Minutes of the Branding Break-Out Group

Participants:

    We had representatives from refineries (Mike West and Anne Shafizadeh) that use Canadian crudes, a pipeline company (Patti Edens),   inspector/laboratory (Jarad Doiron), chemical technology company (Sam Lordo), consultants (Clifford Mills), and others.

Overview: 

    Canadian crudes encompass many varieties from “sweet synthetics” to “sweet conventional” to “heavy sour, high TAN.” There exists no single source of quality information for comparative analysis of the many grades. The number and variety of grades seems to only get larger. Labels and acronyms seem to make no sense. 

    Without becoming overly cumbersome, is there some quick reference communications means (laminated 8 ½ x 11, slide rule, web page(s), Excel spreadsheet) that industry could produce and use universally.

Mission: 

    The group was charged with: 

        A.    Discuss a list of potential issues and categorize them as per 

            1.     Real and important vs rumored to be a problem 

            2.     Local, site-specific vs general to the industry 

        B.     Isolate a few issues that the COQA may be able to influence, study or learn about. 

        C.     Present a simple action plan to move topics forward. 

Discussion: 

    It was agreed among the group that the issue regarding confusion among Canadian crude grades is real. Most were not aware of the difference between labeling and branding. Branding was considered unimportant to the refinery and viewed more as a hindrance to a clear understanding of what crude types are available. The group felt that the primary importance to the refinery is getting what they paid for - a ratable stream that is consistent from batch to batch. It was felt that the consistency and ratability could be better accomplished with larger available volumes of fewer crude types.  

    The following action plan is suggested to resolve the issues that are considered to be “workable” by COQA.  

    The first priority is to establish a COQA Working Group with the right skill sets, influence and passion around these issues to carry them forward. 

    Action Item 1: Determine the properties of importance to US refiners as they apply to Canadian crude types. Revisit those established by COQA Midwest Subcommittee and tweak. 

    Action Item 2: Establish mechanisms to gather the information available regarding the Canadian crude streams and to share that data in one place that is easy to access and search. What is out there? Who “owns” it? Can we consolidate and share it? Do we need to obtain more? How would we do that?  

    Action Item 3: Once we know what properties are important and have gathered info on those properties for all of the individual crude types (~100), the next step is to define a few (~6) logical “Crude Grades” and put ranges on the properties for those Grades. 

    Action Item 4: After the Grades have been established, categorize the currently available (~100) individual crude types into one of the Grades.  

    Action Item 5: Compile any additional data needed to convince CAPP that consolidation of crude types into a Grading scheme will lead to more consistency and better ratability for US refiners and a better understanding of what is available and thus greater interest in the Canadian crudes by those refiners. The ultimate end result is higher Net Back/value for the Canadian producers.