Peak Oil is You
Donate Bitcoins ;-) or Paypal :-)
Page added on July 13, 2014
Oil pipeline across Iowa proposed
A Texas energy company is hoping to build an 1,100-mile underground pipeline to transport a highly volatile type of crude oil from North Dakota’s Bakken oil fields through 17 Iowa counties en route to Illinois.
The project still faces regulatory hurdles from the Iowa Utilities Board and the Iowa Department of Natural Resources, and from regulatory agencies in other states. But some Iowa environmental groups said Wednesday they were unaware of the proposal and were quick to voice concerns.
The pipeline would carry at least 320,000 barrels of crude daily, slicing diagonally across the heart of the state, from Lyon County in northwest Iowa through Polk County in central Iowa and Lee County to the southeast.
Oil production has been booming in North Dakota, now exceeding 1 million barrels per day through the use of hydraulic fracturing and horizontal drilling technologies. Most of the oil is being shipped to refineries by railroads, but at least three new pipelines have been proposed in an effort to improve safety and reduce costs.
“As a country, we are trying to become energy-independent and look at how we can domestically produce natural gas and crude oil so we are not using foreign supplies. This pipeline route is certainly working toward that energy independence,” said Vicki Granado, a spokeswoman for Energy Transfer Partners L.P., the Dallas-based company proposing the project.
The company’s board of directors has already approved plans for the 30-inch diameter pipeline, which is scheduled to begin operations by the end of 2016.
The pipeline would end in Patoka, Ill., about 65 miles east of St. Louis., where Energy Transfer Partners said there would be access to multiple markets via railroad connections to the Midwest and East Coast and an existing natural gas pipeline that would be converted to transport crude to the Texas Gulf Coast, officials said.
At this point, Energy Transfer Partners has not filed petitions with the Iowa Utilities Board for regulatory review, although company officials have asked to meet with board members to review state requirements, said board spokesman Rob Hillesland.
Iowa DNR spokesman Kevin Baskins said the pipeline would not require a DNR operational permit, but it would need environmental permits associated with the construction work.
Company officials said the route being considered is located, where possible, along existing pipeline corridors in an effort to minimize the environmental impact.
But environmental groups say they were caught off guard by the plans and will be working to learn more details about the project. State officials released information earlier this week that revealed the volatile Bakken crude is already being transported by two freight railroads through nine Iowa counties, raising fears about possible train accidents.
“I think there will be concerns about the impacts of the pipeline on current land use; about the impacts on air, water, and on wildlife and on farming,” said Ralph Rosenberg, executive director of the Iowa Environmental Council, an alliance of organizations and individuals working to protect the environment.
Neila Seaman, director of the Iowa chapter of the Sierra Club, said, “We would not support the pipeline going through any protected areas or near aquifers or things like that.” The Sierra Club is a critic of the proposed Keystone XL pipeline, which would transport crude oil from Canada into the United States. “It is a pipeline, and pipelines break,” Seaman said.
Energy Transfer Partners owns and operates about 35,000 miles of pipelines. The company said in a statement it has already received commitments from shippers to carry the crude and has begun ordering steel and negotiating construction contracts for the project.
The pipeline is expected to create construction jobs and provide economic benefits for Iowa communities, Granado said, although she didn’t have specifics. Public meetings will be held in communities along the proposed pipeline route to discuss the project, probably later this summer or early fall, she added.
Letters began arriving this week from Dakota Access LLC, an Energy Transfer Partners subsidiary, informing farmers and other landowners along the route of the pipeline plans. The letter includes a form seeking permission to survey their property. It says that when the construction is underway, a 150-foot-wide right of way will be requested, part of which will be used temporarily during construction. When the pipeline is finished, a permanent 50-foot easement will be required.
Eric Tabor, chief deputy for the Iowa attorney general’s office, said he would advise Iowa property owners to consult an attorney if they have been contacted about the pipeline. “Before you sign anything or agree to an easement, you ought to know your legal rights,” he added.
However, if the pipeline route is approved by state officials, Tabor said the company will have the right to use eminent domain to gain access to the property. That process allows a government entity or its agent to expropriate private property for public use, with payment of compensation.
State officials say the amount that landowners might receive in compensation for easements and damages would vary from one property to another and would be determined by fair market value.
State law provides standards for restoring farmland when a pipeline is built, including details such as repairing broken drainage tiles.
NORTH DAKOTA HOLDS ‘PIPELINE SUMMIT”
GOVERNOR SPONSORED: The explosive growth of crude oil production in North Dakota’s Bakken region prompted Gov. Jack Dalrymple last month to hold the state’s second annual “Pipeline Summit” to push for the construction of more oil and gas pipelines to bring products to markets.
PIPELINE BENEFITS: North Dakota is the nation’s No. 2 oil producer, behind Texas, but about 70 percent is being transported by railroad tank cars. Dalrymple said more pipelines will reduce truck traffic, reduce natural gas flaring and create more markets for the state’s oil and natural gas.
MEETING INDUSTRY NEEDS: “Increasing North Dakota’s pipeline capacity, both gathering lines within North Dakota and larger, interstate pipelines, is critical to meeting the needs of an energy industry that continues to produce greater supplies of high-quality oil and natural gas,” Dalrymple said in a statement.
TWO OTHER PIPELINES: North Dakota regulators in June approved plans for an Enbridge Inc. pipeline to transport nearly 225,000 barrels of crude oil daily from Tioga, N.D., to Superior, Wis. In addition, Enterprise Products Partners has proposed a 340,000-barrel-a-day pipeline that would extend 1,200 miles from the Bakken oil fields to a crude oil storage and distribution hub at Cushing, Okla.
11 Comments on "Oil pipeline across Iowa proposed"
Nony on Sun, 13th Jul 2014 10:02 am
Building of pipelines shows market believes in Bakken.
Beery on Sun, 13th Jul 2014 10:09 am
“The market” isn’t capable of “believing” in anything. It just automatically follows the path of least resistance. Treating the market like it’s some sort of sentient organism is a particularly stupid activity – it’s like worshiping a fricken stream for its uncanny ability to find the lowest route to the sea.
Nony on Sun, 13th Jul 2014 10:37 am
good point. Serious.
Yes, the market is not sentient. I think it’s more that you can get insights from it. For instance, I’m a hopeful Redskins fan. But the money line (Vegas) has them finishing out of the playoffs.
Similarly, you can get insights when people invest in something. Yes, sometimes it’s wrong. Or flawed by subsidies or the like. But in general there are insights. Also, I think it’s wrong to crow about pipelines getting cancelled or not built (Rock) and then ignore the insights from those that do. Bottom line in the Bakken (read RBN) is that pipeline takeaway is increasing. That surely means some reasonable amount of long term production.
bobinget on Sun, 13th Jul 2014 11:19 am
Never happen. Another ‘pipe dream’
How about asking farmers if they would permit wind machines to operate on their land?
Where a farmer can grow a hundred dollars worth of corn she could receive as much a $2.400 per year.
from wind power.
You choose.
eugene on Sun, 13th Jul 2014 1:39 pm
With Bakken set to peak in 3-4 yrs, a pipeline makes perfect sense to me.
rockman on Sun, 13th Jul 2014 1:42 pm
Bob – The farmers in S Texas collect their wind power income and grow their cotton/soy on the same land. The footprint of the turbines is very small compared to the planted acreage. It’s even easier out in the west Texas where cattle are more common then crops. Win- win for our landowners. The only complaint you hear from them is if they don’t have turbines built on their lands and they miss out on that “mailbox money”. LOL.
synapsid on Sun, 13th Jul 2014 3:12 pm
Nony,
It’s Graeme who crows about pipelines being canceled or not built, because they’re…um…Wrong and Bad. Rockman is on record as not wanting Keystone XL built for reasons of good healthy greed: more Canadian crude coming in lowers the price he can sell his for.
Makati1 on Sun, 13th Jul 2014 11:50 pm
The Stock Market is only proof of herd insanity. It is now run by super computers that make billions on a fraction of a cent change in prices millions of times a day. Humans only think they are in control … lol. We used to call economists by another name. ‘Gypsy fortune tellers’. They always tell you what you want to hear for a fee (investment). Then, when the SHTF, they are already out of town with your money.
rockman on Mon, 14th Jul 2014 12:11 pm
Bakken oil isn’t more explosive then any other oil. In fact, oil per se isn’t explosive. What was exploding in the those tank cars was the C6 and lighter components that weren’t separated from oil. I have a well in La that if I trucked it out whole would be much more explosive then the most dangerous Bakken production being transported by rail.
But I don’t do that for two good reasons. First, I wouldn’t make as much income if I didn’t separate out the light ends and sell them separately. Second, the pipelines wouldn’t accept it. It’s all about vapor pressure. The light ends produce a high VP the pipelines refuse to transport: blowing up few tank cars is one thing. Knocking a $3 billion pipeline out of commission for months is another. The pipelines won’t take any oil until its composition is certified via specific analysis.
I was very surprised when I learned how high the VP was in those rail cars. The light ends might have been in solution when loaded but it’s easy for me to imagine them breaking out as that rolling motion sloshed the oil around. So you end up with very flammable (but not explosive) oil sitting under a gas cap of very explosive light ends. In a sense more dangerous than a weaponized fuel-air device IMHO: that MOAB just explodes. The tank cars would be more like f-a bomb attached to a napalm canister: if the explosion didn’t kill you the nape might.
And if you weren’t aware no matter how dangerous the railroads think those tank cars might be federal law doesn’t allow them to refuse to haul them due to the “common carrier” regs. But if I understand the less then clear law the feds can set the standards. Which, so far, seems to allow the dangerous loads.
If my understanding is correct the feds are focusing on the wrong solution. It isn’t building stronger tank cars (which would take years)… it’s changing the rules on what the oil companies are allowed to haul. IOW ban high VP loads. That would mean the oil producers would have to begin separating the light ends out. Unfortunately that might mean adding them to the significant volume of NG currently being flared in the Bakken trend.
Northwest Resident on Mon, 14th Jul 2014 12:25 pm
It is a good question — why doesn’t the government take immediate and decisive action to force producers to separate light ends out of the shale oil before transport?
One reason might be that all the politicians are heavily influenced by the oil industry (as in, bought and paid for) to not interfere — to not stick their noses into business that they aren’t welcome in.
Another reason might be that it is barely profitable to produce shale oil already, with the high costs already straining the global economy to the point of collapse. Forcing shale oil producers to add on another expense might just be the straw that breaks the camel’s back.
Another reason might be that the politicians and industry leaders know that this whole charade is going to end soon enough anyway, so why go through all the trouble of passing laws and implementing new processes when none of it is going to matter anyway soon enough.
Any other speculation as to why our duly elected and honorable political leaders are not taking decisive action to deal with this “explosive situation”?
Nony on Mon, 14th Jul 2014 12:45 pm
1. How is the flash danger compared to ethanol? (not arguing a point, just honestly curious).
2. How does sloshing make stuff come out of solution? Suspension, maybe, supersolution maybe, but solution? Chemical solution is chemical solution.
3. I would be interested in an explanatory post of the phase behavior of the these hydrocarbon systems (including the liquid-vapor interface).
4. Are these cars vented, sealed? Is there an atmosphere sitting on top of the liquid line of the oil? And what is the percent fill (liquid line) of the tank car (really my interest is, what is the vapor space volume as that is the explosive risk)?
5. On a per car basis, I wonder if these oils are less dangerous than H2SO4 or HCl. There have been some really nasty poisonings from trainloads of acid crashing.
6. Of course even with the caveat of 5, you still have the issue that the total volume of somewhat hazardous chemicals is increasing.
7. How do the refineries accept high volatile oil from the Bakken, but not from you Rockman? (If that is the case).