Crude Oil Quality Association
Additives Subcommittee
Houston, TX
May 30, 2002

Automated Samplers for Additive Detection - Pat Donahoe and Troy Baker of Brinkmann Instruments presented their Karl Fischer Oven Processor for automated sample processing. The Oven Processor saves considerable time in sample preparation and analysis. It also establishes a baseline, which is continuously monitored, eliminating instrument drift and possible operator error during calibration. The Oven Processor is currently primarily utilized for Karl Fischer testing but Brinkmann is very interested in expanding its use to any process that requires repetitive testing for minute amounts, such as additive tracking.

Typical Production Chemicals and Usage Rates - The facilitator shared tables from a web site that show estimated usage volumes for production. Lynn Frostman of Baker Petrolite brought the tables to the Facilitator’s attention. The tables can be found on:http://www.gomr.mms.gov/homepg/whatsnew/techann/01011.html.

Contacts for Survey Distribution - Each attendee was asked for an opinion on where the group should next proceed, especially in regards to the survey published by the COQA last year. Suggestions and comments follow:

• Positive feedback on the survey
• The COQA needs to develop a relationship with the producers
• Sometimes the production companies are different from the chemical companies that manage the injection
• Awareness of the problems that production chemicals could cause is growing
• We should build an inventory or database of "cause and effect" that can be documented from our own experiences
• Some areas of the world require a full disclose of all additives injected and in what amounts; precedent has been set for chemical disclosure
• Investigate possible publication in an industry journal for better awareness
• Can also utilize existing forums such as the API Pipeline Committee to foster awareness
• Need to show producers an economic incentive for additive awareness, for example, what does an additive problem cost a refinery versus what is saves the producer
• The additive tracking mechanism being worked on by the Canadians will be helpful in establishing what exactly in the crude might have caused a problem
• Expanding the survey to include ranges of how much additive might be "allowable" would be very useful
• Investigate collecting anecdotal stories of additive problems, maybe adding those to the cause and effect database
• Anecdotal stories may already be available though API or the chemical suppliers

Specific contacts for producers, production chemical suppers, industry journals, etc. can be forwarded to the COQA Facilitator for further action.

Crude Oil Quality Association   
Additives Subcommittee   
New Orleans, LA
February 7, 2002

Update on BakerPetrolite’s LDHI - Lynn Frostman and Mike Zetlmeisl of Baker Petrolite updated the group on their company's proposed additive, a low Dosage Hydrate Inhibitor (LDHI).  Hydrates, which have been known to completely plug a pipeline, can be an issue in production, especially during start up times.  Methanol is currently used during these times to treat a hydrate problem.  Methanol, especially in large slugs, can be detrimental to the operations of a refinery wastewater treatment.  Baker Petrolite has developed an LDHI as an alternative to methanol.  This particular LDHI is an "anti-agglomerant" which disperses the hydrate particles in the oil phase.  One of the reasons it is attractive to upstream operations is its low dosage, which means less storage, smaller pumps, and the ability to treat higher water production, a real plus on a production platform.  Baker Petrolite has already demonstrated that the LDHI offers significant advantages, both logistical and economic, over methanol in many production systems upstream.     

Mr. Mike Zetlmeisl of Baker Petrolite updated us on the studies conducted to date on LDHI and its possible impact on refining.  During laboratory simulations, it was concluded that, at the low dosage levels it is predicted a refinery will actually see, there were no adverse effects on key desalting parameters or the wastewater treatment plant.  A slight upgrade in overhead chlorides may be experienced, but traditional neutralizer programs should handle that.  Also, the chemical was detectable in jet and diesel products, but normal refining operations should handle any possible effects the chemical might have.     

Baker's next step will be to work with a refinery handling LDHI-treated crude to verify the laboratory results with data from actual units.  A paper on the LDHI refining evaluation is available; please contact the COQA Facilitator for a copy.  

Survey - The latest version of the Chemical Component survey was examined and a few comments were made.  The facilitator will incorporate all comments and distribute the final summary in the near future.  

Some discussion ensued as to what the next step for the Additive Subcommittee will be, i.e. what should we do with the survey results after distribution to members.  Using the survey as an introduction to a dialog with producers was mentioned.  It was also suggested that all COQA members be encouraged to disseminate the information throughout their own company and business contacts.    

Other - In Canada, a project is underway to publish a methodology on tracking additive in crude oil.  That methodology will be forthcoming soon.  The ultimate fate of an additive is very important to all aspects of the oil business and some method of screening for the chemicals is necessary.  Information sharing about how much chemical a production company uses and how much of the chemical a refinery found, and in which of its operations, would be very useful.  BakerPetrolite’s efforts in this area are to be commended.

Tish Marshall
COQA Facilitator

Crude Oil Quality Association   
Additives Subcommittee   
Houston, TX
September 27, 2001

Mr. Larry Kremer of Baker Petrolite opened the meeting with a discussion of the components on the Additive Survey and their potential sources.   It was noted that several of the components listed on the Additive Survey did not originate with an additive, but were natural components of crude or sourced from a refining process.  The following are comments, by Larry or the audience, which came up during the discussion:

• Amines – corrosion control, may be related to hydrogen sulfide treatments
• Solids
  • natural - iron, aluminum, silica
  • drilling mud - barium sulfate
• Halides
  • Chlorinated - banned in oil fields, usually a contaminant
  • Chlorides - non-extractable chlorides can result from the practice of acidizing wells.  Salt crystals can form from the heating of slop oil, which is done to drive off all the water before putting it in the pipeline.
• Spent Caustic - usually from refinery slop oil system
• Mineral Acids - used to acidize wells. Standard practice dictates them to be segregated and disposed of before crude oil is input into transportation system.
• Organic Acids - can be formed by secondary sources (usually the refinery) at many points in the process
• Heavy Metals - naturally present in crude oil
• Arsenic - naturally binds with sulfur in the crude
• Phosphates - found in the “gel” formed by pigging.  Can also be indicative of new production as it can be used as a hydrate inhibitor (very expensive, however, and usually recycled).
• Surfactants - used as emulsion breakers

Quality professionals in the Canadian oil industry have been working on the additive issue for several years.  Bill Lywood of Crude Quality, Inc. shared some of their findings.  He emphasized the need to get producers involved in the additive discussions.  He also suggested keeping the consequences (i.e. refined product specifications, environmental excursions, safety violations, etc.) as the emphasis of the discussions; issues oriented not fault finding. 

Another discussion ensued on the necessity of getting traders involved in quality.  Quality issues that might possibly lead to crude discounting are a concern to traders and producers.  Also, post analysis of crude runs and taking that information back to the traders and producers, not leaving it at the refinery level, can be a very effective tool.

Harry Giles wrapped up the meeting with a final summary of the Additive Survey results. The summary and details were distributed to all respondents, with a request for comments.  The summary will be revised to include Larry’s source analysis.  The final version will be published to all COQA members for their use as a reference document or educational tool.  The COQA will also disseminate these findings to producers and ask for their side of the additive issue.  Contacts to the production side will be solicited by the facilitator.

Tish Marshall
COQA Facilitator

TishBill@compuserve.com

Crude Oil Quality Association  
Additives Subcommittee  
Houston, TX
May 31, 2001

The meeting agenda was distributed to those in attendance.    

Results to Date of Additive Survey - The survey on additive components was distributed in March and twelve replies were received.  A summary of the replies will be available to all COQA members after the respondents have reviewed it.  Harry Giles, COQA facilitator, shared a few observations on the survey. Once the summary is finalized, it will be used to start a dialogue with additive manufacturers not yet represented in the COQA and with crude oil producers.    

Methanol Alternatives for Hydrate Inhibition - Dr. Lynn Frostman of Baker Petrolite shared information about her company’s new hydrate inhibitor which is intended to be utilized as a methanol substitute.  These chemicals allow hydrates to form but keep them in small, well-dispersed, flowing form.  Dosages are very low (Low Dosage Hydrate Inhibitors – LDHI) which has several advantages; cost, storage and transportation, and easier injection.  LDHI’s have been successfully used in deepwater Gulf of Mexico, in the North Sea and onshore in Canada.   

There are some downstream concerns with LDHI’s; such as the impact on the Desalter, the Biotreater and overhead corrosion.  Baker Petrolite has done some testing and, so far, the adverse effects have been minimal or, in the case of corrosion, treatable.  The dilution effects of multiple crude streams being commingled prior to reaching the refinery, coupled with the low application rates, tend to minimize the amount of LDHI entering the refinery.  Another concern is the possible impact on end products.  This issue is under investigation with bench scale experimentation and perhaps a pilot refinery test.  Jet fuel, the government's specific jet requirements such as JP8, and diesel are the products being investigated.

Baker Petrolite welcomes input from the industry.  
 
Baker Petrolite LDHI Presentation

CCQTA Additive Report – The CCQTA has had an additive study group for some time.  The goal of the group was to establish a standard, analytical test method to track and detect chemical additives with the further objective of incorporating that method into new additive testing and development.  A protocol for the test has been designed and work on developing the full, standardized method began last year.  Products in the future will most likely have even tighter specifications than now and there will continue to be considerable incentive to improve the quality of the crude oil feedstock.  The protocol developed uses techniques that are readily available at additive supplier development labs and the Additive Screening Project Group expects widespread usage of the method when it is finalized.      

If you are interested in a copy of the summary report, please contact the COQA facilitator.   

Crude Oil Quality Association
Additives Subcommittee
New Orleans, LA
February 1, 2001 

A list of attendees, as well as other meeting details, can be obtained form the COQA Director.

There was no formal agenda for this meeting as it was mainly intended to be a brain storming session on where the COQA can best utilize its expertise to help our various members deal with the issue of additives.  We have had several discussions on additives throughout the years – drag reducing agents, acid inhibitors, methanol in production, etc. to name a few.  There has been enough interest generated that some time specifically devoted to the subject seems warranted. 

The first suggestion was to utilize the expertise in the meeting to come up with a listing of additives and their known (or anecdotal) effects on operations, especially refining operations but also pipelines.  There are many well-known and useful technical papers already in existence.  Our COQA list would attempt to build on that existing base to publish a handy reference, not a technical discussion.  Using the suggested additive list as a starting point, discussion ensued.

During our discussion, it became apparent that communications between all parties (chemical manufacturers, producers, pipelines, refiners) is of utmost importance.  A chemical component that is known is usually easier to deal with (even if not particularly wanted) than a surprise.

Jep Bracey of Marathon Ashland noted that in the North Sea, where he had worked for a time, producers completed an annual survey on what they put into their particular wells.  Variations from the reported components and/or amounts had to be specifically approved. Obviously, such a process would be extremely useful in the U.S. as well.  With a similar survey in mind as a possible ultimate goal, it was decided that the first step should be fact-finding research.  To ensure that all refiners are heard (rather than just the percentage that actively participate in the COQA), a questionnaire will be developed and distributed with a listing of additive components and questions on their effects and the magnitude of those effects (health, safety, economics).

The first step for the questionnaire will be to solicit input from selected COQA companies and contacts as to what additive components should be included.  The plan is for the questionnaire to be distributed before the next COQA meeting, with a tabulation of the results available for discussion at that time.  Some suggestions on what to do with that information were meetings with producers and manufacturers to add in their input to achieve a “big picture” and surveying these same to see what, if any, of the components they use, why, in what amounts.

Canadian Crude Oil Quality. 
May 25, 2006
Houston, TX

Bill Lywood, Crude Quality Inc., convener.  

Bill provided a very informative presentation on “Western Canadian Crude Oil Production – an Overview.”  This included details on the geology of the  Western  Canadian  Sedimentary  Basin and the locations of the major bitumen and conventional crude oil areas in  Alberta and neighboring  Saskatchewan  .  Trends in API gravity and sulfur of the resources across the basin were illustrated, and estimates on the respective production of each provided.   

A number of techniques are used in producing these resources.  Conventional crude oil is produced from wells using standard technology for the most part.  This includes “pull” techniques using reciprocating pumps (pump jacks).  “Push” techniques using various methods of flood involving water, gas/solvent, and steam are also employed.  Vertical drilling and pump jacks are being replaced to some extent by directional drilling and positive displacement pumps.   

Near-surface, non-conventional resources are produced from open pits by shovel-and-truck using the largest power shovels and dump truck in the world.  Approximately three-quarters of  Alberta  ’s tar sand resources are, however, too deep to be mined by open-pit techniques.  For these, a number of in-situ techniques have been developed.  These include “Cyclic Steam Stimulation (CSS)”, “Steam Assisted Gravity Drainage (SAGD)”, “Vapor Extraction (VapEx)”, and “Toe to Heel Air Injection (THAI).”   

Once produced, the bitumen must be upgraded so that it can be transported.  This may be done by blending it with a diluent such as condensate (“dilbit”), or by coking or hydrotreating to produce a synthetic crude oil (“synbit”).  This latter is a relatively light (~36° API), sweet (<0.25% S) stream with no 1000°F residuum.  There is a shortage of suitable domestic diluent, and availability of non-Canadian supplies are being investigated. 

Canadian Production Overview  - View this document

Crude Oil Quality Association
Canadian Crude Oil Quality Subcommittee
February 23, 2006

Bill Lywood of Crude Quality Inc. - CrudeMonitor.ca will be continuing in 2006, but will also have to evolve in 2006 from its current focus. The website and data sets will necessarily need to co-ordinate with the newly instituted Incentive Tolling Agreement between the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers (CAPP) and Enbridge Pipelines. Members of the COQA are encouraged to visit Enbridge's website and review the Incentive Tolling Agreement (http://www.enbridge.com/pipelines/about/incentive-tolling-agreement.php), in particular the sections on crude quality "Service Metrics", wherein CAPP and Enbridge have negotiated a platform of monetary incentives for increasing quality consistency. Though perhaps not perfect in structure, this incentive tolling agreement is a "Canadian first" with respect to including quality measurement and consistency incentives for parameters beyond density and sculpture. COQA member's input on the successes and shortcomings of the Enbridge Incentive Tolling Agreement would surely assist in developing the next generation agreement with Enbridge as well as agreements with other transportation companies shipping Canadian crudes.    

Crude Monitor.ca operates as an industry service, sponsored through the Crude Oil Committee of CAPP. If you have found value in the service, please let your  Calgary  office know. If not, please let me know at lywood@crudequality.com so that we can make it better. We remain open to your suggestions for improvements, and to your questions regarding western Canadian crudes.    

The Canadian Crude Quality Technical Committee (CCQTA) has a more technical, project oriented operation than does CrudeMonitor.ca, and has a wide array of projects underway and in development related to western Canadian crude quality issues. Their website, www.ccqta.com, can provide you with background and contact information.  

The Canadian crude production future is in a dramatic growth phase, from offshore  Atlantic to western oilsands. There are many approved and pending pipeline projects underway to export from, and manage volumes within, western Canada (Spearhead, Southern Access, Trans Mountain TMX, Gateway, Waupisoo, Keystone, Express/Platte expansions, to name a few), White Rose is now online off Newfoundland, new oilsands projects have been announced and are pending, new upgrader announcements have been made, and a host of other activities. All this pipeline activity in western  Canada  is in anticipation of increased production of crudes, synthetics, and upgraded commodities. The outcomes remain clear, and production is expected to rise from 2.2MMbpd in 2005 to 3.2MMbpd by 2010, and 3.9MMbpd by 2015. Contact www.capp.ca for more information.  

Ron Fisher of BP – The National Centre for Upgrading Technology (NCUT) has initiated a project to create a technical resource to address anticipated and identified processability issues associated with producing and refining oilsands bitumen.  Details of this NCUT project are attached. 

NCUT Project  - View this document

Ron also update the Canadian Subcommittee on CCQTA’s projects, which include Heavy Oil BS&W, Phosphorous in Crude, TAN Project, NGL Contamination, Heavy Oil Emulsion Viscosity, Heavy Oil Manual, and Additive Impact.  

Crude Oil Quality Association
Canadian Crude Oil Quality Subcommittee
May 26, 2005

Mr. Bill Lywood of Crude Quality Inc. opened the meeting with an overview and update of the new Canadian stream, Western Canadian Select (WCS).  WCS was created by a consortium of producers (Encana, Talisman, CNRL, and Petro  Canada ) in an effort to more efficiently achieve consistency in the heavy crude streams currently being shipped in  Canada  through the Enbridge and Terasen pipeline systems.  WCS resembles a  Bow  River  type stream and contains specified amounts of BR, CSB, CL, ESB, MKH, and WCB.  The volume is currently 350MBD and is expected to grow to 500MBD by 2008.  The targeted quality parameters for WCS are gravity (19 - 22 degrees API), carbon residue (7-9 wt %), sulfur (2.8-3.2 wt %) and TAN (0.7 – 1.0 mg KOH/g).   Early test results, as supported by both upstream and refinery customer data, indicate good adherence to these targets.

The CCQTA has a new project underway to examine the applicability of current methodology for testing heavy crudes.  Mr. Tim Blackmore of Omnicon Consultants explained this new project.  Many of the test methods currently in use were developed for light crude oils or even refined products.  While these tests can generally be extended to medium crudes without significant problems, heavy crudes do not lend themselves to an extended application.  The CCQTA considered producing revised ASTM methods but, as this can be quite costly and time consuming, they opted for a different approach.  A list of ASTM, UOP and IP methods that are commonly used for crude oils will be developed and studied for potential issues in their application to heavy crudes and bitumens.  Also, a review of currently published materials that might address these issues will be undertaken.  Lastly, it will be decided if any new research or studies are necessary to delineate application issues and remediation.  The results of these three steps will be published on the CCQTA website.  Funding for this project has not been determined and participants are being sought.  

Ashok Anand of Enbridge Pipeline overviewed their system and quality programs. Enbridge controls the quality of crude both in the pipeline and in storage tanks.  A crude quality matrix in which each of the approximately fifty crude types are assigned a number based on sweet, sour, acidity, density, etc. has been established.  Every effort is made to place like number by like number both in the pipe and during storage.  For example, a #1 crude (heavy, high TAN), would never be moved by a #7 crude (condensate).  Enbridge also minimizes crude oil degradation through management of line rates, batch sizes, tank segregation and selection, line fills, and interface cuts.   

Special procedures are in place for high acidic crudes (over 1.0) and cracked products containing olefins.  High TAN commodities have dedicated tanks or a required flush batch.  Cracked products require both front and back buffers that will contain the interface.

Performance rewards or penalties have been proposed for Enbridge’s entire system. The targets, based on historical data, will cover quality, predictability, flexibility and reliability.

Bruce Kennedy of Petro  Canada  asked the group to share specifics on what problems have been encountered while running Canadian crude.

Some of the comments were:

• Enbridge Pipeline and the producers respond well to “acute” problems such as safety and environmental.  However, subtle issues that are more of an evaluation question are harder to deal with.  Batch to batch consistency is mostly a value issue (although severe inconsistencies can raise operational issues).  WCS is a good start toward addressing consistency.  Also, secondary properties such as asphalt and coking are rarely available and are not monitored.
• Acidity distribution is important and difficult to get a handle on.  This is not specific to Canadian crudes, of course.  In general, distribution through the crude is important for many properties, not only acid. 
• The group is really looking forward to the incentive tolling program.
• There were questions on WCS properties, such as how much synthetic diluent is being used. 
• In general, shippers / refiners are pleased with the responsiveness of the responsible parties when problems are incurred.  They appreciate the monitoring efforts and do utilize the information.

Crude Oil Quality Association
Domestic Trading Center Subcommittee (DTC)
May 25, 2006

John Maurer, Valero, convener.  

Each week for one year, two samples of “Domestic Sweet” are to be collected at  Cushing, OK, and shipped to  Ardmore, OK.  There Valero’s laboratory will perform the testing and absorb the cost.  The analyses to be performed are:

• ASTM D5307 High Temp Simulated Distillation 20% point (ºF)
• ASTM D5307 High Temp Simulated Distillation 50% point (ºF)
• ASTM D5307 High Temp Simulated Distillation 1020 ºF+ (volume%)
• ASTM D664 Acid Number (mg KOH/g)
• ASTM D287 API Gravity (ºAPI)
• ASTM D2622 (or alternate) Wt% Sulfur (wt %)
• Trace Metal Analysis – Nickel (Ni) and Vanadium (V) (ppm wt%)

The group decided to add MCRT Carbon Residue (ASTM D4530)

Several issues need to be resolved prior to commencing sample collection.

• Where will samples be collected?  There are a number of pipelines going into and leaving Cushing.  The consensus was that samples should be collected from several pipelines over the course of the study.  Teppco indicated during this meeting that they will check with management for approval, but expect they will be able to supply samples.
• A sampling protocol needs to be developed adhering to ASTM D4057.  Two 1 L samples should be collected, with one for tests and one for retain.  In this respect, the ASTM tests to be used need to be identified.  Also, it will lend credibility to the results if the  Ardmore  laboratory participates in the ASTM Crude Oil Interlaboratory Crosscheck Program.
• How will sample collection and shipping be paid for?  Any company able to provide funding is encouraged to do so.
• Should samples be analyzed on receipt or in monthly batches?  The consensus was that samples should be analyzed on receipt to minimize changes in quality.
• Once the study is complete, how can Nymex be approached about including additional quality parameters in their specification?  The group recommended that the person from Nymex, who presented to COQA a few years back, be contacted.  Tish or Harry would research the archives to locate the contact person and would either pass the information on to John Maurer or contact them directly.  Subcommittee members commented that it may be interesting for Nymex to present to the COQA again as well 

It is planned to begin sample collection and analysis in June 2006.  

Meredith Earley of Sunoco indicated she has approximately one year of data on the Cushing “Common Stream” that she can provide to the group in support of its activities.  Others having relevant data they can share are encouraged to submit it to the group, with proprietary or sensitive information removed.  Clifford Mills volunteered to assist in the handling and evaluation of all of the data.  

The Subcommittee will next meet in conjunction with the November 2006 COQA meeting.

Domestic Subcommittee Notes  - View this document 

Crude Oil Quality Association
Domestic Trading Center Subcommittee (DTC) 
February 23, 2006 Meeting Minutes
New Orleans, Louisiana

Mission  Statement  

We believe that crude oil designated as Domestic Sweet needs a few basic parameters in addition to gravity and sulfur in order for crude to fall within this designation.  These additional parameters are necessary to better define Domestic Sweet, while at the same time reducing its variability.  This will allow refiners to better determine the actual value of Domestic Sweet to them as they can with other, well defined crude types.  

Additional Parameters:

• Nickel
• Vanadium
• Tan
• HTSD

The parties interested in activity and participation as of February 23rd are as follows:

 Bieber, Scott                         Baker Petrolite
 Kremer, Larry                        Baker Petrolite
 Fisher, Ron                            BP
 Cowie, Laurence                   BP Upstream
 Lywood, Bill                 Canadian Crude Quality
 Miron, Mark                   Cenex  Harvest  States
 Cronk, Jeffrey                       ChevronTexaco
 Shafizadeh, Anne                 ChevronTexaco
 Vance, Dell                            ChevronTexaco
 Ngo, Ryan                             Citgo
 Thompson, Jeff                      Coffeyville
 Dillard, Aaron                       ConocoPhillips
 Morgan, Pat                          ConocoPhillips
 Pierce, Joey D                       ConocoPhillips
 Giles, Harry                           DOE-HQ
 Chang, Allan                         ExxonMobil
 Wenger, Lloyd                     ExxonMobil
 Robben, Celia                       Flint Hills
 Fenwick, Scott                      Intertek
 Fucheck, Bill                         Intertek
 Thompson, Terry                 Intertek
 Sutton, Dennis                     MAP
 Lordo, Sam                            Nalco
 West, Mike                           NCRA
 Blackmore, Tim                     Omnicon
 Hebert, Allen                        Plains All American
 Hopkins  , Michael                 Plains All American
 Kennedy, Bruce                     Rogers
 Gillum, Ron                            SGS
 Edens  , Patti                           Shell
 Earley, Meredith                   Sunoco
 Sulek, Robert                        Sunoco
 Sullivan, Sheri                       Sunoco
 Arrick, Doug                         TEPPCO
 John Maurer                         Valero

Domestic Trading Centers identified to be included were identified as follows:

 Midland ,  TX
 Homa ,  LA
 Patoka ,  IL
 Empire, LA
 Cushing ,  OK
 St. James ,  LA  
 Guernsey ,  WY 
 Nederland ,  TX

Aaron Dillard with ConocoPhillips presented a summary of the 2000 Basin Pipeline sampling and testing program, a COQA Mid-Continent Subcommittee collaborative effort between the pipeline companies, shippers and connecting carriers.

During this meeting:

• Don Hamilton submitted a written formal mission statement and some minor modifications were agreed upon (as per above).  The final draft will be posted on the COQA website.
• We discussed the collection of data on Domestic Sweet from  Cushing, Oklahoma. Harry Giles tabulated the outside testing lab quotations for the agreed DTC testing protocol and the frequency of two samples per week was deemed acceptable.
• Participating members who may already have database numbers on all or some of the parameters were asked to check with their management to see if this data could be made available to COQA (stripped of sensitive information on sources and destinations)
• We asked the DTCS members to indicate any interest in assisting in funding the testing.  The following responded:  
  
   Aaron Dillard & Pat Morgan                     ConocoPhillips
   Mike  West                                           NCRA
   Dennis Sutton                                       Marathon
   Jeff Thompson                                       Coffeyville
   Patti Edens                            will forward idea to Shell Refinery contacts
   Anne Shafizadeh                                   Chevron (maybe)
   Bill Fucheck & Bruce Carlile                   Caleb Brett
   Margaret Monahan                                 Exxon
   John Maurer                                          Valero
• Maurer asked if any of the contract labs would be willing to perform the testing gratis
• COQA would act to collect all testing funding and pay contract lab invoices
• Analysis data would be presented to the group via Email quarterly
• As data is reviewed and at the end of the year cycle we would agree on what is deemed as typical Domestic Sweet values and determine the acceptable variation from typical – beyond which would be triggers for value adjustments or rejection.

Action Items:

• Those who indicated they have may have interest in funding are to let the group know at what level.  We need to cover roughly $55,000 of expense.
• Those members who currently have data on this material they can share are to sanitize and make available Tish/Harry.
• COQA would contact some of the servicing carriers at Cushing, inform them of the COQA DTCS intentions and solicit attendance at the May meeting.
  • Jeff Thompson indicated they may be able to help with the finances and provide samples/shipping and provided a contact at Enbridge to add to the analysis labs to save freight.
  • John Maurer indicated Valero’s lab in Ardmore Oklahoma may be willing to perform the testing for the first year – gratis
• Harry Giles sent out the following note to providers in the Cushing Area:
  
  The Domestic Trading Center (DTC) Subcommittee of the COQA is considering initiating a sampling and testing program in the Cushing area to determine the true properties of Domestic Sweet and, further, to decide if requesting specifications for that common crude stream would be valid. Your assistance in delineating the best site for this sampling and testing program is respectfully requested.
  
  Would you please respond to the issues briefly outlined below and help us properly establish the starting point.
  
  1. Does your company already have a sampling and testing program?
  
      If yes, what properties and what locations are covered?
  
  2. Would you or a colleague please plan on attending the next COQA meeting, to be held at the Marriott West Loop in Houston on May 25?
  
  The COQA member companies very much appreciate your cooperation.

 

Thank you and Regards,
Tish Marshall
COQA Director

Crude Oil Quality Association
Domestic Trading Center Subcommittee (DTC) 
September 29, 2005 Meeting Minutes
Houston ,  Texas

The parties interested in activity and participation as of September 29th are as follows:

Bieber, Scott              Baker Petrolite
Kremer, Larry              Baker Petrolite
Fisher, Ron                BP
Cowie, Laurence            BP Upstream
Lywood, Bill               Canadian Crude Quality
Miron, Mark                Cenex Harvest States
Cronk, Jeffrey             ChevronTexaco
Shafizadeh, Anne           ChevronTexaco
Vance, Dell                ChevronTexaco
Ngo, Ryan                  Citgo
Thompson, Jeff             Coffeyville
Dillard, Aaron             ConocoPhillips
Morgan, Pat                ConocoPhillips
Pierce, Joey D             ConocoPhillips
Giles, Harry               DOE-HQ
Chang, Allan               ExxonMobil
Wenger, Lloyd              ExxonMobil
Robben, Celia              Flint Hills
Morgan, Ranzy              Inspectorate
Fenwick, Scott             Intertek
Fucheck, Bill              Intertek
Thompson, Terry            Intertek
Sutton, Dennis             MAP
Lordo, Sam                 Nalco
West, Mike                 NCRA
Blackmore, Tim             Omnicon
Hebert, Allen              Plains All American
Hopkins , Michael          Plains All American
Kennedy, Bruce             Rogers
Gillum, Ron                SGS
Edens , Patti              Shell
Earley, Meredith           Sunoco
Sulek, Robert              Sunoco
Sullivan, Sheri            Sunoco
Arrick, Doug               TEPPCO
John Maurer                Valero

Domestic Trading Centers identified to be included were identified as follows (added Nederland )

Midland , TX
Homa , LA
Patoka , IL
Empire, LA
Cushing , OK
St. James , LA     
Guernsey , WY
Nederland , TX

Aaron Dillard with ConocoPhillips presented a summary of the 2000 Basin Pipeline sampling and testing program, a COQA Mid-Continent Subcommittee collaborative effort between the pipeline companies, shippers and connecting carriers.

During this meeting:

• The group discussed why the Basin project was not a complete success. (we had hoped for a more thorough buy-in, but at least gravity and sulfur specs were instituted)
• Decided to focus our efforts on one location and one product at this time so we could perfect the approach and later expand it to all DTCS sites, all products. (baby step)
• The Site selected was  Cushing ,  Oklahoma
• The Product selected was Domestic Sweet
• Don Hamilton will propose a written formal mission statement before the next meeting and submit this to Tish and John Maurer.  The statement will be forwarded to all interested parties (listed above) for comment.
• The Interested parties will indicate which of them take wet barrels of Domestic Sweet at  Cushing ,  OK  prior to the next meeting.  Submit this information to Tish at COQA.
• The DTCS Group will develop a plan to approach MERC for comment and possible buy-in.
• Using the mission, the members will develop the basis to obtain formal consortium buy-in from DTCS members.

Action Items:

• Visit the website perf.org to see an example of a similar consortium
• Members are to check on the development of a new simulated distillation method in ASTM.  UPDATE Harry Giles later reported that ASTM recently published D 7169-05 for Boiling Point Distribution of Samples with Residues such as Crude Oils and Atmospheric and Vacuum Residues by High Temperature Gas Chromatography.
• Don Hamilton will submit the mission statement to Maurer and COQA for distribution
• Members are to review the mission statement and prepare comments
• Members are to identify those who take wet barrels of Domestic Sweet from Cushing.
• Members are to identify pipeline service providers of Domestic Sweet from Cushing.
• Maurer will submit a list of interested parties (updated) to COQA for posting on the web site.
• Contract Lab members of the DTCS group are to prepare rough estimates of per sample costs for analysis as per the protocol established during the May 2005 COQA DTCS meeting.
• Collaborative identification of mandated of testing parameter penalty points (subcommittee collaboration via E-mail)

Crude Oil Quality Association
Domestic Trading Center Subcommittee (DTC)
May 26, 2005 Meeting Minutes
Chicago ,  Illinois

Domestic Trading Centers identified to be included were identified as follows:  

Midland ,  TX
Homa ,  LA
Patoka ,  IL
Empire, LA
Cushing ,  OK
St. James ,  LA
Guernsey ,  WY    

The subcommittee identified the following parameters as critical to objective monitoring of crude oil quality and the identification of inappropriate blending.  

ASTM D5307 High Temp Simulated Distillation 20% point   (ºF)
ASTM D5307 High Temp Simulated Distillation 50% point   (ºF)
ASTM D5307 High Temp Simulated Distillation 1020 ºF+    (volume%)
ASTM D664 Acid Number                                   (mg KOH/g)       
ASTM D287 API Gravity                                   (ºAPI)
ASTM D2622 (or alternate) Wt% Sulfur                    (wt %)
Trace Metal Analysis – Nickel (Ni) and Vanadium (V)     (ppm wt%)  

The group commented:

• Shell attempted this type of additional requirement years ago, but dropped the program because no one else followed suit.
• This will only succeed if all of the COQA members collaboratively support the mandate and communicate this to their suppliers/service providers.
• The incentives to add additional testing beyond traditional sulfur and gravity would eventually result in a discount for a lack there of.
• Controlling the inappropriate blending will only be effective if economic impact was the incentive.  No need for a governing body for oversight.
• Harry Giles would consider presenting the DTCS initiative to the NPRA.
• It is not possible to set the penalty economics, but the group can set the typical penalty points.  For example, an Acid Number exceeding a specific value would prompt an economic penalty to be set by each purchaser individually.

Action Items:

• Identify the pipeline service providers involved with the scoped domestic trading centers. (Harry Giles and John Maurer)
• Identify the contacts associated with these providers (Harry Giles and John Maurer)
• Formally request they attend the next COQA-DTCS meeting to present or comment on the issues. (Tish  Marshall  )
• Collaborative identification of mandated of testing parameter penalty points (subcommittee collaboration via E-mail)

A summary of the Basin Subcommittee findings from 2000 is attached. Aaron Dillard of ConocoPhillips will present this summary and take questions at the next COQA Domestic Trading Center Subcommittee meeting, to be held September 29 in Houston.

Oil Quality Group
Subcommittee on Crude Oil Quality and Trading
Houston, TX
October 3, 2002

At of the meeting attendees can be obtained from the COQA Director.

The Facilitator distributed a compiled listing of all suggestions and comments made thus far on trading and crude oil quality.  The Facilitator also displayed a consolidated register of issues that the COQA might be able to influence and asked for discussion on which of those issues are most important to our members.  The following is the start of our plan of action.

Trading Panel Discussion Notes

Trading Panel Discussion Summary

Contract Language

Internet search for published contracts, may not be just oil industry

COQA should come up with suggested wording

Communications

Definitely go forward with publishing a paper in one of the industry journals

Anyone with contacts should please contact the Facilitator

Complaints from a refiner do to get back to the producer

Utilize an open discussion as a part of each meeting? Promote COQA forum page? Copy COQA Newsletter to producers and traders?

There was not much interest in a mass mailing from the COQA to the trading community.

Technical Issues

Oil Quality Group
Subcommittee on Crude Oil Quality and Trading
Houston, TX
May 30, 2002
 
Each attendee was asked to voice their expectations for this subcommittee in particular and the trading industry in general. These comments are itemized below:

• There needs to be an industry standard so everyone is even and consistent
• The COQA could help by reaching a consensus among its members as to the necessity of contract language and communicating that consensus throughout the industry
• Currently, there is a "brick wall" when discussing quality upstream of the refinery. The COQA needs to issue an open invitation to dialogue to surmount that wall.
• Need to differentiate between refinery supply traders and "pure" trading
• Some companies already have specifications in their contracts but primarily for niche or specialty crudes
• New methodologies to analyze fuel and crudes are always cropping up. Easier identification of parameter results can make standards more acceptable by rendering them easier to enforce.
• We need a "universal language" for quality
• There is a disconnect between the physical pipeline for crude and its financial counterpart
• Search for contract language already in existence, on the web for example
• Maybe a quality amendment to existing contracts would be easier to implement than a new contract
• Refiners need to set goals and communicate them
• Don’t make the physical pipeline the universal "target" for quality problems
• There is a cost to crude with unexpected characteristics, especially if it means a refinery unit is underutilized for a time. That underutilization can never be made up; a real dollar cost that should be able to serve as an incentive to meet crude specifications.
• Crude oil, as with many things, is economy driven. Put some dollar value on quality
• Many different players are now involved in the crude oil supply business. It is not just a major producer supplying its own refinery through a subsidiary pipeline.
• An oversight program on common stream crude is necessary to ensure you get what you pay for
• The differences in "pay for" versus "receive" should be compensated through, for example, a quality bank
• Common stream crude is different than foreign batches of crude
• Do traders support pipeline specifications and quality? Should we generate an informal poll among our own (COQA member) traders?
• Need to quantify quality hits
• In addition to underutilization costs, there are lost opportunity costs that cannot be made up
• Stability for a refinery is invaluable
• There were a few comments on personal experience with standardization of the raw materials leading to vastly improved efficiency throughout the plant (not just a refinery)
• It should be obvious that refining losses more than offset any trading gains
• The refining industry knows less about its feedstock than any other industry
• Need to have a refining professional talk about those lost opportunities, instabilities, underutilization, etc. and what they can mean in dollars
• There needs to be a balance between the refiner and the producer. The trader is caught in the middle
• Too many refiners rely on assays that are old and not at refinery gate (for example – supplied by the producer). There should be a "variability" component built into any assay utilized for refinery modeling.
• To make producers interested in supplying a quality crude, we need to be willing to pay a premium for "better than average"
• LLS experience Indicates considerable tightening of the stream upon implementation of the specifications. Can we conclude specifications do work?

Several common issues surfaced during the discussion. The facilitator will group the comments to highlight the commonalties and assist in formulating our path forward. Additional comments and ideas are always welcomed.

Tish Marshall
COQA Facilitator

Crude Oil Quality Association 
Water  Measurement in Crude Oil
Discussion Paper
Updated - October 2, 2003

INTRODUCTION
The Crude Oil Quality Association established a subcommittee of members who are experts in the field of water measurement in crude oil. The purpose of the subcommittee was to publish a paper outlining the various methods available to measure water in crude oil and to provide an overview of some industrial experiences on the measurement process. General statements on the advantages and disadvantages of each measurement type are also discussed.
 
The basic measurement techniques for water in crude oil are:

Method                 Test #           Comments
Centrifuge (Lab)     ASTM D4007       water and sediment results
 Centrifuge (Field)   ASTM D96             water and sediment
 Centrifuge (Field)   API Chapter 10.4   water and sediment
 Distillation         ASTM D4006         water results only
 Karl Fischer         ASTM D4928         water results only
 Online Water Devices API draft standard is in the API publication department
 
The following observations apply to the accuracy of water measurement methods:

• Procedure: It is critical that the approved, written procedures be followed for all test methods.
• Methodology: There are many variations of these tests that apply to substances other than crude oil. These variations should not be used to measure water in crude oil, as the results may not be correct.
• Reagents and Solvents: The use of proper Karl Fischer Reagent is important. Premixed solutions are commercially available or 60 parts reagent can be mixed with 40 parts xylenes for better solubility. Some manufacturers may use a different reagent mix even though other ratios are not within the API/ASTM published Standards/Test Methods. The proper use of solvent in distillation and centrifuge methods is equally important.
• Audit: Auditing of procedures must be done regularly, in lab and field. Preparation of the reagents and the handling of them are crucial and should be included in the auditing process.
• Sampling: Sampling procedures are critical to accurate water measurements, regardless of the water test method used.

CENTRIFUGE
It is generally accepted that the centrifuge methods, both the lab (D4007) and the field (D96), are not the most accurate. Disparities between the lab and field methods can occur due to the differing treatment of the solvent used. The centrifuge can only be validated by adding a known volume of water to the sample and rerunning the test to verify the procedure. The Karl Fischer and distillation test methods are easily validated with a quality control sample.
 
The centrifuge method does generally not pick up emulsified or dissolved water. Using a de-emulsifying agent before the test is run (as is noted in the written procedures for the method) can increase the chance of the centrifuge reading more of the water content. Aging the sample for several days and allowing the water to settle out will also increase the chances of the centrifuge method detecting more of the water. However, the additional time spent aging the crude sample is not advantageous for normal operating time frames.
 
The inaccuracies of the centrifuge are well documented. In fact the IP (the Institute of Petroleum of the United Kingdom) has eliminated the centrifuge method from its set of standards. It should be noted, however, that centrifuge was not in common use in the UK in recent years. Also, ASTM has withdrawn D96 from its standards. It is important to note however, that in the US, the centrifuge method will most likely keep its place in the industry because of speed, prevalence and ease. Additionally, the method yields results for both sediment and water, an important consideration in domestic crude production where sediment can vary from batch to batch. API (API Manual of Petroleum Measurement Standards, Chapter 10.4) does continue to maintain an equivalent centrifuge method in its manual at present.
 
DISTILLATION (ASTM D4006)
Water measurement by distillation is a laboratory procedure. Pipelines or refineries rarely use ASTM D4006 for day to day operations. The major use of D4006 for refineries and pipelines is to resolve a dispute when a number cannot be agreed upon between delivering and receiving parties. Certain customs agencies require D4006, so it is more commonly used for imported crudes. ASTM D4006 does not provide sediment results.
 
KARL FISCHER (ASTM D4928)
Karl Fischer titrimetry is a more accurate moisture measurement method utilizing the quantitative reaction of water with iodine. The method is becoming recognized as the standard method of water measurement because of its speed and precision. According to API/ASTM published standards; Karl Fischer is both more precise and faster than either centrifuge or distillation. Please see Attachment 1 (at the end of this paper). 
 
Similar to distillation, Karl Fischer results do not include sediment. A separate test would be necessary to determine the amount of sediment in a sample.
 
Although the equipment necessary to run a Karl Fischer is not, at $5000 per instrument, individually high priced, it is not prevalent. There is maintenance involved as well; the solutions must be maintained properly and changed on a frequent basis. QA/QC operations must be performed to ensure validity of the results. At present, Karl Fischer is primarily a laboratory procedure. Although a portable Karl Fischer instrument can be truck mounted, there are inherent handling problems related to the glass components of the equipment. Also, maintaining the cell in a manner that precludes intrusion of water from the atmosphere or other sources can create difficulties.
 
There have been some studies that indicate Karl Fisher may be susceptible to interference from naturally occurring species in the crude oil. For example, crudes with high mercaptans tend to be prone to the interference. A methodology to detect the extent of the possible interference in a particular crude will be presented to ASTM shortly.
 
ONLINE WATER DEVICES
The API has written a draft standard on Online Water Measurement Devices (OWD). The draft standard is in publication.
 
There are currently at least 25 different models of online measurement available. The technology for all the manufacturers falls into one of three categories:

   Microwave: generally considered the most consistent
                         needs to be corrected for temperature and density

   Capacitor:  oldest technology, still evolving
                        needs to be corrected for temperature and density

   Optical:       many different wave lengths, different light sources
                        up and coming technology
                        consistent
 
Some COQA member companies (Arco of California, Enbridge Pipeline) use online devices with variable successes.
 
SEDIMENT
There are three main ways of measuring sediment in crude oil:

• Extraction ASTM D473
• Filtration ASTM D4807
• Centrifuge API Manual of Petroleum Measurement Standards, Chapter 10.4

Methods to measure sediment quickly are being researched but are not commercially available yet. When these methods become available, it is expected that there will be industry acceptance of separate tests for sediment and water.
 
When sediment levels are significant, accurate measurement is important for all aspects of the petroleum industry. It is also critical to properly measure sediment when the level varies significantly from batch to batch
 
It was noted that foreign crude cargoes brought into the United States sometimes use the Karl Fischer method for water determination. Sediment by centrifuge is generally performed for these crude vessels. When that result indicates a possible problem, extraction or filtration may be performed to pinpoint the sediment number. Sometimes, parties agree on a sediment number for each crude and it is used for a set period of time, such as thirty days. After the agreed time passes, a new sediment number is negotiated. Although that methodology has worked well for foreign crudes, it is perceived to have drawbacks for US lease production where sediment levels vary more frequently.
 
In US domestic production, the oil is not "settled" into large tanks but is batched through with little retention time into the pipeline system. The batches can vary considerably in sediment content, making a fair, negotiated estimate difficult to ascertain. Sediment at US lease production is unstable and could be significant.
 
Sediment as it moves through the transportation system in the US is generally not an issue, unless the amount is significant and operations are affected. Sediment received at the refinery, however, can cause serious problems. The material causes fouling throughout the distillation process and can impact product quality.
 
SUMMARY/CONCLUSIONS
The importance of water measurement is not disputed. In fact, many companies have observed a trend of increasing water in crude oil. The use of chemicals to enhance production or restart wells is a possible cause of higher water. While these phenomenon may be temporary, they occur often enough to emphasize the necessity of consistent water measurement.
 
Water in crude oil must be treated before it can be discharged into a receiving body of water. All oil industry locations operate under stringent discharge permits. The costs of treating water to a dischargeable level are expensive. Therefore, accurate water measurement is crucial to determine the proper economics of a crude oil.
 
There are economic ramifications to both the pipelines transporting the water and to the refineries receiving it. Pipelines incur operational costs to move water even though those costs are not necessarily reimbursable. One of the COQA member companies estimated that in its 1MMBPD refining system, over 400,000 barrels of material were annually unaccounted for due to centrifuge readings versus Karl Fischer combined with sediment by extraction numbers. Please see Attachment 2.

ATTACHMENT 2A - VESSEL CHART Document

ATTACHMENT 2B - REFINERY CHART Document

A Karl Fisher test method is also the method of choice when establishing a refining value for a particular crude. The difference between the Karl Fischer reading and the centrifuge reading actually utilized in the transaction has economic ramifications. Although companies establish and utilize refining values in different ways, there is consensus that water measurement with Karl Fischer accuracy is critical in arriving at the proper economics.

Water measurement accuracy is open to interpretation in the context of handling the crude. A custody transfer is different than refining operations. The observation was made that Karl Fischer tends to yield higher water-only results than a centrifuge water-and-sediment number. Perhaps Karl Fisher could be used to obtain the most accurate water measurement with sediment handled separately for refining operations and those occasions where the sediment could be high. The Karl Fischer / centrifuge correlation is, however, very crude specific. The crude itself and the way it is handled (the adding of de-emulsifying agents at the production location, for example) definitely affect the test results.

The Karl Fischer method appears to have overwhelming advantages with regards to speed and precision when compared to the other, currently available water measurements for crude oil. The COQA, dedicated to quality, endorses efforts on the part of the industry to use Karl Fischer, noting the disadvantages which include costs and lack of a sediment determination. It is not expected that, with these drawbacks, the US oil industry will exclusively use Karl Fischer in the near future. However, individually establishing a bias between centrifuge and Karl Fischer for each crude can help in the interim with company specific economic and operational decisions. It may be feasible to use that same relationship, on a macro level, to show economic incentive for a commitment to Karl Fischer equipment.

A partial listing of technical references can be found in Appendix A.

Appendix A

Attachment 1:

Test Method	Time Required for Test	Accuracy @ 0.1% Water
Centrifuge Method		Reproducibility
ASTM D4007	30 minutes	0.2
Distillation
ASTM D4006	120 minutes	0.11
Karl Fischer
ASTM D 4928	10 minutes	0.02

 

Crude Oil Quality Association
Water Measurement Subcommittee
New Orleans ,  LA
January 29, 2004

ASTM Crude Oil Crosscheck - Harry Giles of the US DOE presented data from  ASTM’s crude oil interlaboratory crosscheck program via a table comparing D4006 (Water in Crude Oils by Distillation) and D4928 (Water in Crude Oils by Coulometric Karl Fischer Titration).  The summarized data (mean and standard deviation) indicate that more water is found when using Karl Fischer and that the test method is more precise.  Please note that samples are not analyzed in duplicate and there is no assurance the participating laboratories followed the test method as written.  Harry did note that the latest round (not included in the data presented) seems to be indicating more water from the distillation method.  However, the precision is still less and the percentage of water found is at the lower end of the range included in the scope of the Karl Fischer test.  Harry will update the group with data from the latest test, as available.    

It is important to note that the crude oils utilized in the crosscheck program are of medium gravity with sulfur content from 0.1% to 2%.  The type of crude did not seem to cause a discernable difference between the two test results.  Harry asked COQA members to consider providing crude from their supply for the crosscheck program and got a few volunteers.  We also discussed the possibility of adding a centrifuge method to the crosscheck program.  Currently, BS&W by centrifuge is the method most widely used by pipelines.  Having centrifuge data in a usable format and in significant volume from the crosscheck program could lend credibility to the stand that Karl Fischer (which can be used in a field test) is more accurate and precise.  Some COQA members who are active in the ASTM agreed to bring up the question.

ASTM CROSSCHECK DATA Document

Online Water Measurement Technology – Mr. Chip Westaby of Agar Corporation presented the basics of water cut technology.  Sampling, Capacitance, Density, Microwave and Optical are all methods used to determine the amount of water in a crude oil.  Agar’s latest technology utilizes microwaves.  This works on the premise that organics do not absorb microwaves.  All technologies / methods of water measurement can be affected by the density and viscosity of the oil, the salinity of the water and the velocity or temperature of the flowing oil / water mix.  However, Agar’s latest generation of testing equipment is not affected by or corrects for these.  There are certain criteria required to achieve good test results.  There needs to be well mixed flow (for example, after a static mixer or pump) and the sample needs to be taken form the middle of the pipe.  Also, gas in the mixture will affect the results.  With the compensations, test results are within +/ - 0.01%.  Agar has found that the sulfur content of the oil can also be detrimental to accurate readings.  They do know the degree to which sulfur can affect the test results and the next generation of inline water measurement will undoubtedly correct for sulfur along with salinity, density, temperature, etc.

INLINE WATER MEASUREMENT - AGAR CORP. Document

Crude Oil Quality Association 
Water  Measurement Subcommittee
October 2, 2003 

Report on the Water Measurement Subcommittee - Mr. Ron Fisher of BPAmoco shared new data comparing Karl Fisher water results with separate sediment measurements to centrifuge BS&W. Ron’s data are inconclusive, as are many sets of data presented in the past. While it appears to be clear that Karl Fisher tests report a more accurate water result, the issue of sediment creates a new set of problems. The COQA will continue to follow new developments in water measurement with possible future speakers to include on-line equipment manufacturers and an in-depth assessment of ASTM crosscheck results. Ron has offered to share his data.

Crude Oil Quality Association
Water Measurement Implementation Task Force
Houston, TX
May 30, 2002 

Determining Water Content in Crude Oils – Mr. Bruce Williams of ITS Caleb Brett presented an overview of the test methods used for water determination and factors affecting their precision and accuracy. Please see Attachment 2. Water and sediment by Centrifuge is the most widely used test but it is easy to get wrong results by improper reading of the instrument, by failure to complete the centrifugation, and by the formation of an emulsion layer. Water by Distillation is a lab method and has its own set of problems, such as improper reading of the results, improper cleaning which results in water being retained on the glassware and not included in the results, and not completing the process that forces the water into the measurement chamber. Karl Fischer, although very accurate if properly performed, can also yield wrong results if the titrant strength is not uniform, if the sample is incorrectly measured, from interference in the crude, and from improper calibration. All the test methods share one common problem, poor sampling. Water has a tendency to settle making proper sample preparation critical. Also, water forms emulsions in crude which can be very difficult to break and cause some water to go undetected.

Determining Water Content in Crude Document

ASTM Crosscheck Results - Clifford Mills of Conoco presented graphs of the five ASTM runs thus far.  Both of the tests represented, D4006 and D4928, show considerable variance from published precision information.

Conoco Water and Sediment Results - Clifford also presented Conoco experiences in water and sediment measurement.  In many instances, the combination of Karl Fischer water and sediment by filtration tracked very well to the field centrifuge determination of S&W. Karl Fischer detected more water in almost every instance, but the field determination of solids, via centrifuge, was much higher than the lab procedure. Therefore, the total (solid and water) centrifuge reading was not that far off from the lab determination. Part of this phenomenon can be attributed to the fact that solids usually contain a great deal of water and it is sometimes hard to distinguish between a wet solid and water.

Other Pipelines - Patti Edens of Shell Pipeline indicated that they are still interested in Karl Fischer water measurement. Shell feels they have solved the solvent disposal problem (KF solvent is designated a hazardous waste) but need to work on the sediment issue and the fact that field KF equipment is not approved for use in a hazardous area.

Tim Blackmore of Enbridge Pipeline indicted that they are in the same position.

Other - Doug Arrick of TEPPCO is on the ASTM / API water measurement committee. He reported that they will probably be redoing the precision / bias calculations for water in crude measurement next year. As the crosscheck results indicate, this recalculation appears necessary. 

Tish Marshall
COQA Facilitator

Crude Oil Quality Association
Water Measurement Implementation Task Force
New Orleans, LA
February 7, 2002

Karl Fischer Experience from LOOP – Harold Osborn of LOOP talked to the group about their experiences with Karl Fischer measurement.  When LOOP was first opened in 1981, centrifuge was used for S & W determination.  Due to the use of underground storage for the crude and the inaccuracies in the centrifuge method, losses of a higher proportion than normal were experienced through the storage.  LOOP switched to water by distillation in early 1983 for custody transfer and sediment by extraction.  In 1985, Karl Fischer testing began and over 4,000 samples were tested on 49 different types of crude.  In 1989, LOOP started using Karl Fischer for custody transfer.  Currently, Karl Fisher is run on two separate samples for each batch and the results must be within an allowable difference.  The "allowable differences" were developed internally from the API standards.  If the test results fall outside these parameters, two new samples are taken and retested.  LOOP uses Karl Fischer on all connecting carriers transfers for custody transfer and shipper balances.  However, if the connecting pipeline does not accept the Karl Fischer, they do perform both tests so that the carrier can use centrifuge results for their customer.  After several thousand samples, LOOP has calculated a 0.08% difference between KF and centrifuge on Seg 20 crude, which is defined as a relatively light, sweet crude.  On Maya crude, which is very heavy and sour, the difference can be up to 0.25%.  For Mars crude, the delta is about 0.06%.  In all cases, Karl Fisher measurements were higher.   

Solvent Disposal for Karl Fischer – The solvent used in Karl Fisher measurement is hazardous and must be properly disposed of.  Kim Mohajer of KAM Controls indicated that an individual company’s internal safety department is the best source for a waste management program.  He did note that the reagent is good for 25 to 100 samples before changing is required and is used in very small amounts (100 ml) for each piece of equipment.  Capturing the used solvent in a can, for example, and collecting it until a reasonable amount has been generated is not usually costly or time consuming. 

Other - Patti Edens of Equilon Pipeline and Clifford Mills of Conoco both reported that their respective companies are still gathering data and have nothing new to share with us.

Doug Arrick of TEPPCO is on the ASTM / API water measurement committee.  He reported that they are looking into recalculating precision and bias for some of the water tests.  The currently published results were generated from different samples and there are some discrepancies that need to be corrected.  Doug is looking for ten labs to participate in this new study. There is no cost to the labs to be a part of this study.  The Facilitator will provide Doug with a listing of the last COQA Round Robin participants and Clifford Mills suggested contacting Anne McClendon at ASTM to possibly obtain the listing of the Interlaboratory Crosscheck program (ILCP) participants.  Doug also noted that ASTM is revising their sampling standards and protocols.  Comments can be addressed to Doug.

Tish Marshall
COQA Facilitator

Crude Oil Quality Association
Water Measurement Implementation Task Force
Houston, TX
September 27, 2001

Tariff Language – Harry Giles shared a slide on water measurement specifications gleaned from published tariffs and expert advice.  It was decided to recommend that tariff language be kept general.  References to specific tests like “centrifuge” should be eliminated in favor of phrases such as “agreed upon test” or “ASTM / API procedures”.  This would allow the best possible water measurement (Karl Fischer, centrifuge, distillation, something new, etc.) to be agreed upon for any given situation.

Water Measurement - Tariffs Document

Solvent Disposal for Karl Fischer - The solvent used in the field and lab for Karl Fischer (KF) is hazardous and must be disposed of properly.  This is not an issue with centrifuge, which uses Toluene.  Toluene is a natural component of crude oil and may be slopped to the crude.  One option for the KF solvent is to store it at the field location for consolidation and disposal of a later time.  This is viable but will add costs.  The COQA will do further research with equipment manufacturers and solvent suppliers.

Karl Fisher versus Centrifuge Results - Patti Edens of Equilon Pipeline noted that Equilon is gathering data on crudes shipped via Capline.  There is not yet sufficient data to make assumptions about statistical trends or crude types.  Clifford Mills of Conoco also shared data on centrifuge versus KF. Similar data was graphed by Marathon Ashland and used as an attachment to the COQA Water Measurement Discussion Paper.  The number of reference points used for each crude type has been added. 

Other:

• Clifford Mills of Conoco, who is heading this task force, indicated that Conoco is initiating steps to put KF measurement in place at their field pipeline locations.
• The question came up about the field equipment for Karl Fischer and whether or not it is explosion proof for those areas requiring that designation.  The facilitator will investigate with the equipment manufacturers.
• Wayne Kriel of ITS Caleb Brett mentioned a prototype sampler they have developed, a presentation possibility for a future meeting.
• The issue of high-level mercaptans and high H2S causing interference with Karl Fischer readings may be significant and should be addressed.
• Doing a separate test for sediment will obviously add to the cost of a Karl Fischer program.  Jim Roche of Dyn McDermott volunteered to investigate doing a presentation on sediment, what it is and how it is measured, for a future meeting.
  
   

Crude Oil Quality Association
Water Measurement Implementation Task Force
Houston, TX
May 31, 2001

Mr. Clifford Mills of Conoco has graciously volunteered to spearhead this task force.  

Path Forward - The key issues facing the Water Measurement Implementation Task Force are formulating a plan of attack to overcome resistance in moving from BS&W testing to “Best Practice” (at this point – Karl Fischer) water testing, and how to incorporate that best method into custody transfer and contract and tariff language.  A re-education of the personnel involved, from field technicians to buyers and sellers of crude oil, is necessary to accomplish our goal of guiding the industry toward using the best technology available to measure water in crude.

Implementation of Best Practices for Water-in-Crude Measurement - Mr. Charles Der of KBC Advanced Technologies discussed water-in-crude measurement as a business process.  Sampling, sample handling, preparing the sample for testing, the actual testing, and the accounting of net barrels are all important parts of the process.  The water-in-crude method of test is an important part of the process, but still just one step.  Charlie stated that Karl Fisher is superior to the centrifuge in that it has higher accuracy and precision but, with poor implementation, those advantages may not be fully realized.  The procedures used for sample homogenization and sub sampling prior to test are absolutely critical for Karl Fischer because the size of the sample analyzed (1 ml) may be 50 times smaller than for centrifuge.  Best practice standards covering all aspects of the water-in-crude process do exist and KBC’s recommendation for those standards can be found in the attachment.  It is also important to consider the various parties involved in the business process of measuring water-in-crude (i.e. loading terminal, pipeline, truck unloading, refinery, etc.) and take steps to ensure that best practices are negotiated for all elements of each transaction.

Other - It was decided that the COQA facilitator and Clifford will work on drafting language for our members to consider when incorporating the best water measurement technology into contracts and tariffs.  They will contact the API Measurement Committee chair, Mr. Stewart Ash of BP Amoco, for possible collaboration.  Clifford also mentioned the possible problem of disposing of the KF solvents in the field.  These solvents may be hazardous waste.  Harry Giles will contact various equipment vendors to get their input on this issue. 
Tish Marshall
COQA Facilitator

Crude Oil Quality Association
Mid-Continent Subcommittee
New Orleans, LA
February 7, 2002

The meeting agenda was distributed to those in attendance.

Pipeline Quality Letter – A letter was sent to all pipelines that connect into the Basin Pipeline system requesting that each of these carriers adopt the Basin Pipeline specifications for Domestic Sweet crude oil.  The letter also requested that the carriers consider additional specifications such as metals and High Temperature Simulated Distillation.  The responses received so far have been favorable:

• Per a previous phone conversation, ExxonMobil is initiating changes to their tariffs specifying the Basin parameters.
• Jeff Northing (BP Pipeline) indicated at the meeting that BP Pipeline runs a gathering system with numerous connection points.  They do have field sulfur analyzers and follow up on leases that may be outside normal parameters.  Jeff was requested to draft a written response and will consider doing so.
• Doug Arrick (TEPPCO Crude Oil Pipeline), also at the meeting, indicated that, as an owner, TEPPCO follows the published specifications and also has published Cushing and Midland specifications of its own.
• Marathon Ashland Pipeline responded favorably to the letter with a written response.  Michael Czeskleba (Marathon Ashland) and John Hunt (Marathon Ashland Pipeline) summarized the response, indicating that they would like to participate but the current scope of the specifications is upstream of their holdings.  Marathon Ashland raised several questions in their memo to which the COQA Facilitator will respond.
• The facilitator noted that discussions with Plains Marketing had indicated that they too have quality specifications currently in their tariff structure.

If you would like a copy of the letter that went out to the pipelines or of Marathon Ashland's response, please contact the facilitator.

Basin Specifications Implementation - Ms. Patti Edens of Equilon Pipeline reiterated that they are currently not strictly enforcing the 0.40% specification in place as of last May.  They monitor the streams and make phone calls when the sulfur drifts over 0.40%, but have not actually needed to shut down any connecting carriers yet.  Strict enforcement will hopefully not be required until after the NYMEX specifications at Midland go into effect.  NYMEX is apparently having system problems and is not yet on-line with their new program.  Patti indicated that most of the connecting carriers are meeting the 0.40%, even though no enforcement is in place.  

Next Steps – The issue of how the trading arms of the oil business influence the effectiveness of any quality program has been brought up many times.  Michael Czeskleba led a discussion on how the COQA might expand its quest for quality to include trading.  Aaron Dillard (Conoco) proposed that we eliminate the Mid-Continent subcommittee in favor of a subcommittee to discuss how best to incorporate quality into contacts.  All accepted that proposal.  Therefore, there will no longer be a Mid-Continent subcommittee.  

Tom Kittle  (ExxonMobil) suggested that a study be done of LLS quality, past and present.  Are the specifications having a positive effect on the value and / or are they having negative effects on supply or availability?  Putting monetary numbers to such questions will be invaluable when we try to expand our sphere of influence.  The COQA Facilitator will look into the feasibility of quantifying the LLS specification program.

Tish Marshall
COQA Facilitator

Crude Oil Quality Association
Mid-Continent Subcommittee
Houston, TX
May 31, 2001

The meeting agenda was distributed to those in attendance.

Data to Date – The summary report finalized in May of 2001 has been distributed to all members of the original subcommittee.  Selected highlights will be available on coqa-inc.org.

Pipeline Operations – Ms Patti Edens of Equilon Pipeline updated the group on Basin Pipeline.  A memo was sent out on May 21 to all connecting carriers indicating that the new sulfur specification on Basin will be 0.4%. This change is necessary in order for Basin to meet the 0.42% NYMEX requirement at Cushing.  So far, there has been little feedback (the deadline for comments is June 30) and Equilon Pipeline does not expect difficulties with the new specification which is planned to take effect on August 1.  Equilon Pipeline has recently completed pigging the first half of the line with the remainder scheduled to be pigged next year.  Patti also mentioned the TOSCO fire which shut down Basin for about 180 hours.  The pipeline is currently well underway with catch-up and no additional problems are foreseen.  

Pipeline Summit Status – At the last meeting, Aaron Dillard of Conoco shared a draft communication on crude specifications.  At the time, it was planned that the communication would be sent to all shippers requesting their support of our efforts to gain additional specifications on the mid-continent pipeline system.  The letter will now be rewritten and sent to the connecting carriers directly with a copy to the shippers.  It will still ask for support for the quality initiatives and request that all connecting carriers consider implementing specifications.  The letter will be sent out as a COQA initiative with a list of supporters, i.e. the subcommittee members, attached.  

NYMEX Specifications at Midland – Aaron Dillard shared the proposed contract terms for the new NYMEX crudes.  ENYMEX is scheduled to be on line by August.  A few concerns were raised.  The West Texas Sour sulfur limit is too high in the proposed NYMEX specs.  NYMEX is proposing a 2.5% limit, out studies indicate 2.1% and Arco’s recommendation is 2.2%.  The sulfur specification of the sweet grade is also too high; at 0.42% at Midland, it will be difficult to reach Cushing at 0.42%.  A limit of 0.4% (Equilon’s current recommendation) would be more appropriate.  Aaron will contact NYMEX about these two issues.  

The question on stating a specific test method number rather than "accepted ASTM standard” was raised.  In some cases, such as changing the outdated Saybolt Universal Seconds test for viscosity to Kinematic viscosity, the answer is obvious.  In other tests, a specific method is not always clearly best and more discussion will be necessary before “ASTM standard” can be properly defined.  

Tish Marshall, COQA Facilitator

Crude Oil Quality Association
Mid-Continent Subcommittee
New Orleans, LA
February 1, 2001

The meeting agenda was distributed to those in attendance.

Data to Date – Mr. Aaron Dillard of Conoco distributed a Summary Report of the Basin Pipeline Sampling and Testing program.  The program ran from 1996 through June of 2000.

Enforcement Implementation – Ms. Patti Edens of Equilon Pipeline updated the group on Equilon Pipeline’s efforts to deliver on spec Domestic Sweet and Super Sweet at Cushing.  There have been no shutdowns at Cushing due to off spec crude even though a few samples have showed off spec sulfur results.  These samples were taken from small, sweet batches that had a large, sour linefill.  The linefills, as is Equilon’s custom, were cut to sour tankage, which the samples did not reflect.  It is Equilon’s standard operating procedure to cut to protect the sweet.

Patti mentioned that NYMEX specifications at Midland should start May 1.  NYMEX is considering specifications in addition to gravity and sulfur.  Equilon Pipeline suggested 0.4% sulfur at Midland to help ensure on spec arrival at Cushing.  Most barrels already arrive at Midland at 0.4 % or less.  The decision on the specifications should be made soon.

Path Forward - Don Hamilton of Gary Williams and Aaron Dillard shared a draft communication on crude quality with the group.  The longer version will be sent to all shippers in the Mid-Continent.  It gives background on our quality initiatives thus far and asks everyone’s support in our push to institute parameters in addition to gravity and sulfur as standard quality designations.  The short letter is a memo that the shippers are asked to sign.  These signed memos will be used to communicate the support of the shipping community for additional quality characteristics.  It is intended that the signed memos will be forwarded to a wide population of pipelines in the Mid-Continent.  There was some discussion on expanding the boundaries to include other areas, but, most likely, the Mid-Continent will be covered first.  Don and Aaron hope to have the letter distributed by end February.  This communication to all shippers is the first step in our ultimate goal of a Pipeline Summit on quality.

Tish Marshall, COQA Facilitator

Crude Oil Quality Association
Mid-Continent Subcommittee
Houston, TX
October 5, 2000
The meeting agenda was distributed to those in attendance.

Data to Date – Mr. Aaron Dillard of Conoco reminded the group that the sampling and testing program had been discontinued. By next meeting, he hopes to have a summary of results for each stream. Equilon Pipeline still monitors the crude oil for their Sweet and Super Sweet gravity and sulfur criteria. Ms. Patti Edens of Equilon Pipeline will check to see if Equilon will share that data with shippers.

Enforcement Implementation – Patti Edens updated the group on Equilon Pipeline’s efforts to deliver on spec Domestic Sweet and Super Sweet at Cushing.  The enforcement program previously instituted was not working well so a team strategy was put together by all connecting carriers and Equilon Pipeline. Instead of a punitive program, the new strategy is in the form of a shared goal to deliver on-spec crude. Training sessions and meetings were held and alarm points established. The alarm points are set at a level to guarantee that Cushing receipts do not exceed the 0.42% specification. When the alarm point is reached, the carrier is given an hour to fix the situation before shut down occurs. After three months, no violations on the composite samples of all receipts at all incoming stations have occurred.

Pipeline Summit – It was agreed by all that plans for a Summit should continue, targeted for first quarter fo next year. In the interim, the Mid-Continent Subcommittee will work on drafting a letter to be signed by all shippers and sent to all carriers reiterating the need for quality in crude oil. A group discussion ensued as to what should be covered in a summit. Aaron asked each person in the room to state the current concerns in his/her refining system. The following is a list of everything mentioned with no prioritization:

• Educational forum
• Gravity and sulfur are indicators, they alone do not define a crude oil
• Metals and metals’ interface
• Simulated Distillation (importance of the information, techniques comparisons, using sim dist information to segregate crudes)
• Water (free water, measurement, affect on Sim Dist results, water shocks, carrying costs)
• Sediment
• Phosphorous
• Arsenic
• Acids
• Asphaltene and Asphaltene stability when blending crudes
• H2S and safety
• Viscosity
• Pour Point
• Concarbon
• Contamination of crude (production chemicals, phosphorous, organic chlorides)
• Consistency of crude (butane blending, dumbbell crudes, refinability)
• Communication between production, pipeline, trading, refinery (need to get producers more involved in quality discussions, understanding each other’s limitations)
• New production into existing common streams
• Mixing of crude within the transportation system
• Think of gasoline as a chemical not a fuel - crude oil is a "chemical feedstock"
• Synthetic crudes
• Hydrostatic testing regulations

Other – The Mid-Continent Subcommittee will continue to meet. Anyone with speakers for the meeting or the Summit should please contact the COQA facilitator.
 Tish Marshall, COQA Facilitator

Crude Oil Quality Association
Mid-Continent Subcommittee
Houston, TX
June 1, 2000

The meeting agenda was distributed to those in attendance.

Data to Date – Mr. Aaron Dillard of Conoco reported on the sampling and testing program through early April. The Sweet stream shows less variability in the gravity and sulfur parameters now that there are specifications in place. However, there are still outlyers. Each outlyer is analyzed and, when feasible, the carrier is contacted to determine what the problem is and possible solutions.

The Basin Sour common stream crude is currently somewhat consistent in sulfur, although there has been a definite upward trend. The proposed standard, set at a statistical two standard deviations, is 2.1, but the current Upper Control Limit, also calculated on two standard deviations, is 2.39. Should standards for Sour be pursued, the sulfur limit requested would most likely be 2.3 rather than 2.1.

Please note that only 1999 and 2000 data are used to calculate the control limits shown on the attachment.

Testing Limits – At the last meeting, the Subcommittee requested that testing be limited to 30 samples per month. Clifford Mills of Conoco was to instruct ITS Caleb Brett which samples to run. For the April samples, he looked at how many samples from each location were available to be tested, how long since a location had been was tested and if the carrier appeared to be stable. At least one sample from each location was included in the testing. He’ll follow the same scenario for May samples.

Sampling and Handling Procedures - The samples are composite from each batch and the sampler is periodically tested to ensure proper working order. Duplicate samples had been kept in the past but are currently not being taken. ITS Caleb Brett traveled to the Midland area in April to pick up the samples Equilon pipeline personnel had gathered. ITS Caleb Brett then packaged and shipped the samples for testing. In April, 62 samples were prepared for shipping at a total cost of $850, which is incremental to the per-sample testing fee. In May, the cost was $1450 for 77 samples as additional time was necessary. Only 30 of the samples for each month will actually be tested.

Enforcement Implementation – Ms. Patti Edens of Equilon Pipeline informed the group that the sulfur and gravity specifications for Sweet and Super Sweet common streams on the Basin Pipeline system were put into effect on February 1. Of the seven connecting carriers that deliver Domestic Sweet to Basin, only four deliver significant volumes. All four had violations in the first three months of implementation and two of the four were over the "five strikes, you’re out" limit, please see Attachment 4AEnforcement has been suspended for 60 days while Equilon meets with the carriers and determines a revised approach. The connecting carriers are trying to implement the 0.42% sulfur specification, but are still taking all batches delivered to them. The carriers have most likely not gone all the way back to the producers with the 0.42% limit. That is probably the next necessary step.

Oversight Committee and Path Forward – Mr. Aaron Dillard of Conoco informed the group that he, Don Hamilton of Gary-Williams and Pat Quinn of Cooperative Refining met with Equilon Pipeline to discuss the possibility of additional specifications. The general consensus was that all connecting carriers need to adopt the current specifications before additional parameters are considered. Equilon Pipeline alone cannot guarantee even the gravity and sulfur limits.

The question was then raised to the Subcommittee members specifically and to the group at large as to whether there was significant benefit in retaining the sampling and testing program. All of the Subcommittee members present (Conoco, Cooperative Refining, Marathon Ashland and Williams) voted to discontinue sampling and testing. The only member not present, Sinclair, will be contacted by Aaron with the group’s decision. It was agreed to run the samples that ITS Caleb Brett currently had on hand (May) but to not collect any more.

Equilon Pipeline will, of course, maintain their testing program in conjunction with the specification implementation. They agreed to discuss internally making available their testing information to the shippers. Equilon only does gravity and sulfur, but the suggestion was made to consider consolidating a number of samples to do a full battery of tests on a periodic (monthly?) basis.

Pipeline Summit and Other Initiatives - Since it is so critical for all connecting carriers to understand the importance of the specifications and of quality in general, the group discussed the possibility of holding a "Pipeline Summit". All connecting carriers (upstream of Basin and at Cushing) would be invited for a meeting to discuss the common streams and how best to implement quality. The idea was met with enthusiastic approval. Don Hamilton of Gary-Williams and Harry Giles of the COQA will pursue this meeting.

The suggestion of a Quality Bank on each stream was brought up. This is certainly an idea to look into although it may not be possible to make the penalty for bringing in high sulfur crude large enough to offset potential benefits.

The Mid-Continent Subcommittee members all agreed that involving other area refiners is a good idea. To start, Pat Quinn volunteered to contact Tosco about their newly purchased Wood River Refinery and their quality concerns.

Open Discussion – The Mid-Continent Subcommittee will continue to meet as a group. Even without data to present, there are several open issues to discuss.

Tish Marshall, COQA Facilitator

Crude Oil Quality Association
Mid-Continent Subcommittee
New Orleans, LA
February 3, 2000

The meeting agenda was distributed to those in attendance.

Enforcement Implementation - Ms. Patti Edens of Equilon Pipeline shared a letter with the group.  On January 6, 2000, Equilon Pipeline sent notice to all Basin Pipeline Shippers and Connecting Carriers that enforcement of the sulfur and gravity specifications for Domestic Sweet and Super Sweet would be effective on February 1, 2000. One change from the enforcement procedure as written was necessary. Equilon Pipeline will cut to protect the sweet but regrades to the inventory of the sweet shipper will be accounted for quarterly rather than annually. One comment had been received in response to the1/6/2000 letter and the quarterly inventory assessment was instituted to address that shipper’s concerns.
 
Data to Date – Mr. Aaron Dillard of Conoco presented a report on the testing program to date.  Some of the data included in the testing program are old. It was suggested that 1996, 97, and 98 data be combined into one reference point per year only. Aaron will institute that procedure. Also, 1996 through 1998 data will not be used in any statistical analyses.

Aaron noted that Arco Pipeline has adopted Equilon's Domestic Sweet and Super Sweet specifications.

A discussion on the continuation of the shipper’s testing program ensued. Generally, the consortium of shippers agreed to continue as the current program provides independent verification of Equilon’s findings. Also, the pipeline specifications only cover gravity and sulfur which, while are a good start, do not address the concerns of metals and distillation characteristics. Continuation of the shippers’ consortium will be discussed on an on-going basis.

Oversight Committee - A small group of shippers agreed to serve on an oversight committee to monitor the data. The oversight committee will consist of Michael Czeskleba (Marathon/Ashland), HC Ouzts (Sinclair), Aaron Dillard (Conoco) and Don Bruce (EOTT). The oversight committee should meet between COQA meetings to assess the data and keep up with reporting techniques.

Path Forward - The general meeting of the Mid-continent Subcommittee was adjourned at this point and the paying members only met with Equilon Pipeline and ITS Caleb Brett to discuss the costs of the testing and analysis program.

Tish Marshall
COQA Facilitator

Crude Oil Quality Association
Mid-Continent Subcommittee
Houston, TX
September 30, 1999

The meeting agenda (Attachment 1) was distributed to those in attendance (Attachment 2).

Overview of Samples and Data Trends - Mr. Aaron Dillard of Conoco presented a summary of Domestic Sweet data gathered through August, 1999 compared to proposed and existing stream specifications (Attachment 3). The results shown on the attachment are averages of all the samples taken from Wink, Jal, Midland and Colorado City. Despite sulfur being an Equilon Pipeline specification, results continue to be high, averaging 0.52 wt% versus a standard of 0.42 wt%. Recent data for metals and distillation seem to indicate that the proposed minimums and maximums could be changed, as the standard deviations are much smaller. The decreased “noise” is most likely due to the fact that most of the recent samples are from Midland, which has always been one of the more consistent streams. However, we need more time to adequately assess what changes need to be implemented.

Attachment 4 shows data for the West Texas/New Mexico Sour stream.

Discussion of Data – Mr. Frank Hagardorn of ITS Caleb Brett presented amended High Temperature Simulated Distillation results, Attachment 5. Corrections needed to be made to the reportable results so that the data reflected actual recovered material. Although a majority of the samples were involved, the end result changed very little and was not enough to affect the recommended standards.

Update on Basin Pipeline Specifications – Ms. Patti Edens of Equilon Pipeline reported that the specifications are still not being enforced. Enforcement will not be invoked until all locations are satisfactorily trained on sampling and labeling. Training is underway and enforcement is tentatively set for end-October.

Members of the sub-committee expressed some concern that samples are not being provided to ITS Caleb Brett. Patti will investigate each location to ensure that the field personnel are up to speed on what needs to be sampled and where to send the samples. Part of the difficulty is that non-common stream crudes are sometimes included. ITS Caleb Brett will be provided with a list of common stream crudes and will test only samples labeled with those designations. An exception report on other samples received will be included with the testing results.

Quality Concerns Due to Recent Acquisitions and Mergers in the Mid-Continent Area - Mr. Aaron Dillard of Conoco led a discussion on the many changes in ownership of the Mid-continent pipeline systems and how they might affect crude oil quality. EOTT and Plains recently acquired several pipeline systems in West Texas and are now very large players in the area. Marathon Ashland Petroleum and Conoco recently met with EOTT to discuss their quality programs. A meeting will be scheduled with Plains prior to the next COQA meeting. 

Path Forward – Please refer to Attachments 6A and 6B which show the variance, by parameter, for each site. Attachment 6C contains the key to the site numbers. The attachments have been corrected from the meeting presentation and show only Domestic Sweet and West Texas/New Mexico Sour. Possible problem areas, such as sulfur spikes, can be easily assessed through these graphs. Aaron Dillard of Conoco intends to write letters to the operators of Basin and to the owners of all connecting carriers, bringing to their attention these data. Currently, the letters will concentrate on API, sulfur, metals and nitrogen. All members of the Mid-Continent consortium are urged to use the data similarly and write to their carriers.

Tish Marshall COQA Facilitator

Crude Oil Quality Association
Mid-Continent Subcommittee
Houston, TX
June 3, 1999

The meeting agenda was distributed to those in attendance.

Update on Meetings with Mid-Continent Pipelines and Terminals - Mr. Aaron Dillard of Conoco presented a summary of meetings between members of the Mid-Continent subcommittee and area pipelines and terminals. To date, meetings have been conducted with Equilon Pipeline, Arco Pipeline, Dynegy, Amoco Pipeline, Plains Marketing and Transportation and Equilon Terminal to discuss the proposed West Texas Sweet and West Texas/New Mexico Sour stream specifications. The pipelines and terminals were basically receptive to the proposed specifications but were not ready to commit to implementation at this time. Please contact the facilitator if you’d like a full copy of Aaron’s report.

Aaron also discussed the memo sent out by the facilitator at the behest of the subcommittee to all COQA members who might ship in the Mid-Continent area. The memo urged each company to contact the common carriers they utilize and voice support for the specifications.

Recent acquisitions have made both Plains and EOTT bigger players in the Mid-Continent area. They will therefore be approached by the subcommittee shortly to discuss the standard setting program.

Follow up with all Mid-Continent carriers and terminals will be necessary. All attendees were asked to talk to their pipeline carriers about the standards.

Sour Sulfur Specification and Presentation of Data to Date – Aaron also presented a summary of the testing results generated through March of 1999 compared to the proposed stream recommendations.  Please note that minimum and maximum on the attachment refer to plus or minus two standard deviations from the calculated average.Parameters for Domestic Sweet look very much in keeping with the samples received. West Texas/New Mexico Sour may require some modifications. Sulfur is running higher as are metals.

At the last meeting, it was proposed to add Nitrogen to the properties with recommended standards. To date, West Texas/New Mexico Sour appears to be running at 1200ppm, West Texas Sweet at 1000ppm and West Coast Sour at 4500ppm.

Samples by Location - Shawna Ryder of ITS Caleb Brett presented information on samples received by location. There had been problems with sample receipts which seems to be resolved. However, labeling of the samples needs attention. Equilon Pipeline will follow up with the field personnel.

Update on Basin Pipeline Specifications - Ms. Patti Edens of Equilon Pipeline updated the group on the Sweet and Super Sweet specifications. Equilon Pipeline has instituted a Quality Assurance program at each station to reinforce testing and sampling standards. Equilon needs to be sure their testing methods are acceptable in order to enforce any standards.

Sulfur spikes have been occurring through out the system and are being investigated even though no enforcement is in place. Equilon is working with certain streams and may require some to be regraded to sour. Equilon is communicating with all connecting carriers on problem areas.

Path Forward – Modifications to the recommendations for sulfur and metals need to be addressed for the sour stream. Also, the Nitrogen results need to be verified and that parameter added to the specification recommendation.

Tish Marshall COQA Facilitator

Crude Oil Quality Association
Basin Subcommittee
Denver, CO
February 2, 1999

The meeting agenda was distributed to those in attendance.

Update on Basin Project and Path Forward - Aaron Dillard of Conoco of presented a table of possible parameters for the Domestic Sweet grade on the Basin Pipeline system. Data has been collected for two years and a footprint could be established. API and sulfur were set at the current Basin Pipeline specifications. Other parameters for which a footprint has been set at this time are metals, MCRT, and distillation points. In general the limits were set at plus or minus two standard deviations with a check for reasonableness applied (to be certain no one area was adversely affected). This is the same formula applied by the LLS program on Capline, which was successfully implemented last October.

Aaron presented a similar table of recommended standards West Texas Sour common stream. Currently there are no specifications at all for this stream. 

Comments from all the attendant paying members of the Basin Subcommittee were actively solicited. There were no adverse reactions to the limits as proposed or to the methodology employed.

It was noted, however, that recently samples have not been received in the correct numbers at the contract lab. This is most likely due to the new federal shipping regulations and the problem is being addressed. When samples are again received regularly, the standard deviations can be recalculated and changes made to the proposed standards as necessary.

During the discussion, Pat Quinn of Farmland introduced the issue of Nitrogen testing. All agreed that Nitrogen should be immediately incorporated into the testing battery. Also, ITS Caleb Brett will do historical testing for Nitrogen on all samples in retain, about 60 days worth.

The recommendation as presented by Aaron received approval from the Basin Subcommittee. The next step will be presentation to the affected pipelines. Everyone agreed that the proposed standards should be presented not only to Equilon Pipeline (the operators of the Basin system) but also to all connecting carriers and terminals in the Cushing area. This would include Arco, Plains, and Amoco. NYMEX should also be approached due to their involvement in the Cushing area. The carriers will be contacted in the near future.

Nitrogen cannot be a part of the initial proposal as there is not enough data. The pipelines will be notified of the intent to add that parameter, but in order to move forward quickly, we won’t wait for Nitrogen numbers.

Super Sweet will also not be a part of the initial proposal due to lack of data. That stream has been incorporated into the testing program for possible footprinting at a future date. 

Update on Basin Pipeline Specifications - Bob Goodmark of Equilon Pipeline discussed the inputs into Basin Pipeline and how the gravity and sulfur fit the Domestic Sweet and Super Sweet specifications. Enforcement proceedings have not yet begun; Equilon is just collecting data at this time. However, even though official notices of violations are not being processed, verbal discussions have ensued with the input parties.

Equilon has made a few changes in operations to assist in meeting the specifications. A 50MB minimum batch size will be enforced to ensure a representative composite sample. All batches are being sampled; sulfur and gravity are tested onsite at each appropriate location.

A question was asked to Bob about the Capline LLS program, i.e. how is the funding now being handled. Bob noted that the incremental costs of sampling and testing are small enough to be absorbed by the current operator’s fee. That may be an option on the Basin system, long term.

Refiners Crude Oil Quality 
Basin Subcommittee
Houston, TX
October 1, 1998

The meeting agenda was distributed to those in attendance.

Samples Received to Date – Shawna Ryder of ITS Caleb Brett presented slides on samples received to date by crude type and location.

Data Presentation – Aaron Dillard of Conoco presented the location report produced by HPI Consultants’ program. The numbers shown on the summary report correspond to graphs that are produced through the program. Please note that the UCL and LCL are two standard deviations.

Data Consolidation Program – Ward Davis of HPI consultants demonstrated the program designed to store and analyze the voluminous data generated through the Basin Pipeline testing. The program is menu driven and appears easy to learn. It can produce graphs by any combination of location, crude type and pipeline and has some statistical capability. A useful feature is the listing of all samples received, sorted by location. We have several “unique” nomenclatures which can now be more easily found and addressed to assure they are properly accounted for in the final analysis.

All present members of the Subcommittee agreed that ITS Caleb Brett should purchase the HPI program. All members are urged to purchase their own copy, for individual manipulations into whatever formats are most important to their individual company. However, the raw data will still be entered into an Excel spreadsheet (which can be fed into the HPI program) so all shippers will still have access to the same database that was always provided.

The cost of the HPI program is $895 but a discount may be available if a goodly number of shippers purchase it. ITS Caleb Brett will distribute their cost of purchasing the program to all subcommittee members at the next invoice. It will be approximately $112 for each of the current 8 members.

Sample Handling and Testing Process – Frank Hagardorn of ITS Caleb Brett introduced Mike LaRosa who is the person most responsible for logging in the samples received from Basin and running the tests. The samples do not appear to be labeled in a consistent manner and certain stations, namely Jal and Haskel, have not submitted any samples for some time now. Bob Goodmark of Equilon Pipeline will communicate with the pipeline field personnel, reiterating that the program is still in place and samples are necessary. He will also attempt to set consistent naming standards and endeavor to assure that only common stream samples are submitted.

UPS has new conditions which are creating some of the problems as their new label requirements are somewhat vague. ITS Caleb Brett will prepare a sample shipping procedure to be disseminated to the field. The procedure can be made available through the Basin Subcommittee minutes or perhaps can be included in Bob’s communication.

It was suggested that HPI include a “last sampled date” on their listing of samples. This should assist in finding and correcting misnamed samples.

Random Testing Recommendation - Don Hamilton of Gary-Wiiliams presented historical information on the cost of the testing program thus far. Over a quarter of a million dollars has been expended by the Subcommittee members to date, with invoices to each in the neighborhood of $1000 monthly. With the historical data now available, it should be relatively simple to determine those areas that could be cut back to random testing, although all batches will still be sampled. Clifford Mills and Aaron Dillard, both of Conoco, agreed to utilize the HPI program and make a recommendation on random testing at the next meeting.

Report on Meeting with Equilon Pipeline – Don Hamilton of Gary-Williams summarized the August 6 meeting between Gary-Williams, Conoco, NCRA and Equilon Pipeline. The meeting was generally favorable with Equilon reiterating their commitment to quality and this testing program. More details of the meeting can be found on Attachment 6.

Status of Texaco Pipeline and Shell Pipeline Merger – Bob Goodmark of Equilon Pipeline reiterated that he is currently the person to contact for quality management. One of the first steps Equilon has taken is the establishment of “Super Sweet” and “Domestic Sweet” common streams. Super Sweet requirements are 38 to 45 degrees gravity and 0.35% sulfur. Domestic Sweet will run at 37 to 42 and 0.42. This designation was deemed necessary in order to have a stream that would meet the Arco Cushing requirements. The enforcement policy for the Domestic Sweet and Super Sweet streams is found on Attachment 7.

Bob mentioned to the Basin Subcommittee that the Capline specifications for LLS went into effect the day of the meeting, October 1. As far as anyone in the group knew, these are the first specifications established anywhere that are so inclusive; not only gravity and sulfur are specified but also distillation and metals.

Solicitation of Other Shippers Support – Aaron Dillard agreed to write a letter to all shippers on the Basin system outlining the sampling and testing program and urging their support, both operationally and financially. Don Hamilton will personally contact Ultramar Diamond Shamrock in their position as a major refiner in the Midwest region.

Next Steps – Enough data has been generated to find a statistically correct “footprint” for WTI which could most likely be adopted to the new Domestic Sweet designation. Don Hamilton, Aaron Dillard and Gayle Seibel of NCRA will attempt to put together a first look at a footprint for the next meeting. The parameters established through the footprinting process would then be submitted to the Basin Pipeline owners for their approval and support. After Basin has approved, the specifications would be introduced to connecting carriers. Please note that Basin is owned 20% by Arco and 80% by Equilon. Arco is also a major connecting facility.

It was decided at this time to concentrate on the sweet streams for setting parameters although data will still be collected for West Texas Sour.

Other – Aaron Dillard of Conoco mentioned that Arco Pipeline at Cushing is considering introducing other parameters to their Cushing specification list.

Submitted by Tish Marshall COQA Facilitator