Quote:
Originally Posted by Kavy
Oil explodes, we all know that, get over that.... but sometime this forum confuses me.
We have multi-billion dollar pipeline companies in this discussion stating that the current conditions are putting peoples lives at risk more then needed, and the only message this forum seemed to get from this article is that "oil explodes - DUH".
These companies are not dumb, and have been in the game as long as anyone.
I agree that the points in the article came to the wrong conclusion about crude, but it doesn't mean it doesn't have substance.
|
I agree 100%. People want to rally against pipelines so bad that they don't realize that the alternative (trains) isn't any better.
This article, and the issues people have with it, have nothing to do with that though.
The problem is that while this article does have a little bit of substance (meaning it says a few things that are technically true) most of those things are complete red herrings and likely have nothing to do with the explosion.
The headline itself says that they are investigating fracing chemicals degrading the rail cars. They barely even mention any fracing chemicals, except to mention HCl, which, while it is often used to clean up a wellbore before a frac, isn't used in huge quantities (maybe the bakken is different, but I kind of doubt it). That's another issue, they don't mention any sort of info on the volumes used, just that it is used on most wells, but if the volumes are as small as they typically are on on wells I'm familiar with, then it's probably not worth mentioning. It's certainly possible it's an issue, and since there is a need to check everything, it's certainly something to look into, but the chances of it being a big problem, are pretty much negligible.
It then spends a huge part of the article talking about H2S, and yes, that is a big problem, and will cause corrosion in tanks. Problem is, they never mention that it has nothing to do with fracing, the article headline is specifically about fracing, but they never differentiate between fracing chemicals, and naturally occurring ones. That's bad journalisim.
They then have a quote from a rail company guy saying they will be looking into whether or not other chemicals were added to the oil. Shortly there after they have the "Oil doesn't usually explode" quote, and a total throw away line about gasoline being more volatile than crude oil. They seem to be trying to make some kind of connection there, but as we all know, no one would be shipping refined gasoline with crude oil.
Finally, they total ignore that not all crude oils are created equally. I haven't seen a typical oil analysis from the Bakken (where the majority of this crude is coming from), but since it is a pretty tight play I'd be willing to hazard a guess that it is pretty light crude (possibly closer to condensate). If it is light enough, then it most certainly would be at the more "explody" end of the spectrum.
Now does that mean there was nothing wrong with how it's being transported? Absolutely not. If they are transporting super light crude in the wrong train cars, that can/will cause some pretty big problems, none of which are addressed in this article.
But why would they mention any of that? It's a lot cooler to just throw fracing in your headline.
<-----Check the Badge bitches. You want some Awesome, you come to me!
.
