confusion ?

http://www.exxonmobilperspectives.co...tives_-_Tier_2

13 Comments

Already have a username? Log in to comment. First-time commenting? Sign up to create your username. It's easy, and we won't share your information.

Mick Jones says:
January 24, 2013 at 5:18 am

If these researcers “”did not see any difference whatsoever’ between crude oil from oil sands and other crudes.” how did they reach the conclusion that “the dilbit samples they tested were actually less corrosive than several of the other oils tested.” No difference does not equal less corrosive.
Log in to Reply
Barry Williams says:
January 29, 2013 at 6:12 pm

One quote was from a conference and the other is from Sankara Papavinasam. A minor difference in interpretation of the findings.
Log in to Reply
Jim OBrien says:
February 3, 2013 at 7:39 am

The corrosion is caused by the chemicals that need to be mixed with the tar sands to allow them to flow ling distances. Thes were not added in these tests.
Log in to Reply
KC clarke says:
February 13, 2013 at 5:45 pm

Thankyou for some truth.
Cary Lehr says:
September 12, 2013 at 1:18 pm

They most certainly were added in the tests, to quote the article “the Canadian government’s leading national research facility – have regularly studied the long-term effects of oil on pipelines. In their most recent evaluations, they included a number of samples of diluted bitumen – known as dilbit – to better understand the potential effects of shipping crude from Alberta’s oil sands region.” dilbit is diluted bitumen, the dilute are the chemical that DILUTE the bitumen (or oil sands) so they CAN flow, without the DILUTE they could not have tested dilbit, just bitumen, and the article CLEARLY states that they tested DILBIT. I highly suggest you understand what you read before you post an uniformed knee-jerk reactionary statement out of nothing but spite and ignorance.
Jack Zucher says:
November 9, 2013 at 3:03 pm

@ Carl Lehr – do you know if any consideration of viscosity frictionwear included?
KC clarke says:
February 13, 2013 at 5:44 pm

Having actually worked in the oil patch of the Gulf of Mexico for several decades I can tell you ALL oil related products are corrosive and DO eat holes in steel pipelines. The Particulate matter (mineral material) that flows along with oil also abrades the inner walls of a pipeline and every turn of the pipeline creates a wear point as well, that will abrade the PL as well. So how many fairies can dance on the head of a pin Exxon / Mobil? 10-20-30? All that really matters is that they will dance and there will be damage from this action. If EM kept up with nondestructive testing on wear points they could head off some potential future spills, but in the end not all spills/leaks by any means.
Log in to Reply
KC clarke says:
February 13, 2013 at 5:48 pm

We’ll see if my post makes it past the E/M censor.
Log in to Reply
Clark Kent says:
February 18, 2013 at 10:13 am

I really don’t care how corrosive it is or isn’t. I do know there is no reason on earth the Keystone XL has to go across American soil to get the oil to Exxon Mobiles Chinese customers. If you want to move here sell it here.
Log in to Reply
Jeff Callender says:
March 28, 2013 at 7:38 am

Much safer than using trucks and smaller carbon footprint with a pipeline. We are also safeguarding our natural resources in North America. The future “Cold War” will not be fought with guns and bombs but with Hoarding and control of natural resources. Russia is already applying its kinder gentler approach in Europe with its monopoly on Natural gas.
Log in to Reply
David Wender says:
August 19, 2013 at 10:48 am

Please-someone at EM talk to United Conveyor Co. (Waukegan,IL) about wear charactaristics of pipelines.
They do abrasive and water carried corrosive slag conveying and have hardened pipe corners that will handle
ANYTHING at the corners where most wear occurs! Whatever small amount of wear will occur in a petro
pipeline long term is micro compared to what they deal with daily. Why keep inventing the wheel if it needs
to be invented at all?

Log in to Reply
Darrell McEver says:
November 4, 2013 at 11:05 am

Sorry, Exxon but in my professional opinion your are wrong on this one. Please refer to NACE and the section concerning Corrosion Control. http://nace.org/Corrosion-101/. Tar Sands are highly corrosive to pipelines. Unless you design the pipeline to specifically control the wear rate. Also you have not stated clearly just where the market is exactly for the tar sand crude. It is my understanding that the majority of it is headed to China and Japan thru the tax free port in Freeport, Texas to be loaded onto tankers off shore. To be burned straight away in power plants with NO POLLUTION CONTROLS. Please correct me if I am wrong.

Log in to Reply
Darrell McEver says:
November 4, 2013 at 11:35 am

Sorry, Exxon but in my professional opinion your are wrong on this one. Please refer to NACE and the section concerning Corrosion Control. Tar Sands are highly corrosive to pipelines. Unless you design the pipeline to specifically control the wear rate. Also you have not stated clearly just where the market is exactly for the tar sand crude. It is my understanding that the majority of it is headed to China and Japan thru the tax free port in Freeport, Texas to be loaded onto tankers off shore. To be burned straight away in power plants with NO POLLUTION CONTROLS. Please correct me if I am wrong.

I wonder why they never told him this oil is to make pump prices lower for Americans ?

You don't think they are just trying to line-their-pockets ?

Are you trying to get people more pissed off about big oil, Hic?

No one since they were born could be any more p i s s e d :mad:

You need to play with Violet.

Real Americans support America ! Not some communist regime :whistle: