Canada

Re: Moving Oil, Train vs Pipeline Bakken Deposits.

Unread postby buzz456 » Sun Dec 07, 2014 5:56 pm

The Bakken field is in North Dakota and is extracted by conventional means. It is not oil sands or tar sands or whatever you want to call it. The Bakken formation extends well up into Canada.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bakken_formation
Buzz
39 and holding.
"Some people find fault like there's a reward for it."- Zig Ziglar
"If you can dream it you can do it."- Walt Disney
Image
User avatar
buzz456
Site Admin
 
Posts: 21087
Joined: Sun Mar 21, 2010 8:30 am
Location: SW Florida

Re: Moving Oil, Train vs Pipeline Bakken Deposits.

Unread postby buzz456 » Sun Dec 07, 2014 5:58 pm

thecanadianrail wrote:
buzz456 wrote:I don't think Bakken crude is what you are referring to as it is light crude similar to WTI. It generally has a api of 36 to 42 which is right in the range WTI. I think the heavy oil you are referring to is the oil coming from the tar sands of Alberta.


"oilsands" * sorry, just a pet peeve of mine.

The oil coming out of the north is extremely heavy and thick and does require I believe a 2:1 ratio of condensate mixed in with it in order for it to flow through the pipelines, and with condy being so expensive and dangerous (actually way more dangerous than oil, it will kill you if you breathe it in) its just more economical to ship by rail in large unit trains.


Not to start an argument but if you can't push it through a pipeline how do you get it in and out of a tank car?
Buzz
39 and holding.
"Some people find fault like there's a reward for it."- Zig Ziglar
"If you can dream it you can do it."- Walt Disney
Image
User avatar
buzz456
Site Admin
 
Posts: 21087
Joined: Sun Mar 21, 2010 8:30 am
Location: SW Florida

Re: Moving Oil, Train vs Pipeline Bakken Deposits.

Unread postby thecanadianrail » Sun Dec 07, 2014 6:40 pm

buzz456 wrote:
thecanadianrail wrote:
buzz456 wrote:I don't think Bakken crude is what you are referring to as it is light crude similar to WTI. It generally has a api of 36 to 42 which is right in the range WTI. I think the heavy oil you are referring to is the oil coming from the tar sands of Alberta.


"oilsands" * sorry, just a pet peeve of mine.

The oil coming out of the north is extremely heavy and thick and does require I believe a 2:1 ratio of condensate mixed in with it in order for it to flow through the pipelines, and with condy being so expensive and dangerous (actually way more dangerous than oil, it will kill you if you breathe it in) its just more economical to ship by rail in large unit trains.


Not to start an argument but if you can't push it through a pipeline how do you get it in and out of a tank car?


the pressure it takes to pump it through only a few hundred feet is a lot less from storage tank to tank car compared to pumping it around 100 miles or so without making it more viscous using condensate.
User avatar
thecanadianrail
 
Posts: 2613
Joined: Fri Oct 29, 2010 8:36 am
Location: Manitoba, Canada

Re: Moving Oil, Train vs Pipeline Bakken Deposits.

Unread postby Ericmopar » Sun Dec 07, 2014 6:50 pm

thecanadianrail wrote:
buzz456 wrote:
thecanadianrail wrote:
buzz456 wrote:I don't think Bakken crude is what you are referring to as it is light crude similar to WTI. It generally has a api of 36 to 42 which is right in the range WTI. I think the heavy oil you are referring to is the oil coming from the tar sands of Alberta.


"oilsands" * sorry, just a pet peeve of mine.

The oil coming out of the north is extremely heavy and thick and does require I believe a 2:1 ratio of condensate mixed in with it in order for it to flow through the pipelines, and with condy being so expensive and dangerous (actually way more dangerous than oil, it will kill you if you breathe it in) its just more economical to ship by rail in large unit trains.


Not to start an argument but if you can't push it through a pipeline how do you get it in and out of a tank car?


the pressure it takes to pump it through only a few hundred feet is a lot less from storage tank to tank car compared to pumping it around 100 miles or so without making it more viscous using condensate.


They explained in Trains magazine that they can also heat it. In fact they've been working on steam connections to tank cars to aid in loading and unloading. The cars don't need a permanent heat source while shipping.

I'm going to have to look at that article again tonight. Maybe the magazine mixed something up or I missed something when they were talking about Bakken crude.
New build. i7-7700k, MSI Z270 Gaming M5 Mobo, Hyper 212 Evo, Corsair DDR4 3200 Mhz RAM, Klipsch Pro Mediea 2.1 Speakers, Samsung 850 Evo SSD, HAF XM Case, Asus Strix GTX 1070 and Cooler Master Storm XT Keyboard.
Slick with Pretty Rainbow Colors.
User avatar
Ericmopar
 
Posts: 2797
Joined: Mon May 13, 2013 12:35 am
Location: Henderson NV.

Re: Moving Oil, Train vs Pipeline Bakken Deposits.

Unread postby BNSFdude » Mon Dec 08, 2014 10:02 am

Bakken Crude almost isn't a crude at all. Its so light and sweet that it doesn't require all that much refining.
However, due to OPEC driving prices of oil down, the oil companies have started to slow production out there. We've noticed it too on the railroad as traffic volumes have dropped enough for them to cutback on Engineers.
Anthony Wood
Audio Engineer - Searchlight Simulations
User avatar
BNSFdude
 
Posts: 2721
Joined: Tue Nov 29, 2011 1:46 am


Return to The Jungle

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests