Canadian Subcommittee of the Crude Oil Quality Association
June 7, 2007
Chicago, IL
Participants:
Tim Blackmore, Jeff Thompson, Rob Sulek, Sue Szydlo, Mukund Unavane, and Patrick Davis.
Overview:
The group reviewed the list of potential issues that were provided as a starting point for discussion. A number of these issues were felt to be insignificant, and others were believed to be quite real. Other issues were brought up that related to logistics and quality impacts of logistics. It was established that some significant differences exist with respect to concerns regarding quality impacts for crude oils moved on the Spearhead system relative to those moved on the older systems such as Enbridge, Lakehead, Rangeland and Platte systems.
In the discussion area below, the list of potential concerns discussed are listed with the consensus on their validity. As well, a list of other concerns that were commonly held is provided.
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:
Cracked Stock Contamination
No one present has any experience with issues of cracked contamination in Canadian crude oils. This is felt to be a low priority concern.
Crude Oil Compatibility
No one had any experience with asphaltenes compatibility problems with Canadian crude oils. This was felt to be a low priority concern.
Common Stream QA (CRW, MSW, MSO)
A concern exists amongst the members with respect to passing of crude oils over “incompatible” (with respect to quality – not stability) crude oils in tankage. This concern is specifically with respect to the Spearhead system. Enbridge/Lakehead is acknowledged to have good practices on this matter. No discussion occurred with respect to Platte or Rangeland. There was a subsidiary concern with regards to poor repeatability of sulfur measurement at some pipeline locations.
Batching & Segregation Rules
It was felt that the batching and segregation rules are well documented and available to stakeholders. There were concerns with respect to these rules on Spearhead due to inadequate tankage available for appropriate segregation. It was felt that segregation is well achieved for light sweet blend, but not for light synthetics.
Incentive Tolling on Enbridge
There were no concerns with respect to the Enbridge ITS. The document is available for public review and provides excellent information on the system operational goals and guidelines.
Water & Sediment
There were no issues raised with respect to control of water & sediment. One comment was made that refiners would much prefer that all custody transfer measurements utilize Karl Fischer rather than the S&W methods.
Affect of Interfaces & Tank Heels
There were concerns with respect to tank heels in Spearhead operations, re: “incompatible quality” batches passing over heels.
Use & Impact of DRA & Biocides
No concerns were raised with respect to the use of DRA, although the committee as a whole seemed to be unsatisfied with this conclusion. Biocide usage, and the lack of notification regarding its usage, is a concern to all.
Logistics Upstream of Edmonton/Hardisty
There were no concerns with respect to this area.
Additional Concerns Raised
Excessive Transportation Mixing
Again, this concern was raised with respect to Spearhead. Experience with Spearhead in its first six months of operation were not positive. Recent operations seem to be significantly improved, although the concern still exists.
Tank Heels Mixing with Crudes of Differing Quality
This goes right along with the Spearhead comments above. Inadequate tankage is available for segregation of the differing crude qualities that are being shipped on Spearhead, e.g., conventional heavy, synbit, light synthetic, mixed sweet.
Poor Sulfur Measurement
This concern was relative to feeder pipeline systems in the U.S. There have been experiences with very poor repeatability and reproducibility of sulfur measurement on some injection points into common streams, despite the use of simplistic XRF sulfur analyzers such as Horiba.
Segregation
Some issues were mentioned with Spearhead (see above). There was also a comment that light synthetics are poorly segregated in Superior (Enbridge). There was also a comment that heavy bottoms mixing means that purchasing a “premium” heavy crude is not worthwhile, as that is not received by the refinery. This “purchased” vs. “delivered” quality is of concern for all.
Rateability
There have been concerns regarding the rateability of commodities, especially Syncrude and Mixed Blend Sweet, as a result of feeder pipeline operations.
Possible Actions
Tank heels quality compatibility – could request presentations from the various pipelines on their rules for tank heels and compatible quality types, notification for exceptions, etc.
Sulfur measurement – could initiate a round robin between the various analysis locations for LLS, etc.
Biocide and DRA notifications – issue group letter to pipelines requesting notification of usage for these chemicals, chemistry types, usage patterns, etc. Include explanation of concerns and potential refinery impacts.
Excessive transportation mixing – most of these were with respect to Spearhead. Enbridge collects in vs. out quality data on most crude types as part of the ITS with CAPP. A great deal of quality data is available, at least to the Chicago area, and perhaps further. Request that Enbridge/CAPP report these data to COQA for distribution to interested members on a routine basis.
Tim Blackmore
Omnicon Consultants