There has been a lot of market interest and investment in moving Canadian heavy crude from Alberta to the Gulf Coast by rail in the face of competing pipeline routes that will come online in the next two years. Our analysis indicates that rail can beat the pipelines but that the infrastructure to achieve the necessary economies of scale are not yet in place. Today we provide a worked example of the cost alternatives.

Recap so Far

This series started by asking two questions – is rail capacity needed to supplant a shortfall in pipeline space and can shipping bitumen by rail compete with pipelines on cost (see Go Your Own Way – The Rail vs. Pipeline Bitumen Challenge). Next we surveyed in detail the rail terminals being built in Alberta (see Go Your Own Way Alberta Rail Load Terminals Part 1 and Part 2). In the fourth and fifth episodes we surveyed 8 rail terminals on the CN direct network that are able to handle heavy crude today or plan to be able to handle heavy crude in the future on the Mississippi Gulf Coast. Episode six covered operating or planned terminals further east on the Texas Gulf Coast. Episode seven summarized rail load and unload capacities, which are roughly matched. 

Two important points emerged from the detail. The first is that loading railbit or bitumen with low levels of diluent requiring heating equipment is currently limited to 25 percent of the rail capacity. The second is that unit train load and unload facilities do not generally have equipment to handle railbit. That means at the moment it is not possible to ship raw bitumen or railbit (17 percent diluent) on unit trains from Alberta tot eh Gulf Coast. In this episode we do the detailed math to compare the transport costs of moving bitumen by rail or pipe using more or less diluent.

Transport Alternatives

We reviewed the transport options last time but here is a quick recap to help understand what follows. Both refiners and shippers would prefer to use less diluent to move bitumen to market if they could. Bitumen can be made to flow over shorter distances when mixed with less than the pipeline specification of about 28 percent diluent but that flow may require a heated pipeline or railcar in winter temperatures. A common blend of bitumen and diluent used for rail transport is called “railbit”, which contains 17 percent or less diluent. Railbit can be transported by rail but shippers have to use rail tank cars with insulation and heated steam coils to keep the crude from “setting up” (becoming too viscous to transport) in cold temperatures. A third alternative to dilbit or railbit is to move “raw” bitumen with very little or no diluent added. Since some diluent is typically added to bitumen to move it from the wellhead to a pipeline or to a terminal by truck, raw bitumen is not usually transported. However, it is possible to remove diluent from bitumen prior to transportation using a diluent recovery unit (DRU).

Bitumen Transport Costs

The three different blends of bitumen described above all have different transport options and costs. What follows is a worked through calculation for each of these alternatives in turn using representative cost and pricing estimates. The key factor to bear in mind is that in order to compare apples to apples, we will always use the total cost of shipping one barrel of bitumen. The comparison is for three different transport options - pipeline, manifest rail tank car and unit rail tank car. Manifest rail is estimated to be $3/Bbl more expensive than unit rail. Manifest trains are made up of batches of railcars shipped with other freight that take longer to travel. Unit trains are over 100 car dedicated crude convoys that travel more efficiently as a unit.

Join Backstage Pass to Read Full Article

Comments

In the first version of this post the diluent percentages required to accompany one Bbl of bitumen for pipeline (28%)  and for railbit (17%) were not calculated correctly. We used 0.28 Bbl of diluent per Bbl of bitumen for "dilbit" and 0.17 Bbl of diluent per Bbl of bitumen for railbit. The correct numbers are 1/72 =1.39 Bbl of dilbit - meaning 0.39 Bbl of diluent and 1/83 = 1.2048 Bbl of railbit - meaning 0.2048 Bbl of diluent. The tables and text have been corrected in the published version.

The corrected numbers make a more compelling case for moving bitumen by rail with as little diluent as possible.

In reply to by Sandy Fielden

I was wondering about that...thx for making the correction.

Great breakdown analysis of why rail is getting the job done.....despite all the noise one hears from certain quarters...that rail is ...

More expensive, Less safe and Less efficient.

Another item or approach to add more nuance, besides looking at the refinery point of view, and what they would prefer, i.e. not bother with the hassle of diluent and removing it adds more cost, along with different yields..

What about the upstream producer side of the equation? Similar costs or lack of costs or hassle could be examined there also...

The small and medium and large producer in the oil sands have different costs and hassles dealing with diluent and also the difficulty of dealing with timely railcar delivery and the local truckhaul from production well or mine operation if a rail terminal or siding is not nearby, etc.

Suffice to say, it is complicated and each producer has unique input costs for preparing for either rail or pipe transport to market....

It suggests that upgrading partially in Alberta, to the point of allowing flow in and out of a railcar at normal temperatures, say a bit higher than pipeline spec of 15 degree C....say 25 C, might be a mid-range number, then this may have further benefit favouring rail transport of bitumen

And another correction thanks to a member's careful perusing of my logic.

I have now changed the diluent price from $80/Bbl to $84/Bbl. Originally we had the diluent price at $80 - representing - a Cushing price for WCS crude  ($84/Bbl) less a $4/Bbl transport cost to the Gulf Coast. Well since we are already paying that transport cost in the pipeline tariff (that many of you are saying is actiually too high) and in the rail freight, that would be double charging. So now we have changed the dilbit/WCS price to $84/Bbl on the Gulf Coast and adjusted the Railbit price up from $84/Bbl to $86/Bbl as midway between bitumen ($88/BBl) and dilbit ($84/BBl).

Our sense is that there are so many moving parts in this calculation that we can only attempt to get close and to understand the important variables. We have redone the math and reposted the tables to reflect the latest change. The answer is stil the same - the less diluent you have to carry - the better. 

Thanks for all the input and suggestions

Sandy

 

 

My comments on the first article are confirmed. Rail is cheaper, especially if the transport is with unit trains. Your article is confirming the negative value of the Keystone pipeline if only used to transport dilbit crude. If the northern branch of the Keystone pipeline is used to transport Bakken crude, it would make sense. But Canadian dilbit crude in high volume will require the importation of diluent to Canada. The diluent would compete with Canadian local crude needs, and the cost of importing diluent will increase the cost of dibit. Another factor was not included in the dibit cost delivered at the GOM. Pipeline cost is usually in 2 tears, occasional and study booking. Study booking is paid that it is used or not. Occasional booking is higher but is paid as needed. Is it in the interest of Canadian bitumen producer to pay for set monthly volume of dilbit if the market price of delivered dilbits at GOM is too low? The fore coming deluge of US crude going to the GOM will compete heavily with Canadian dibit crude. The flexibility offered by R&R transport appears to be offering less financial risks.