Why do they have to pump bitumen through pipelines?

[StrandedonEarth]

I'm not against pipelines. Despite the effort to transition away from fossil fuels, they're not going away anytime soon, and oil is needed not just for energy, but as feedstock for industry to make a myriad of products. I recognize the economic need for pipelines.

I know that a lot of the "oil" that Alberta produces is bitumen mined from the tar sands. And they want to get that to the markets. But do they have to pump diluted bitumen ("dilbit"; to make it pumpable) through the pipes? If dilbit spills, the diluent (natural-gas condensates such as naphtha) will quickly evaporate, causing health effects to anyone exposed to the vapors. The toxic bitumen, being heavier than water, will sink out of sight (and out of mind) and be pretty much impossible to clean up. Affected environments will take ages to recover.

Can't they crack bitumen into something lighter, that will float on water and make it possible to recover and clean up spills? These pipeline companies say they will do everything possible to protect the environment. If that's the case, why won't they crack the bitumen into something that is, in my view, somewhat more environmentally friendly?

I can only think it depends on what the end customer wants to do with it. Bitumen is the main ingredient in asphalt, IIRC. I assume it's easier to crack a big molecule into smaller ones than it is to build up a longer chain, but is it that much of a showstopper? They don't want to build a plant to crack bitumen for the pipeline? But that would create more jobs (always touted as a reason to build the pipeline) and presumably create a value-added product.

I ask this question here hoping to get some answers before I (attempt to) bring this question to the attention of the powers that be. There are a lot of scientific minds here, so I'm hoping one of them can answer this question. If Kinder Morgan switched to pumping a lighter oil through their expanded Trans Mountain pipeline, it may mollify at least some of the environmental and native groups dead set against the project. I'm not against expanding the pipeline that currently pumps crude less than 500m from my house. I just don't understand why they have to pump dilbit, aside from the fact that that's what they're extracting in Alberta. If customers specifically want bitumen, they can ship it by rail.

[magnemoe]

Pipes are the cheapest way to transport lots of liquid, its even done at sea if volume is large enough. 
Other option is rail who is more expensive and also use a lot of the rail capacity. 

Health effect from evaporation is not an major issue if someone detect an leak they stop the pumping and clean up. 
Main issue is an leak underground who might go on over time polluting the ground before anybody notice, however as its thick should stop it from spreading to much. 
On the other hand the thick oil would also make it hard to pump, might make as much sense to crack it before pumping it. at least if you could use the gas localy and I guess they use plenty of power. 
 

[kerbiloid]

How long is an oil deposit lifespan?
How often they would rebuild new refineries from scratch while the deposits get depleted?
So, they found a large refinery in a constant place more or less close to the deposits cluster and pipe the pulp from deposits to the refinery. While deposits get depeleted, they put new pipes, not build new plants.

P.S.
Btw, pulp lines are used not just for bitumen, but for a mix of an ore with water, too, which is even heavier.

Edited January 26, 2017 by kerbiloid

[p1t1o]

I wouldn't assume that lighter fractions could not be worse for the environment. At least bitumen would rapidly thicken and slow the spread of a leak and many lighter fractions are very toxic, especially for the environment.

From another angle, cracking bitumen, or re-forming it from lighter fractions, is non-trivial, you're basically asking them to build two entirely extra industrial installations for this. Each one would consume plenty of energy and output plenty of waste, one on each end of the pipeline. And of course they would not be cheap. Sure it would create jobs, but that in-and-of-itself is no argument. Opening ten thousand barber shops would also create jobs, but nobody wants that many haircuts.

Sure, chemically, it could be done, but Im not sure it would decrease the risk to the environment and it would certainly be far less economically viable.

Shipping it by rail sounds ok, but why is rail better than a pipeline?

 

 

 

Edited January 26, 2017 by p1t1o

[StrandedonEarth]

1 hour ago, p1t1o said:

Shipping it by rail sounds ok, but why is rail better than a pipeline?

I'm assuming most customers would crack the bitumen into lighter fractions for fuel and oils anyways. Rail should be sufficient for customers that actually want the bitumen itself for tarry products like asphalt or roofing tar.

 

1 hour ago, p1t1o said:

I wouldn't assume that lighter fractions could not be worse for the environment.

Neither would I, but at least if it floats it would be much easier to clean up. If it sinks it would be very difficult to clean up, and if it's out of sight the oil companies could get away with ignoring it while it continues to poison the environment. The biggest fear of environmental groups is a tanker spill, where it would destroy the sea floor. Most of this stuff is destined to be shipped across the Pacific to Asia. And one has to assume that spills are a matter of when, not if. Murphy's Law insists on it.

5 hours ago, magnemoe said:

On the other hand the thick oil would also make it hard to pump, might make as much sense to crack it before pumping it.

Which is another point in my argument. Customers need to be able to handle bitumen anyways, and then they separate out the diluent and ship it back. A lighter product would have more customers, and I'm sure Alberta has plenty of cracking facilities already.

Out of time for now, more arguments later...

[p1t1o]

@StrandedonEarth

Fair points I suppose. It does seem though like you are trying to fix a problem that doesn't exist yet. There would be problems and risks with *any* other method of transport, even shipping light fractions by rail or whatever. You don't need to make points about how "if a lighter fraction floats, it would be easier to clean up", you need to make points about how you have found a method which you can show is a better fit than what is currently being done. At the moment we have a lot of "IF"s and nothing to show that anything would be any better than pumping dilbit through a pipe.

One thing is certain, out of all transport options, a pipeline has the fewest moving parts and thus points of failure. You say a tanker WILL spill, its only a matter of time. How is that different from anything else? Can you show that a pipeline/train/tanker has a greater/lesser probability of failure than another method? That is what you need to bring to the party.

Also be careful about the assumption you make about who wants bitumen for what, you say "products like asphalt or roofing tar" - do you realise how big an industry those two products represent?

If you really are going to take this to "the powers that be" you need some more powerful paperwork than "at least if it floats it would be much easier to clean up". You dont want to use *any* language like "at least".

If you want to play in the big leagues, you need big league science. Get some data on bitumen spills and various light oil spills, pipeline spills and rail spills. Get some data on who cracks bitumen and into what. Data Data Data. You also might want to look into aquatic toxicity and the properties (like biodegradability) of bitumen and other fractions. You say bitumen could sit on the seafloor without anyone caring, poisoning the environment. Are you sure it wouldn't just biodegrade? Are you sure it is toxic? Get ahold of some safety datasheets (SDSs) these have to be publicly available.  I wasn't kidding when I said lighter fractions could be worse for the environment - maybe some might float to the surface, but if they poison the entire water column while that happens, you've kinda shot yourself in the foot.

Have you considered flammability risks?

Full disclosure, I work as a chemist in the field of chemical safety and regulation. And as it happens, we use a fair bit of bitumen, as far as hydrcarbons go, it is one of the more benign ones.

I dont work for shell or BP or anything like that, I have no particular agenda to push, we are all about safety here. And even if I did, I am just pushing the idea of data, data, data. Suppositions and maybes wont get you very far in the real world, especially when talking about something with this much inertia.

 

Edited January 26, 2017 by p1t1o

[magnemoe]

3 hours ago, p1t1o said:

I wouldn't assume that lighter fractions could not be worse for the environment. At least bitumen would rapidly thicken and slow the spread of a leak and many lighter fractions are very toxic, especially for the environment.

From another angle, cracking bitumen, or re-forming it from lighter fractions, is non-trivial, you're basically asking them to build two entirely extra industrial installations for this. Each one would consume plenty of energy and output plenty of waste, one on each end of the pipeline. And of course they would not be cheap. Sure it would create jobs, but that in-and-of-itself is no argument. Opening ten thousand barber shops would also create jobs, but nobody wants that many haircuts.

Sure, chemically, it could be done, but Im not sure it would decrease the risk to the environment and it would certainly be far less economically viable.

Shipping it by rail sounds ok, but why is rail better than a pipeline?

You are probably right in that very heavy oil would be easier to clean as it would not spread out so much in the soil. 
So if they can pump it its best. 

Problem with rail is that its more expensive, Pipes even beat ships who is cheaper than rail. 
It also take up rail capacity, if its so much oil an pipe makes sense it would be many trains each day. 

[StrandedonEarth]

On 1/26/2017 at 5:20 AM, magnemoe said:

Problem with rail is that its more expensive, Pipes even beat ships who is cheaper than rail. 
It also take up rail capacity, if its so much oil an pipe makes sense it would be many trains each day. 

I didn't suggest to ship by rail instead of pipe. I suggested pumping something lighter through the pipeline, and customers who want the actual bitumen instead of lighter fractions can get it by rail.

On 1/26/2017 at 4:18 AM, p1t1o said:

If you want to play in the big leagues, you need big league science. Get some data on bitumen spills and various light oil spills, pipeline spills and rail spills. Get some data on who cracks bitumen and into what. Data Data Data. You also might want to look into aquatic toxicity and the properties (like biodegradability) of bitumen and other fractions. You say bitumen could sit on the seafloor without anyone caring, poisoning the environment. Are you sure it wouldn't just biodegrade? Are you sure it is toxic? Get ahold of some safety datasheets (SDSs) these have to be publicly available.  I wasn't kidding when I said lighter fractions could be worse for the environment - maybe some might float to the surface, but if they poison the entire water column while that happens, you've kinda shot yourself in the foot.

Hmm, I tried to look some of that up, but the short answer appears to be that no one really knows:
http://globalnews.ca/news/1808065/10-things-we-dont-know-about-bitumen-toxicity/

On 1/26/2017 at 4:18 AM, p1t1o said:

One thing is certain, out of all transport options, a pipeline has the fewest moving parts and thus points of failure. You say a tanker WILL spill, its only a matter of time. How is that different from anything else? Can you show that a pipeline/train/tanker has a greater/lesser probability of failure than another method? That is what you need to bring to the party.

Well, I wasn't referring to just tankers, but spills from any form of transport, anywhere. I focused more on water spills because that's what the opposition groups make the most noise about. At any rate, it seems I'm not the only one thinking of shipping refined product instead of raw bitumen, although this Globe&Mail article listed a proposal to refine bitumen on the coast after piping it across BC, to the ire of aboriginal groups. It also lists the price of a bitumen-to-diesel refinery at $8-$20 billion. Another article (desmog.ca) listed the price of adding a coker unit (for upgrading bitumen) to an existing refinery at $2 billion.

You did give me some good points to ponder, that maybe a marine bitumen spill wouldn't be as bad as I feared. It shouldn't spread as far as conventional crude and foul coastlines. I suppose it would mound on the seafloor instead of spreading across it. The highly flammable diluents (naptha or benzene seem to be the most common, from what I read) would quickly evaporate, although the vapors would still be hazardous to local populations in the event of a land spill.

I recalled the Kalamazoo, Michigan pipeline spill (wiki) , including the part that most of the spill was caused by human error, trying to restart the pipeline after it had ruptured and they didn't know it. I didn't realize it was also a dilbit spill until I looked it up again after my OP. 25 miles of the river was closed for two years, and the cleanup cost over $1.2 billion. The river had to be dredged three years after the spill.

The above desmog.ca article also mentions a byproduct of bitumen refining called "pet coke," which is basically dirty coal that power plants love because it's cheap. Asia has an advantage in refining bitumen because of cheaper labor and costs. So in the end, when I think about all these different factors, okay, sure, pipe and tanker the stuff over to China. They can deal with the mess.

Oh, and "data, data, data" reminds me of when my brother was taken to court by his ex. Paper, paper, paper. He had it and she didn't. Guess who won?

 

Edited January 28, 2017 by StrandedonEarth

[cantab]

Money and power. It's cheaper to keep the refineries where they are, not build new ones. And it's always in someone's political interests to have the refineries with their jobs and tax revenues in their territory.

[Finox]

On 1/25/2017 at 11:02 PM, StrandedonEarth said:

Can't they crack bitumen into something lighter, that will float on water and make it possible to recover and clean up spills? These pipeline companies say they will do everything possible to protect the environment. If that's the case, why won't they crack the bitumen into something that is, in my view, somewhat more environmentally friendly?

Cracking bitumen into lighter products is done at an oil refinery, the pipelines are to get it from the field where oil is produced to the refinery where it will be turned into its final product.   Usually that's a significant distance, oil fields wax and wane as new oil bearing formations are discovered and technology allows access to new deposits, but refineries are huge billion dollar plus facilities, they can't be easily moved or built.   It just makes more sense to move the oil then the refinery.

If I may ask; why does bitumen (asphalt in the U.S.) in particular concern you?

[StrandedonEarth]

My idea was to crack it into an (hopefully safer) intermediate product for transport, and be further refined into the desired products at the destination. But as usual, that is easier said than done. Bitumen has a more restricted market than other petroproducts, since a refinery needs a coker to handle it. Bitumen is also worth less per barrel.

On 1/30/2017 at 1:14 PM, Finox said:

If I may ask; why does bitumen (asphalt in the U.S.) in particular concern you?

Bitumen in particular concerns me because if it spills (and a spill should be considered inevitable, IMO, just like earthquakes in fault zones) in water, it would sink and be much more difficult to clean up. It would be out of sight and the company responsible would hope it would be forgotten. However, as others pointed out in this thread, it wouldn't be spread as far and wide by wind and wave action, compared to lighter oils.

There is currently a crude oil pipeline running through my 'hood. Closer to the terminal in Vancouver, it was punctured by a backhoe a few years ago, making a mess in that area. It will soon be expanded to nearly triple its capacity, and will carry dilbit. It will ship out from the Port of Vancouver (less than one hundred miles from here) and will wind its way through the windy Salish Sea. Never mind spills, environmentalists are concerned about the effects of increased ship traffic and noise on orcas and other sea life. But that's beyond my point here.

After more research (see the links in my last post) I decided that it may it not be as bad as I first thought, and that China can deal with the mess of refining it.