Eastern Railroad Discussion > Flashpoint of oil...

Going back to my days of college and some fire science classes what is the flashpoint of this Bakken Crude oil? Corrections welcome but I believe gasoline is around -40?

Posted from Android



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/18/15 10:18 by Forever-Railfan-45.

According to this site, Bakken crude's typical flashpoint is "less than" 73 degrees Fahrenheit.

http://www.ndoil.org/resources/bkn/

Also, according to a Wikipedia page, gasoline's is -43 C (-45 F).



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 02/18/15 10:27 by toledopatch.

Since Bakken Crude oil is unrefined, unless measures are taken prior to loading, it contains all of the light ends which can include some trapped gases like methane, ethane, and propane.

Just to add a point, legislation has been proposed that would require the shippers to remove methane, ethane and propane (NGL's or natural gas liquids) by building stabilizers at the production fields. These NGL's would then require shipment - presumably in pressure tank cars which are already built to higher standards. Oil producers an say the crude is already safe and are apposed to building the stabilizer facilities.

Try looking up 'Hydrogen Sulfide' in the TrainOrders archives. It's in almost every discussion about Rail by Oil after the Lac-Megantic Info came out.

It's thought that the North Dakota Crude has problematic amounts of the stuff. It can be removed at the loading point but then they have to deal with it separately. At this time it's combined in the crude shipment and the buyer or Refiner disposes of the hazard, usually by burning it off in the refining process. In this case it didn't make it to the refinery for it's planned disposal.

Fact is, the number varies widely from well to well. But Bakken oil is far, far more volatile than ordinary run of the mill crude. The Canadian transport safety report cited some really low numbers.

When the first reports came in from Lac Megantic, the spill response guys I work with, without exception, assumed that the wreck must have hit something. Nobody (and this is a group of people with 20-30 years plus in spill response) believed that you could explode a crude tanker by impact.

The flash point of oil is dependent on how angry you make it. Talk politics to it and BOOM! Maybe adding some Zoloft to each tank car will calm it down! Or maybe the railroad should be required to have soft music playing to each car.

GrandePete Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> "...... Oil producers an say
> the crude is already safe and are apposed to
> building the stabilizer facilities."

Someone needs to make then sit in a room with no windows for 24 straight hours and watch that video from West Virginia over & over again so they will get the message.

Bob

chuchubobnv Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> GrandePete Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > "...... Oil producers an say
> > the crude is already safe and are apposed to
> > building the stabilizer facilities."
>
> Someone needs to make then sit in a room with no
> windows for 24 straight hours and watch that video
> from West Virginia over & over again so they will
> get the message.

Anything liquid will explode if heated under pressure without relief. That's the Boiling Liquid/Expanding Vapor Explosion scenario. Does anyone here know if there were any explosions immediately at the time of the derailment? Because THAT would be related to the Bakken oil's volatility. For obvious reasons, the video does not show what occurred the instant the train piled up. The immediate explosions in the Lac-Megantic wreck were what killed a lot of the 47 who died -- and shocked observers who didn't think that could happen with crude oil.

I would think that the new tanks have relief valves but so what. Once you relief enough combustible
gas which would happen during a derailment just from the "slosh" effect, just add a spark and you
have flame. Heat the tanks up and yes it will relieve but what? Well, it relieves combustible gases.
If it was lighter the material used in fuel cells could be used to control fuel spill but crude is
crude, though this stuff is pretty light. You really need a round cylindrical tank in a square non-
combustible container with the space in between composed of some heat extinguishing material. That
oughta get Union Tank's stock price up.

Out

Maybe someone should sit down and work out a way to stop crashing all these trains. Seems to be endemic in the US of A., Chris UK.

Its because we run really big trains over here. Actually, the safety record is way better than in the 1960s and is remarkably better now than it was just 20 years ago. if this had been grain, it would barely have made the news. Fireballs are good for ratings. The new types of unit trains just happen to be flammable.

Posted from Android

It only "seems" like a lot of derailments. It is in the spotlight now. Major media coverage. The facts are the same. 3 haz-mat loads out of 1000 fail to make destination without an incident. This includes something as minor as having a single wheel on the ground in a yard.

Much hype about a small problem. Has anyone asked themselves why ethanol trains are not in the spotlight? Politics period.

Eng.Shadetree

To Chris in UK. You are an island nation 550 miles long at the most and none of your rail freight moves that far. Even when you do move freight it is in trains of around 100 axles with ancient buffers and hook couplers and no slack action. Much of your oil is in the North Sea and can be moved by sea tanker to refineries around the coast. But you are still somewhat dependent on Middle East oil. I will not go into the historical politics of who split up the Middle East and created the countries that exist now and have been a constant problem for my entire 70 years. One of my favorite movies, largely true, is Lawrence of Arabia, and where did he hail from? And the territorial decisions made by the victors concerning the Middle East after WW1 and WW2.

Anyway, we want to get away from dependence on foreign oil, now that some of our own oil has been found by new technologies. Absolutely there are problems with its transport and its chemical makeup, but trust me, we will solve that and rather quickly. We move 'shale' oil 1500-1800 miles over land to our refineries, about a dozen trains per day from North Dakota to refineries where the few pipelines that do exist are stuffed, and they have their problems too. The inventory cost of the oil in transport in a train is far less than in a pipeline, if one does go to your destination.

These oil trains in USA and Canada are up to 14,000 gross tons of 100 cars and a bit higher. They pass through terrain far more challenging than your main routes in England. All of them crossing mountains follow rivers because they had to when built; and most of them handle 20-60 other trains per day of other commodities, and they are 4 to 7 times the size you can run in the UK.

We don't 'crash' trains. Considering our terrain, weather, distance of haul and train size I think the US railroad industry has done a stellar job of delivering our oil to our people. Gasoline prices have dropped a US dollar per gallon in the last year; its now around $2.30 on the East Coast. What is it in the UK? Convert the pound please. It seems to me that a European gas or oil train derailed in Italy a few years ago, it had about 20 cars.

shadetree Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Has anyone asked
> themselves why ethanol trains are not in the
> spotlight? Politics period.
>

When NTSB took up the tank-car/hazmat safety issue last year, ethanol was on the table as well as oil. There have been several big ethanol wrecks, but the most recent was several years ago - the CN washout wreck in northern Illinois that killed a driver at a grade crossing. That got a fair amount of attention at the time, but not as much as the oil train wrecks have gotten - probably because of Lac-Megantic as much as anything.

i will say this ... people would be very naive to think that our terrorist enemies aren't taking a good look at how these oil trains react in derailment scenarios

Posted from Android

Thanks tp117 for the reply. I understand the logistics of the trains out there. Maybe as an interim measure, shorter trains should be considered due to the dynamics involved with these large trains. I agree, that in the UK, the largest oil train comes in at 3000ton, but all the others are 1000ton. Chris uk.

I think, at a minimum these trains should run in signaled territory so there is warning against broken rails.

...again...marine operators have had no problems moving the stuff...the larger barges and tankers are required to have inert gas systems aboard which mitigates the explosion hazard. I believe the oil producers would not want to spend the $$$ if not necessary. I'm not sure what has to be done to it to ship by pipeline - but if this problem continues, the pressure to lay pipelines will go up and the public will be more apt to support instead of oppose them. I believe that tanker and barge operators who make their living solely by moving hazardous oil and chemical products, are just better at it, with equipment designed for the purpose and highly trained crews who know how to deal with it.

The biggest problem this sets up for the rail industry is if there is ever widespread movement of containerized LNG....regulators will be strongly opposed to putting containers of LNG aboard rail cars. There is no guarantee widespread LNG transport is guaranteed....it has not caught on as a transportation fuel in the US as yet and until it does it is not going to move in quantity. But given needless paranoia about LNG in general, the rails need to find ways to stop these spectacular accidents.

Does anyone know to what % the crude tank cars are loaded as a function of total capacity?

Bob







TCnR Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Try looking up 'Hydrogen Sulfide' in the
> TrainOrders archives. It's in almost every
> discussion about Rail by Oil after the
> Lac-Megantic Info came out.
>
> It's thought that the North Dakota Crude has
> problematic amounts of the stuff. It can be
> removed at the loading point but then they have to
> deal with it separately. At this time it's
> combined in the crude shipment and the buyer or
> Refiner disposes of the hazard, usually by burning
> it off in the refining process. In this case it
> didn't make it to the refinery for it's planned
> disposal.

I've subscribed to a magazine called Professional Mariner for years. It is almost monthly, and about half of the regular issues is devoted to 'marine casualties'. You might be surprised how many incidents there are involving hazmat carrying ships and barges.