Dynamic Software

Alternative Fuels

2012-01-18T21:38:00.001+02:00

There have always been alternatives to gasoline, but except for the artificial fuel shortages created by the OPEC oil embargo in the 1970s which fueled the first so-called "energy crisis," alternative fuels have mostly remained on the sidelines. Well now they are being called up to become major sources of energy as oil prices soar once again.

Propane and natural gas have traditionally been the alternative fuels of choice for fleet vehicles. Until recently, the primary motivation for converting to alternative fuels was to reduce operating and maintenance costs.

On a cents per mile basis, natural gas is probably the cheapest alternative fuel, followed by propane, then methanol alcohol and finally ethanol alcohol.

The up front costs for converting a vehicle to propane range from $1500 to $3000, and $2500 to $4000 for compressed natural gas depending on the application. This only includes the cost of modifying the fuel and ignition system, and does not include any costs associated with "optimizing" the engine through internal modifications (which we'll get to later). Despite the high initial conversion costs, most fleets get a fairly rapid payback thanks to the savings realized by lower fuel and operating costs.

Alternative fuels have worked for fleets because fleets can set up their own centralized refueling facilities. But the availability of refueling locations has been and will continue to be an obstacle to the widespread acceptance of any alternative to gasoline. It costs big bucks to build duplicate refueling and distribution facilities for alternative fuels. So we've been faced with the "chicken and egg" syndrome. The car makers do not want to build vehicles for the general public that can only run on a special alternative fuel because the fuel is not readily available. And fuel suppliers do not want to add alternative fuel infrastructure if there are few vehicles that can use an alternative fuel.

E85 ETHANOL and M85 METHANOL

E85 (85 percent ethanol alcohol and 15% gasoline) and M85 (85% methanol alcohol and 15% gasoline) currently are the only alternative fuels that have some availability (though limited) because they can be burned in specially-equipped "flex-fuel" vehicles. Flex-fuel vehicles can run on anything from straight gasoline up to 85% ethanol or methanol alcohol. See Methanol and Ethanol Alcohol subheads below.

GASEOUS FUELS: PROPANE LPG

Unlike E85 and M85 which are both liquid fuels, propane (also known as Liquefied Petroleum Gas, LP-Gas or LPG), and natural gas are both gaseous fuels. That means they are a vapor at room temperature and must be contained in a special high pressure fuel cylinder. Natural gas can be used as compressed natural gas (CNG) or Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG).

About 60% of the propane that's produced comes from natural gas wells. The rest is a byproduct of crude oil refining. The price of propane fluctuates seasonally and like all energy sources has been rising in price.

Propane has been used since the 1930s, so it has a long history as a motor vehicle fuel. Today it is used to power cabs, school buses, recreational vehicles, delivery trucks, farm vehicles and zillions of industrial fork lift trucks. The National Propane Gas Association estimates there are half a million propane-powered vehicles on the road in the U.S today. Most burn propane exclusively, but some have dual-fuel capability and can switch back and forth with gasoline. NLPGA also says there are about 10,000 LP-gas refueling facilities nationwide, which means the fuel is available in many areas.

As a fuel, propane contains somewhat less heat energy per gallon than gasoline (91,547 BTUs versus 116,000 BTUs for gasoline). But on a pound per pound basis, it delivers almost the same energy as gasoline (21,591 BTUs) -- which means an engine converted to propane consumes about 10% more fuel in terms of miles per gallon with little or no loss in horsepower. Carbon monoxide (CO) emissions are naturally low but hydrocarbon (HC) emissions may actually be somewhat higher with propane. Even so, the emissions are considered to be "less reactive" in forming smog.

Propane produces less carbon and blowby in the engine itself, which extends the life of the spark plugs and oil. Oil change intervals can usually be doubled or even tripled with propane.

Propane is a gaseous fuel and boils at -44 degrees F., so it must be kept in a pressurized fuel tank. Pressurizing propane turns it into a liquid, which allows more fuel to be stored in a smaller volume. A typical 25 gallon capacity propane tank holds about 180 lbs. of liquid fuel at 175 psi when filled to 80% capacity -- which gives approximately the same driving range as an equivalent tank of gasoline.

Propane's octane rating is 103 which allows it to handle more compression that gasoline. Propane is also a "dry" fuel which means it enters the engine as a vapor rather than as droplets of liquid. Dry fuels mix with air better than wet fuels, and provide a more uniform air/fuel mixture to each of the engine's cylinders. This promotes cleaner combustion, easier starting and fewer cold driveability problems.

But dry fuels such as propane and natural gas don't cool or lubricate the valves like gasoline does, which means valve burning, wear and recession can be a problem if the engine doesn't have hard seats. Any engine that's designed to burn unleaded gasoline can handle propane without problems, but older engines or truck engines may have to have hard seats installed.

If an engine is being rebuilt for a vehicle that burns propane, the stock compression ratio can be increased up to 10:1 to take advantage of propane's higher octane rating. Special attention also needs to be paid to the valves. Hard seats must be installed if the heads don't already have them. Most experts recommend using a 1/16 to 3/32 in. wide seat on the intakes and a full 3/32 in wide seat on the exhaust valves with no interference angle. Both valve and seats should be cut or ground to 45 degrees. Careful attention should be paid to valve and seat concentricity to prevent hot spots.

Because propane is a dry fuel, it doesn't "wash down" the cylinder walls like gasoline does. This reduces cylinder bore wear but can also create ring seating problems if the wrong type of rings are used or the bores haven't been honed properly.

Recommendations vary, but one leading ring manufacturer says to use either cast iron or moly top compression rings in propane fueled engines. Chrome rings are not recommended. The cylinder bores should be bored to within .003 in, of final size, then rough honed with 180 or 220 grit stones to within .0005 in. of final dimensions and finish honed with a 280 grit stone -- or stroked six to 10 times with a 400 grit stone to "plateau" the surface.

Other engine modifications that can be made to optimize performance with propane include eliminating manifold preheating by blocking the exhaust crossover passageway on a V6 or V8 engine, altering the ignition curve (electronically or by recalibrating the distributor) and decreasing the spark plug gap (.035 in. is recommended with electronic ignition).

Another change that's recommended is to use a motor oil specially formulated for LP-gas. Ordinary motor oils contain additives to neutralize the blowby contaminants from gasoline. But these additives aren't needed with propane and can actually cause deposits of their own. Oils designed for propane applications have a "low ash" additive package.

For more information about propane as an alternative fuel, Click Here.

NATURAL GAS LNG

Like propane, natural gas is a dry gaseous fuel. The same recommendations that apply to modifying an engine for propane also apply for natural gas. For a straight conversion or dual-fuel application, switching to natural gas will produce about a 10% loss of horsepower -- unless the engine is optimized for natural gas by increasing compression, in which case there's no difference in power.

Natural gas is primarily methane. As a motor fuel, it has the highest octane rating of any of the other alternatives at 130, which means it can handle compression ratios of up to 15:1! Methane is also the cleanest burning fuel with substantially lower CO and HC emissions than propane, gasoline, or the alcohols. It's also the cheapest of the bunch at 72 cents for the energy equivalent of a gallon of gas.

But methane has some drawbacks. One is it's low energy content. It takes about 100 cubic feet of methane to deliver the same amount of horsepower as a gallon of gasoline. Consequently, it requires heavy high pressure fuel tanks. A typical 140 lb. natural gas fuel tank filled with compressed gas at 2600 to 300 psi holds the energy equivalent of only about four gallons of gasoline -- which limits the driving range to about 90 to 120 miles unless additional tanks are added (which also add weight and bulk to the vehicle).

Dual-fuel Volvo V70 runs on gasoline or compressed natural gas (CNG).

One way to extend the driving range of a natural gas powered vehicle is use liquefied natural gas (LNG) rather than compressed natural gas. Chilling methane to -260 degrees F. reduces its volume by a factor of 630 to 1, allowing more fuel to be stored in a smaller tank. But a super cold cryogenic fuel tank can't keep the methane liquid indefinitely. As the fuel warms up, it begins to vaporize and must either be vented or used. LNG costs more than CNG because the equipment that's needed to chill the gas is expensive.

Compressing methane isn't cheap either. A two-stage high pressure compressor station for refueling large numbers of vehicles can cost up to $250,000! Smaller compressors for overnight home refueling are available, but even these cost as much as $3000 apiece.

Another drawback that limits methane's potential as an alternative fuel for mass consumption is a limited infrastructure for refueling. Natural gas pipelines are everywhere, but there are only about 500 refueling facilities for CNG vehicles nationwide.

Natural gas powered vehicles are available from the domestic auto makers. GM and Ford have both produced CNG pickups while Chrysler has built CNG-powered vans. But most of these vehicles are for fleet users, not the general public.

For information about where to find a good used CNG-powered vehicle, Click Here.

METHANOL ALCOHOL

If you've watched the Indianapolis 500 or an alcohol-fuel dragster, you have seen what methanol can do on the race track. As a high octane racing fuel, it's great. Racers love it because of its high octane rating of 105 allows an engine to run a higher compression ratio and to inhale in a denser fuel charge for up to a 10% increase in horsepower.

But great racing fuels don't necessary make great everyday fuels. Methanol contains only 57,000 BTUs per gallon, which is half that of gasoline. So an engine has to burn nearly twice as much methanol to travel the same distance it would on gasoline.

Methanol is cheaper than gasoline, but when the increased fuel consumption is taken into account the cost per mile for methanol is substantially higher. Even with an optimized engine, methanol delivers only about 60% of the fuel mileage of gasoline limiting a vehicle's driving range unless the size of the fuel tank is nearly doubled.

Most of the methanol that's available today is made from natural gas, but it can also be made from coal -- which is the real reason why methanol is being pushed as a major alternative to gasoline (the U.S has plenty of coal).

The HC, CO and NOX emissions produced by methanol are a little less than those produced by gasoline, but like propane the HC emissions are the lighter molecules that are less reactive. So that's why you hear statements like "methanol is 30 to 50% cleaner than gasoline." But methanol makes some nasty emissions of its own, namely formaldehyde which is 10 times higher than gasoline. A modified catalytic converter is needed to limit these emissions.

Among its other drawbacks, methanol is a very potent solvent, so hoses and plastic components in the fuel system must be made of compatible materials. Methanol also absorbs moisture, which is good, but moisture can cause corrosion problems inside steel tanks and fuel lines requiring the use of stainless steel or specially plated steel.

Fuel availability is another problem with methanol. In California where methanol has been promoted in the past, there are fewer than 100 stations that sell it. Nationwide, methanol outlets are about as scarce as those for compressed natural gas.

Straight methanol may be great on the race track, but it's not so great when used straight on the street -- especially in cold weather. Like gasoline, methanol is a liquid and must first be vaporized before it will combust. But below 40 degrees F. methanol vaporizes very poorly. To overcome cold starting problems, a supplemental gasoline starting system is needed or the fuel must be blended with some gasoline to give it the extra "kick" to get it going. One such blend is called "M85," a mixture of 85% methanol and 15% gasoline.

METHANOL BLENDS

Ford's "Flex Fuel Vehicle" (FFV) program, GM's "Variable Fuel Vehicle" (VFV) program and Chrysler's "Gasoline Tolerant Methanol Vehicle"(GTMV) program are all based on vehicles that can burn M85 or any other blend of methanol and gasoline. The trick that makes this possible is a fuel sensor that measures the relative proportions of the two fuels in the fuel line so the engine computer can make the necessary adjustments in fuel delivery and spark timing. The flex fuel capability gives consumers the option of burning either fuel or any combination thereof.

ETHANOL ALCOHOL

Ethanol (grain) alcohol is yet another alternative. At one time, it rivaled gasoline as the motor fuel of choice. But that was in the early days of the automobile. In the 1970s it resurfaced as a fuel extender in Gasohol (a blend of 10% ethanol and 90% gasoline). Today, it is widely used as an octane boosting additive in many premium and mid-grade gasolines. Ethanol is also being used in "reformulated" gasolines because it oxygenates gasoline and helps it burn cleaner with lower HC and CO emissions.

Ethanol is much like methanol as far as its fuel qualities are concerned. It has a high octane rating (102) and can be run with higher compression ratios to increase overall engine performance. Ethanol contains more energy per gallon than methanol (76,000 BTUs) but not as much as gasoline so fuel consumption is about 50 to 60% higher with straight ethanol compared to gasoline. Like methanol, ethanol is also sluggish to vaporize at cold temperatures so it works best when blended with gasoline.

Ethanol's primary attraction as an alternative fuel is that it comes from renewable resources. Ethanol is made by fermenting sugar which can come from almost any crop or even garbage. The higher the sugar content, the more alcohol a crop can produce. Sugar cane and sugar beets are good choices for making ethanol, but in the Midwest, the most common crop (and cheapest to produce) is corn, so corn has become the feedstock of choice for making most of the ethanol in the U.S. The crop is ground, mixed with water and yeast to create "mash." After several days, the fermented liquid is then boiled and distilled to separate out the alcohol, a process that requires energy, adds cost and makes ethanol the most expensive fuel of the major alternatives.

Some critics have said that it takes more energy to produce ethanol alcohol from corn than it yields. The US Dept. of Energy has determined that ethanol from corn yields MUCH MORE energy than required to produce it. The latest findings say it takes 740,000 Btu of fossil energy to create and deliver ethanol containing 1 Billion Btu's. The calculation includes the energy consumed to grow and harvest the corn (tractor fuel), the energy to process and ferment the corn, and distill the alcohol (electricity and natural gas), and the energy to transport and deliver the fuel (truck fuel).

Argonne National Laboratory near Chicago says corn ethanol delivers a very positive energy balance. Ethanol requires 24.3% more overall energy input than gasoline to produce, but consumes 32.9% less fossil energy and expends 69.5% less petroleum energy overall. Turning oil into gasoline and diesel fuel requires transporting crude oil to refineries that are often half way around the world (if the oil comes from the Mid-East to the U.S.), and requires a lot of energy to refine the oil into its various end products. And these calculations do not include the HUGE military costs of protecting overseas oil sources.

Ethanol production has been rising, and dozens of new plants are springing up all across the U.S. The demand for ethanol has driven up corn prices. Corn that used to sell for $2 a bushel is now going for $5 to $6 a bushel. The jump in price has been good news for farmers but bad new for ethanol fuel producers because it makes the fuel even more expensive to produce. The jump in price is also driving up food prices. The worn now is that too much corn is being diverted away from food supplies for fuel usage.

As the technology for making ethanol out of non-food sources such as cellulose (cork stalks, wood fiber, even paper) improves, the energy balance favoring ethanol will be even better. But even with today's high crude oil prices, ethanol requires heavy government tax breaks to be economically competitive with gasoline. Making ethanol out of cellulose requires special enzymes that can break down the starchy fibers into fermentable sugars. But the enzymes are expensive. They used to cost about $5 a gallon and have come down to less than 20 cents a gallon. Analysts say if the price of enzymes can get down to ten cents a gallon, making ethanol from cellulose will be competitive with making it from corn or other food crops.

ALTERNATIVE FUEL ACRONYMS

AFV Alternative Fuel Vehicle

CNG Compressed Natural Gas

E85 A blend of 85% ethanol and 15% gasoline

FFV Flexible Fuel Vehicle (Ford)

GTMV Gasoline Tolerant Methanol Vehicle (Chrysler)

LPG Liquefied Petroleum Gas

LNG Liquefied Natural Gas

M85 Mixture of 85% methanol alcohol & 15% gasoline

NGV Natural Gas Vehicle

VFV Variable Fuel Vehicle (GM)

Anaerobic Digester

2011-12-10T19:20:00.002+02:00

We have covered on the website twice before (June 2004 and Feb 2006) about our trials and plans to expand the water treatment to include Anaerobic digestion alongside our existing Aerobic treatment.

A good web resource on the treatment can be found at Wikipedia.

As detailed previously we are now running phase 2 of this project and in October 2006 the plant will be running 24/7 with full production of Biogas expected in November 2006. The plant is authorised under our IPPC Authorisation issued this year.

We are producing Biogas which in turn contains methane which untreated is a potent greenhouse gas. We have installed a flare that treats the methane as follows:

Burning one molecule of methane in the presence of oxygen releases one molecule of CO2 (carbon dioxide) and two molecules of H2O (water):

CH4 + 2O2 CO2 + 2H2O

Once we have quantified the amount and quality of gas then we will use the energy in engines or boilers to replace Natural Gas.

At present we are producing around 2 m3 per hour of Biogas and this should increase to over 30 m3 per hour by November 2006. To use a simple analogy the daily production of methane at 30m3 per hour is the equivalent volume of methane that a herd of 1200 cows would produce approximately a day.

The new plant is computer controlled and we plan in late 2006 to have a live web application that can show gas production figures via our website. This is already available to operators on site.

Below are 2 screenshots from the plant

Main Control Screen

Flare Control

Gasification

2011-12-10T19:14:00.002+02:00

Gasification is a process in which the transformation of any carbon based material into gaseous fuels is possible without combustion. Instead, a chemical reaction is created by combining waste with oxygen and steam under high pressure, generally at temperatures in excess of 800°C. Gasification is "the continuation of the pyrolysis process, where the residual carbon is oxidized from the glowing embers of the pyrolysis coke” (Bilitewski et al., 1997). The process parts everything in molecules and produces syngas, which contains carbon monoxide, hydrogen and methane. The gas has a net calorific value of 4-10 MJ/Nm³ (Zafar, 2009) and can thus be used to generate electricity. A typical gasification plant diagram can be seen in Figure 1.

Schematic of a MSW Gasification and Power Generation Plant (Energos, 2009)

The gasification and power generation plant is composed of basically four modules: a waste pre-processing unit, the gasification/oxidation chambers, the energy recovery section and finally the flue gas cleaning module. In the pre-processing module the waste is sorted, grinded, shredded, stored and dried with the purpose of obtaining a gasification-friendly feed material, free of metals, glass and plastic bottles.

The second module consists of two chambers. Gasification of the solid waste takes place in the primary chamber, at below the stoichiometric air requirement and at temperatures between 400 and 1000°C the carbon reacts with oxygen and water steam to form syngas, i.e. carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide and hydrogen (Equations 1, 2, 3, 4, 5). The ratio of CO/CO² occurring in the gasifier is determined by the Boudouard reaction, at temperatures lower than 700°C the predominant product will be carbon dioxide, while at higher temperatures the predominant product will be carbon monoxide. In the high temperature oxidation unit, i.e. the secondary chamber, a staged oxidation of the syngas is facilitated by multiple injections of air and recycled flue-gas (Bilitewski et al., 1997; Energos, 2009; BREDL, 2009). At the end of the gasification grate, the bottom ash is discharged.

Equation 1: C + ½O₂ → CO

Equation 2: C + O₂ → CO₂

Equation 3: C + 2H₂O → CO₂ + 2H₂

Equation 4: C + H₂O → CO + H₂

Equation 5: C + CO₂ → 2CO

The last two modules work under the same principle that a waste incineration plant does. First the generated heat in the secondary chamber is utilized in a boiler to heat up the water pipes and convert water into steam to move a turbine and generate electricity. Finally, the remaining flue gases are cleaned using the dry sorption system. Lime is injected on the flue gas stream to adsorb the acid components, while the activated carbon adsorbs the dioxins, heavy metals and total organic carbon (Energos, 2009).

Satan eats Seitan

2011-11-04T18:20:00.002+02:00

Petro China’s Gas Reserve Tops World

2011-11-02T19:35:00.002+02:00

Petro China has the largest reserve of Natural Gas among world’s main energy companies. According to the latest estimate, Petro China has a total reserve of natural gas for about 33 years, followed closely by Woodside (30 years). Other big companies that have high reserve of natural gas include Exxon Mobil, Occidental and Oil Search. Petro China is one of the biggest listed companies in China and in the world.

Uranium Extraction: From Mining to Enrichment

2011-08-22T22:36:00.001+03:00

(Source: http://web.ead.anl.gov/uranium/guide/index.cfm, Depleted UF6 Management Information Network)

The basic steps involved in the process of uranium mining to the production of nuclear reactor fuel are shown in the diagram. Uranium ore is mined, and then transported to a milling facility where it is refined to uranium oxide. The oxide (yellowcake) is then converted to uranium hexafluoride to undergo enrichment. The enriched product can then be processed to reactor fuel for electricity generation via nuclear reactors.

The Big Eagle open pit mines on the south slope of Green Mountain near Jeffrey City, Wyoming. (Picture courtesy of: www.usnrg.com, U.S. Energy Corporation)

THE STAGES IN MINING AND MILLING

1) EXPLORATION Before mining can actually take place, the uranium ores are located by radiological studies. With the highest-grade deposits buried in deep rock formations, advanced technologies like satellite imagery, geophysical surveys, multi-element geochemical analysis and computer processing are used to search for the deposits. The potential deposits are drilled, and samples are extracted for studies by geologists. It is a long procedure that involves detailed geological and economic evaluation of the grade and characteristics of the orebody. Mining engineers must then develop a mining plan to extract the ore. If the project has potential, environmental impact assessments and the public consultation process begin in order to file applications for regulatory approvals of the project. It is only after permits and licences are in place, that mine activities can begin. It can take decades before a discovery of an orebody can lead to electricity production. For example, Cameco’s McArthur River mine took 12 years to result in commercial production.

2) EXTRACTION Uranium-containing ore is retrieved. Uranium occurs in a variety of ores, and is traditionally mined from open pit or underground mines by drilling and blasting techniques. If the uranium ore is found near the surface, (less than 100 metres deep), the open pit mining method can be used. This method removes the surface soil and rock, and the pit is excavated to access the ore. If the ore is located further below the surface, underground mining methods are more economical. To access the ore, vertical shafts are dug and then tunnels called drifts, are cut directly to the deposit.

The uranium content of the ore is extremely low (usually less than 0.3%), so large amounts of the ore have to be mined. For example, Olympic Dam has an ore grade of 0.05%, which means that for every tonne mined, only 5kg of uranium is retrieved. Thus, large amounts of waste rock are produced during this process. In some cases the ore may be extracted by in situ leaching. This process extracts the uranium from underground by dissolving the uranium from the ore, and then pumping uranium-bearing solution to the surface.

Did you know that uranium is one of the most abundant elements in the earth’s crust? (Picture courtesy of:www.cameco.com, Cameco Corporation)

Cameco’s Key Lake Open Pit Mine in 1994 (Picture courtesty of: www.cameco.com, Cameco Corporation)

3) CRUSHING The ore is usually processed at milling facilities close to the mine site in order to minimize transportation costs, as well as to prevent release of the products into the environment. The ore must be crushed and grinded into smaller fragments. After initial crushing, the ore is passed through a mill which grinds the rock further into a fine powder. It is this process that creates the fine particles that can readily be emitted into the environment. The small size of the rock increases the radioactive surface area, and also makes it difficult to completely isolate from the surroundings.

4) CHEMICAL LEACHING In this process, large amounts of water, sulphuric acid and thickener are added to the ore powder.

The UO2 is oxidised to UO3:

UO3 + 2H+ ====> UO22+ + H2O UO22+ + 3SO42- ====> UO2(SO4)34-

The uranium is able to bond with the acid, and as a result about 90% of the uranium can be separated from the host rock.Sulfuric acid leaching is the most common method, but some mills require alkaline leaching when the ore has basic components which can react heavily with acid.

5) PRECIPITATION and DRYING The uranium solution is purified by ion exchange systems and solvent extration technologies. When the uranium precipitate is extracted from solution, filtered and dried, the product is a yellow uranium oxide (U3O8), called “yellowcake”. Yellowcake contains between 60% and 90% uranium by weight.

6) STORAGE and SHIPPING The yellowcake is then transported to enrichement facilities to be processed to reactor fuel.

Uranium Oxide (Yellow Cake)

Oil-shale extraction technology

2011-07-31T11:17:00.002+03:00

As a long-term petroleum source, oil-shale reserves are vast but remain elusive. Oil-services giant Schlumberger is aiming to change that with the recent purchase of a radio-frequency (RF)/critical-fluid (CF) extraction technology that unlocks this vast resource and brings it to the surface in a cost-effective and environmentally sound manner.

Oil shale is a type of sedimentary rock that contains solid bituminous material, known as kerogen, that releases oil or gas when heated. While oil-shale deposits are found in many places around the world, the largest deposits by far reside in the Rocky Mountain region of the U.S. Oil-shale reserves are estimated at nearly 2 trillion bbl in the states of Colorado, Utah and Wyoming alone, according to the U.S. Department of Energy. This quantity would be sufficient to meet U.S. demand at current levels for the next 250 years.

However, successfully harvesting this vast resource has been technically, economically, and environmentally challenging. The most common methods of recovering oil shale include a mining step, in which the shale is mined from the surface or underground and then transported to a facility for further processing. The waxy, solid nature of the shale necessitates a heating process, known as retorting, to release the trapped oil and allow it to flow out of the rock matrix.

The large environmental and processing costs associated with this method of oil-shale extraction have prevented it from becoming a major petroleum source. According to an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) prepared by the U.S. Department of the Interior's Bureau of Land Management, the environmental impacts include emission of greenhouse gases during mining and processing, disturbance of mined lands, need for disposal of the spent shale, use of water resources, and impacts on air and water quality. These factors contribute to the relatively high cost of producing oil from shale, which the EIS estimates at greater than USD60/bbl.

raytheon-rf-cf-web.jpgThe RF/CF extraction technology developed by Raytheon and technology partner CF Technologies aims to lower these environmental and processing impacts dramatically by employing an in-situ retorting process. In this process, wells are drilled into the shale strata using standard drilling equipment. Raytheon's RF transmitters (which have been used extensively for radar and guidance systems) are then lowered into the well. The transmitters emit a radio signal at a frequency that uniformly heats the shale and liquefies the trapped petroleum.

Supercritical carbon dioxide is then pumped into the heated shale formation to extract the oil from the rock and carry it to a producing well. At the surface, the carbon dioxide is separated from the oil, reprocessed, and pumped back into the injection wells. The recovered oil is sent for further processing and refining.

Raytheon estimates that this combination of RF technology to heat the shale followed by a critical-fluid flush to bring the oil to the surface will result in significant environmental benefits and cost savings over other shale-extraction methods. The technology can retrieve 4 to 5 bbl of oil for every barrel consumed during the extraction process, while other in-situ retorting processes reportedly extract only 1.5 to 3 bbl for every barrel consumed.

In addition, the RF/CF technology enables extraction to start 1 to 2 months after the transmitters are activated. Other in-situ methods using in-ground electrical heating systems may take 2 to 3 years to heat the shale sufficiently for oil to flow.

The sale to Schlumberger promises to open up new application areas for this technology and is part of a Raytheon initiative to expand its RF and communication-systems technologies to a customer base outside of the security and defense arenas. Four years ago, Raytheon created the Mission Innovation group within its Integrated Defense Systems (IDS) division, which had a goal of focusing mature defense capabilities to address challenges in energy exploration and the environment.

"Schlumberger is the world leader in bringing new technology to the field for the exploration and production of oil," said Lee Silvestre, vice president of the Mission Innovation group of Raytheon IDS. "Its acquisition of this technology is an important milestone in Raytheon's approach to applying proven technology that can unlock potential in adjacent markets."

To learn more about this oil-extraction technology, contact Raytheon.

The Global Pursuit for Nuclear Fuel

2011-07-09T20:12:00.002+03:00

Brazil plans expansion to uranium enrichment

Brazil plans to invest $1.8 billion to expand its capability to enrich uranium for commercial nuclear reactors. A conservative estimates is this level of investment could add at least 1-1.5 million SWU/year to its production rate.

Brazilian Energy minister Edisao Labao told local news media the country has 1.1 million tons of uranium to draw on to supply the plant. He said the objective of the new uranium enrichment facilities is to make Brazil self sufficient in its supply of nuclear fuel.

Brazil has manufacting capabilities to take the enriched uranium, as UF6, covnert its to solid powder, and complete production of fuel pellets and assemblies for commercial nuclear reactors. The intial conversion of Yellowcake to UF6 is carried out for Brazil by Areva in France.

Brazil is completing its third reactor, Angra 3, which is expected to enter revenue service in 2015. The government plans to build another four reactors in the next 20 years,

Brazilian nuclear trade press also reported that Brazil plans to export some of its enriched uranium to China and South Korea. Brazilian officials are especially interested in China's market given its ambitious plans to build at least 40 GWe of new nuclear energy power stations in the next 10 years,

UK Proposes using plutonium stocks for MOX fuel

(NucNet) The UK government has proposed using the country’s civilian separated plutonium stocks in mixed-oxide (MOX) fuel for nuclear reactors.

As part of a consultation that was launched on 7 February 2011 the government proposed long-term management options for the country’s civil plutonium stocks.

The three options are:

to reuse it in MOX fuel;
to immobilize it and dispose of it as waste; and
continued long term storage.

The government said its “preliminary view” is that the best option is to reuse the plutonium in MOX fuel.

It said MOX fuel fabrication is a proven and available technology that offers greater certainty of success, while allowing use of the inherent energy resource of the plutonium.

The UK is storing about 112 tonnes of civil separated plutonium. This amount includes about 28 tonnes of material belonging to overseas customers.

In the 1950s plutonium separation was carried out in the UK for defense purposes. In the 1960s when it was thought that fossil fuels would run out, this plutonium was made available as fuel for fast reactors.

Eventually, in 1994, the UK abandoned almost all research into fast reactors because it decided they would not be commercially viable in the foreseeable future.

South Korea pursues spent fuel reprocessing

A contentious negotiation with the U.S. is easing as South Korea agreed to a 10-year joint study to develop spent fuel reprocessing capabilities. It would modify a 1974 accord South Korea signed with the U.S. to not develop this technology.

Since then South Korea has developed a growing fleet of successful nuclear power plants and also entered the global market as an exporter of its designs.

In the latest round of talks, South Korea is said to be proposing development of pyro- processing methods for recycling its spent fuel. The extracted uranium and plutonium would be fabricated into MOX fuel.

(Update 02/11/11: While there is nothing in the news from South Korea about fast reactors, it would seem more likely the output of pyroprocessing would be to produce a new uranium oxide fuel for this type of reactor rather than MOX for an LWR.)

The method does not produce a pure stream of plutonium which makes it attractive in terms of nonproliferation objectives. The Korea Atomic Energy Institute is providing the technical development of the method.

The U.S. contribution will likely come from Argonne National Laboratory which has done R&D work on a pyro-processing technology. (image below via ANL)

High Oil Prices Make Renewable Energy Viable - But Also Grows The Oil Supply

2011-06-28T22:01:00.001+03:00

People talk a lot about alternative fuels being more viable with oil at such high prices. It also, however, makes other, more exotic, fossil fuel extraction techniques viable. This piece in the UK’s Independent outlines how oil reserves are understated because certain known fields are too expensive to extract at this time - and therefore are excluded from oil reserve projections (an important point that I would wager that many investors don’t understand).

The risk for green investors (and the environment for that matter) is that, if true, tapping oil reserves such as these could grow oil supply over current projections (even if its at these current high prices) - driving out the peak oil scenario longer than anticipated by Wall Street. (This is the kind of stuff investors and analysts miss all the time).

Cool Chart from Oil and Gas Journal Too…

Product Innovation

2011-06-19T11:19:00.000+03:00

Historically, vertical flight has required a compromise between hover performance and forward speed. If you look at efficiency vs. speed image on the right; the desired helicopter attributes (good hover efficiency, low speed controllability, low downwash, hover endurance) fall to the left of the plot. High disk loading aircraft such as Harriers and JSF, fall on the right of the plot: while fast, their hovering capabilities are limited, and their operational costs tend to increase due to the required power loading. Sikorsky is focused on creating an aircraft that operates to the right on this scale: providing more speed without compromising the essential attributes that make helicopters valuable.

The Sikorsky X2 TECHNOLOGY™ demonstrator aircraft will incorporate several new technologies and demonstrate them in a flight environment. These technologies include an integrated Fly-by-Wire system that allows the engine/rotor/propulsor system to operate efficiently, with full control of rotor rpm throughout the flight envelope, high lift-to-drag rigid blades, low drag hub fairings, and Active Vibration Control. In addition, the aircraft will be used as a 'flying wind tunnel' to determine the main rotor to propulsor aerodynamic interaction, shaft angle optimization for performance, and blade tip clearance for a range of maneuvers. This will allow optimization of the X2 TECHNOLOGY™ suite for future products.

Sikorsky is well on its way in completing the design of the X2 TECHNOLOGY™ Demonstrator with important milestones right on the horizon.

Shuanghuan Sceo: Chinese BMW X5 Copy-Cat Coming To Europe!

2011-05-23T23:21:00.005+03:00

They just won’t let it go, will they? What if every Chinese car tested by Germany’s ADAC has miserably failed at the crash tests; who cares! Just keep bringing them in and at some point we’ll accept them. Following the Landwind SUV and the Brilliance BS6 Sedan, next up from China is the Shuanghuan Sceo SUV that will be distributed by a new French car dealer named “AZ Motors”. The latter announced that it has been appointed as distributor of the Chinese 4x4 in France, Belgium and the Netherlands.

However, with the Sceo, safety isn’t the only thing Europeans should be worried about as you don’t need the imagination of J.K. Rowling to see that Shuanghuan’s SUV is inspired from the previous generation BMW X5 with a touch of Toyota Land Cruiser up front. We might find it hilarious, but we’re sure as hell that BMW execs

Companies refining and distributing petroleum products

2011-05-15T11:36:00.002+03:00

To assist the modeller in providing a consistent and (more or less) prototypical appearance to their tanker fleets it is necessary to have some understanding of the oil industry itself. This can further be broken down into firms providing specialist services and the general oil companies. It should be noted that there was some inter-refinery traffic, one company might buy some product from another to create a required mix or to cover whilst plant maintenance was carried out. Hence just because you have modelled an Esso refinery you might also see other oil company tank wagons visiting the site. In the main however a refinery deals primarily with the traffic of the owning company. Customers would be more likely to obtain supplies from a distribution depot than direct from the refinery, although this did (and presumably still does)happen.

Oil Companies

For more on oil company branding see also Appendix One - Garages and Petrol Stations.
For details on Lubrication and other specialist oil suppliers see Lineside Industries - Lubricating Oils and Associated Works.

It is impractical to cover the details of all companies manufacturing or trading in oil products, a good start for anyone interested in these areas is Mr. R. Tourret's book 'Petroleum tank wagons of Britain' (see bibliography for details). There are rather a lot of companies called Standard Oil ofsomewhere, these were formed when the American giant Standard Oil Co was broken up in 1911 (after it was found to be a monopoly and was accused of price fixing and various other nefarious activities). The result was over thirty smaller companies, many of whom retained the word Standard in their title. There were a lot of British companies with 'oil' in their name, but many of these were vegetable or fish oil related industries. Examples include the Erith Oil Works who initially dealt in fish oils, later seed oils and the Kosmo-Lubric Oil Co of Stalybridge, Cheshire who were listed as oil importers and refiners in 1914, with a range of lubricants on offer, but on further investigation turned out to be dealing in vegetable oils. Seed crushing and its associated oil is discussed in 'Lineside Industries - Industries associated with docks'.

Where I was not able to trace a refinery operated by the company I have indicated this in the text, however although some firms bought their fuel from the oil companies others operated their own tank farms and imported the refined product (early examples being Power Petroleum and Russian Oil Products). Also companies sometimes went in and back out of the refinery business. Most of the firms listed below have at some point operated tank wagons several of which have been seen in model form.

In 1939 all the petroleum oil firms were taken into an arrangement known as the 'pool'. The oil and petrol companies formed one pool, lubricating oil firms formed another. During the war only a single grade of petrol was produced for civilian use, with quite a low octane rating (improved slightly in 1942). Petrol was not 'branded' during the war and no advertising was used. These arrangements continued until 1953, at which point the petrol companies resumed their advertising and gradually reintroduced their multiple grade distributions.

The UK oil industry was moderately stable until the 1960s, the listings below are divided into companies that operated in the UK before 1960 and those that appeared after that date.

Pre 1960s Brands

Carless
This was one of the first UK oil companies, formed in 1859 by Eugene Carless. Carless became the leading distillery in Britain for the newly imported American crude oil, and made advances in refining coal tar and shales, from which were derived benzolene, paraffin oil, burning naphtha and carburine. In 1872 a partnership with George Bligh Capel and John Hare Leonard brought a name change with the company trading as Carless, Capel and Leonard. Leonard became the sole proprietor within eighteen months. Following a merger with a nearby chemical firm run by a Frederick Simms (who was associated with Gottlieb Daimler) Simms suggested the trade name of Petrol, to be used for a motor launch spirit in 1893, and this was accepted by William Leonard. It was not however accepted for registration as a trade mark as it was regarded by the Registrar as a descriptive word. Marketing petrol firmly linked the firm with the motor car and Carless Capel and Leonard supplied their new fuel for the Emancipation Run to Brighton in 1896. Simms and Leonard were both founder members of the Automobile Club, later the R.A.C. At the turn of the century Carless Petrol was still virtually the only British source of highly refined motor spirit, and by 1906 the firm had 1,500 agents throughout the country. In 1909 or thereabouts they had tank wagons branded 'standard petrol' with the word 'Movil' in smaller lettering centrally below the filling dome above the Class A band with the company name below the band also in red. By the 1930s the branding was Caress petrol in red above the Class A band with the company name in black below the band and under that Petrol & Naphtha Distillers.

Fig ___ Carless 'Petrol' tank

The company developed the Coalite solid fuel in the 1920s and made TNT during the 39-45 war. The Company opened a new refinery at Harwich in 1964 taking on gas condensate from North Sea Oil. In 1965 a refining and storage depot was established at Longport, Staffordshire. With increasing demands for capital, Carless Capel and Leonard became a public company in 1971. Carless Petroleum was established as subsidiary in 1973, and Carless was also involved in on-shore fields at Humbly Grove and Wytch Farm. Production ceased at Hackney Wick in the early 1970s and the administration moved from the Hope Works to Petrol House, formerly a dry cleaning factory owned by Lush and Cook. The subsidiary Carless Solvents moved to Romford in 1984 and Carless Petroleum moved to Colchester in 1977. The parent company continued trading as Carless, Capel and Leonard Ltd from 1872 to 1989. In 1989 the Company was taken over and broken up and a new company, Carless Refining and Marketing, was established as a wholly owned subsidiary of Repsol at Romford, they specialised in the production of high quality solvents, oils and speciality products for industry. The company was a leading supplier of solvents to the printing ink industry for over forty years. By the early 21st Century Carless Refining and Marketing was owned by a Spanish firm. It was then bought and merged with a company called Petrochem, (formed in 1981) to become Petrochem Carless, since when wagons bearing the new company branding have been seen on the railways.

Young's Paraffin Light and Mineral Oil Company of Pumpherston, Pumpherston Oil Co. Ltd, Mid Calder Oil Co, Broxburn Oil Co, Clippens Oil Company of Paisley, Oakbank Oil Company of Midcalder, Caledonian Mineral Oil Co. Ltd., Cobbinshaw and the Midlothian Oil Company of Straiton.
These were all Scottish producers of Paraffin oils from mined shales. Paraffin (so named on account of its want of affinity with most chemical substances) was discovered more or less simultaneously by Reichenbach in Germany and by Dr Christison, of Edinburgh in about 1830. By the early 1830s people were experimenting with recovering this oil from shale deposits (up to this point these had been seen merely as colliery waste). In the 1840s a Manchester chemist by the name of James Young was asked to investigate oily deposits occurring in a coal mine at Alfreton, Derbyshire. He discovered that it contained small quantities of paraffin and set up a works to extract this material close by the mine. The process is more fully described above. Scotland's oil production began in the 1850s with James 'Paraffin' Young's first works producing oil from the coal-like Torbaneite mineral deposits near Bathgate. There was a shortage of oil (mainly for lamps) and the whale oil and vegetable oil industries could not meet the demand. Mr Young's new process seemed to have developed just at the right time, but the emergence of cheap American mineral oil reserves threatened the fledgling industry. A Midlothian pioneer William Young (no relation of James) further developed the process or refining shale and allowed Scotland's oil industry to survive.

Young's Paraffin Oil Co Ltd. was for a time the largest of the Scottish shale oil firms and also the only one to make and sell oil lamps. Young's Oil Coy Ltd were operating branded 10 ton tank wagons in 1902 (registered on the North British Rly) and built up a fleet of tank wagons. Young's was purchased by BP in 1919 but their liveries (they had several) probably survived for at least ten years or so (quite possibly longer - see Oakbank Oil Co below).

The Oakbank Oil Co works opened in the mid 1860s (as the original shale oil patents expired). This company operated the first all-electrically powered Scottish mine in 1903. By the mid 1930s all the mines were operated by electricity and they even established their own local 'grid' to distribute power supplied by power stations at the retort works. The Oakbank company had an interest in high capacity tank wagons, including a six wheeler (rather similar to the 1930s milk tanks) and a couple of bogie tanks (they also operated a fleet of more conventional tanks). There are proper drawings in Mr Tourret's book on Petroleum Rail Tank Wagons (see Bibliography for details), the sketches below are mine and may well be wrong in detail. Oakbank's brand continued in use after the take-over by BP in 1919, they were still having wagons built and in their livery in 1940. The bogie tanks survived into BP ownership into the 1960s (again see Mr Tourret's book for details).

Fig ___ Oakbank tanks

The Pumpherston Oil Co was operating a 10 ton twin cylinder tank wagon in 1908, although the lettering on such small tanks would represent a challenge. Registered on the North British Railway this wagon was very similar in appearance to the N Gauge 'twin gas tank' wagon kit from W&T.

Broxburn Oil Co operated some sulphuric acid tanks and presumably also operated tankers for paraffin and liquid residues.

Fig ___ Scottish shale oil company logos

Scottish product names such as Smith's Royal Standard Lamp Oil, Sunlight Oil, and Taylor's Paraffine were all well known brands, Royal Standard Oil became (briefly) a worldwide brand (and many a Scot will tell you it may have prompted the choice of name in America of Standard Oil). The imported American lamp oils were cheaper but had a lower flashpoint which meant they were more likely to cause fires if spilled. In response to increasing public concern over deaths from oil lamp accidents, the Scottish oil producers campaigned to restrict competition from unsafe imported oils and highlighted the safety merits of their own products.

Fig ___ Royal Standard adverting plate (post 1919)

Scottish Oil Agency Ltd, this organisation was (I believe) a distribution business, handling the output of the shale oil works. It was set up with Government backing during World War One. They expanded between 1918 and 1920 by absorbing other Scottish shale oil companies distribution services. They operated Class A and Class B tanks (some apparently carrying lubricating oils) and were still building distribution terminals in the later 1920s. I think they were later absorbed by Scottish Oils Ltd (but I am not certain on that).

Fig ___ Scottish Oil Agency Ltd tank

Scottish Oils Ltd This company was created in 1919 when APOC (BP) took over Young's, Oakbank and Pumpherston and in 1924 APOC built their refinery at Grangemouth on the Forth estuary near Edinburgh, for which this company provided at least some of the tank wagons. In the mid 1920 there were about 13 mines in operation (the mines tended to last only about five years as the deposits were scattered across the area) supplying the 6 remaining oil companies, all subsidiaries of Scottish Oils Ltd. I have not (yet) found any reference to Scottish Oils Ltd takers, the various shale oil companies seem to have continued trading under their original names (although many products were branded 'It's a BP Product', as per the Royal Standard lamp oil advert shown above). It may be however that the existing tanks were not repainted for some years.

Fig ___ Scottish Oils Ltd tank

Shale oil production in Scotland ceased in the early 1960s but there was an unsuccessful attempt to revive it in 1973. Scottish Oils Ltd still exists but is no longer in the shale oil business. According to the TUC The Young's Paraffin Light and Mineral Oil Company still have an office in Aberdeen and I gather that BP has a 'Pumpherston Works' but I don't know what it makes.

The first major foreign oil company to set up in Britain was the Anglo American Oil Co in 1888, this was the British distribution network for the American Standard Oil Co, these days known as Esso (Eastern Section Standard Oil) however Royal Daylight was the trading name which was used for their paraffin and domestic oils ranges and on many of their rail tank wagons. They used the name Standard Bitumen on at least some of their bitumen wagons prior to the mid 1930s.

When they started marketing motor spirit in 1896 they adopted the name Pratt's, sold as Pratt's Motor Spirit and later as Pratt's perfection Spirit. In the later 1920s the apostrophe was dropped and in 1928 they introduced Pratt's Ethyl (in 1921 a Mr Midgley in America discovered that adding tetraethyl lead (TEL) to petrol eliminated engine knocking. Subsequently several brands acquired the ethyl suffix).

Fig ___ Pratts logos

The Pratts brand is associated with one of the very few pre-war Class A bogie oil tankers, it was re-painted with the Esso logo in the later 1930s and soldiered on for several years but I do not know if it survived World War Two (the wagon and markings are described in the section on Goods Rolling Stock - Rail Tanks, Esso were always at the forefront of rail tanker use, owning up to a quarter of all the tankers in use at one time). The Pratts Perfection Motor Spirit name continued in use in England until 1935-6 when first Essolube (for oils) then Esso (for petrol) replaced the older brands.

Fig ___ Esso logos from the later 1930s

The Esso logo was originally just the lettering as shown above, the `Esso' logo with the blue oval was introduced in 1938/39 (hence a lick of paint can back-date a wagon to pre-war livery). The illustration below shows Esso delivery lorries in the 1960s (left) and later 1970s (right).

Fig ___ Esso lorries in 1960s and 1970s livery

Esso also sold paraffin, in the 1930s they used the Royal Daylight Paraffin brand, changing to Esso Blue after the war. This was a Class A liquid but as far as I am aware the rail tankers were not branded for this traffic.

Fig ___ Esso rail tank wagons showing evolution of liveries

Esso built a large refinery at Fawley on the South Coast in 1949 (there had been a refinery there since 1921 but I am not sure who operated it). Esso became part of the Exxon Corporation in 1978.

Mobil
This was established as the Standard Oil Company of New York, following the 1911 break up of Standard Oil and merged with the Vacuum Oil Corporation in 1931. The company traded in Britain as the Vacuum Oil Co from 1885 selling lubricants under the Mobiloil brand. Their oil blending and grease plant at Birkenhead (set up in 1910, after the warehouse burned down) included a grease plant and blending facilities and it was extensively developed until by 1939 it was one of the largest and most important blending units of its kind in Europe. This was bombed out in the war and rebuilt (lubricants are vital in wartime). Mobiloil was a major brand by the 1930s and in 1953 they purchased an oil storage depot at Coryton on the Thames and built a refinery there (beside the existing Shell refinery at Shell Haven) which came on stream in 1953. They then began selling petrol, originally under the Mobilgas name.

Fig ___ Mobilgas lorry in 1950s livery

I have found a reference to a 20 ton Class A anchor mounted rail tanker branded Mobil and owned by the Mobil Oil Co.Ltd. built in 1949 but I am not sure when that branding was applied to the wagon. It was in 1963 they changed their name to Mobil, introducing a new logo but still incorporating the flying horse, although Mobiloil continued as their oil brand until the 1970s. Mobil was the first major brand to adopt self service on a large scale in the mid 1960s. In (I think) the later 1980s they changed their logo to just the word Mobil with the 'O' in red and no flying horse. In 1996, Mobil's fuels operations in Europe were placed into a joint venture 70% owned by BP and the Mobil petrol brand disappeared from service stations. Mobil continued to sell lubricants through BP and independent service stations. In 1999 Mobil merged with Exxon and in 2000 BP acquired all the former Mobil petrol retailing assets as well as the Coryton refinery (but sold the refinery to Petroplus in 2007). Mobil returned to being purely a lubricant brand in Europe, and became the premium quality oil on sale at Esso service stations.

Fig ___ Mobil signs and pump tops

Around the end of the 19th and early 20th century the British oil industry expanded rapidly, Shell, Russian Petroleum, Anglo-Persian Oil Co, and Anglo Mexican Oil were all set up between 1890 and 1914.

Burmah Oil Company
This was set up in Glasgow in 1896 with the intention of developing oil interests in India. It was an early shareholder in Anglo-Persian Oil Company (APOC) and was the only oil company to operate in Burma until 1963 (when the oil fields were nationalised). Burmah was primarily an oils and petrochemicals company, petrol was always something of a side line. However in the 1960s Burmah began selling via petrol stations under their own brand, in the later 1960s they bought out the Curlew discount chain of stations (which they re branded Burmah) and the Major and Apex chains (which they did not re-brand as these were established firms). I have not yet found any illustrations of pre-1960s Burmah tanks, I assume they had some, the sketch below is based in a rather poor photo taken in the late 1960s or early 1970s I believe.

Fig ___ Burmah Oil tank

In 1966 they purchased Castrol Oil (the main British lubricant manufacturer). Halfords, the motor parts supplier, became a part of the Burmah Oil in 1969, following a takeover battle between Burmah Oil and Smiths Industries (Halfords was sold off again in 1983). In the 1970s Burmah Oil ran into financial difficulties and had to be helped out by the Bank of England, in 2000 the company was bought by BP-Amoco (now BP).

Fig ___ Burmah Oil - old logo and petrol station sign (introduced in 1969)

APOC & British Petroleum (see also Shell-BP below).
BP is one of the world's largest oil companies and is today (1987) Britain's largest company. BP began life as the Anglo-Persian Oil Company (APOC) in 1909, in 1913 APOC was partially nationalised in order to secure oil supplies for the Royal Navy and in 1917 they purchased a German owned oil distribution company called British Petroleum and established this as their main marketing subsidiary. Hence most road and rail tank wagons were thereafter marked BP rather than APOC. The wagons shown below are both unusual, the twin tank is in standard APOC livery, the two-compartment tank is in early BP livery (although this should I believe be a serif font not plain as shown).

Fig ___ APOC and early BP liveries

Regarding branding they used B.P. in a plain font but with the full stops on many items, and British Petroleum (in full and in a serif font) was the norm on tank wagons. In 1920, they held a staff competition to design a new logo and came up with the shield design. In 1921 there was at least one Class A wagon branded B.P. MOTOR SPIRIT but I am unsure as to the details of the logo used. I think the flag design (often seen as a tinplate sign in garages) came after the shield as the BP has the inverted commas round it and resembles the lettering used for the shield design.

Fig ___ BP logos

APOC changed its name to the Anglo Iranian Oil Company in 1935 but as far as I am aware the AIOC logo was never used. The name changed again to the British Petroleum Company in 1954. The company was fully developed oil company marketing a wide range of oils as well as petrol. They sold a lot of paraffin under the brand name 'Aladdin Pink' (the name changed after World War Two to 'Pink Paraffin'). The pink dye was added as a safety feature in order to prevent paraffin being mistaken for other liquids. An uncoloured form was sold (much more cheaply) as ‘White May’. BP acquired the chemical interests of the Distillers Company 1967 (Distillers group had purchased a small pharmaceuticals company which was doing well on the sales of a new drug called Thalidomide. This drug was then found to cause birth defects, as the new owners Distillers were held liable and had to sell most of their assets to pay the compensation and legal costs. Distillers, one of the countries biggest companies, was dramatically reduced in size).

BP built a large refinery at Coryton on the Thames in 1953 (where there had been a tank farm for imported oil for many years).

From 1932 until the end of 1975 Shell-Mex and BP had an 'Agency Agreement' in which they pooled their distribution network. During this period a lot of tanks were pooled and marked Shell BP, however petrol tankers could not be pooled as the two petrols were different. Hence Class A tanks in BP livery continued in use up until World War Two when the standard wartime dull grey livery was applied. As of 31 December 1975 BP Oil Limited became the BP group's wholly-owned refining and marketing subsidiary in the United Kingdom.

Shell (see also Shell-BP below).
Shell is an Anglo-Dutch oil-development and exploration concern Royal Dutch/Shell Group, and is one of the world's biggest companies. The business originated in the early 19th century with a curio shop in East London that sold shell ornaments. By the time the railways arrived in 1830 the dealer, Marcus Samuel, had built up an international trade in copra and oriental artefacts. They spotted a hole in the market for oil transportation from the main European supply in Baku (then Russia now Azerbaijan). The Rothchilds had invested heavily in building railways and digging tunnels to get the oil to the coast but a certain Mr Rockefeller (owner of Standard Oil) had monopolised the wooden barrel market (Standard Oil played rough, a bit like Microsoft in the later 20th Century). Mr Samuel and his associates commissioned (in secret) a fleet of oil tanker ships (it had to be in secret or Rockefeller would have seen to it that they failed.) Then oil was found in the Dutch East Indies and they built ships to bring the oil through the Suez canal to Europe. 1897 The Samuel brothers initially called their company The Tank Syndicate dealing in oil and kerosene (paraffin oil) using the name Asiatic Petroleum Company but in 1897 renamed it the Shell Transport and Trading Company. The British owned Shell Transport and Trading Co was then merged with the Royal Dutch Petroleum Company in 1907 becoming one of the worlds first multi-national companies. The company continued to expand and took over the Anglo Mexican Oil Company giving the brand name Shell Mex (this must have been in the early 1900s). The illustration below left is an early Shell Mex pup-top globe. Prior to World War Two Shell was the best selling petrol in the UK. Over the years there have been various changes to the logo as shown below with the date of introduction (they also used a plain red shell symbol on some of their advertising signs).

Fig ___ Shell logos

In 1912 the company built a tank farm at Shell Haven (the name is nothing to do with the company the place was already called that) and refining started at the site in 1916. Prior to 1917 Shell used British Petroleum to distribute their product in the UK, however at that time BP was a German owned company and during World War One this told against the Shell brand, who therefore set up their own in-house distribution network. In 1948 a further expansion at Shell Haven added a 'crude distillation plant' to handle oil from Kuwait (this took two years to build, opening in 1950). The Shell refinery at Stanlow dates back to 1924, when a small bitumen plant was established at the site, bringing in the crude product in rail tankers and shipping out the refined products. The site was built up over the years into a full oil refinery, in the 1970s an oil pipeline was constructed from Amlwch, Anglesey to Stanlow so that large tankers could pump oil ashore for the refinery but rail tank traffic remained a major feature, shipping out the product of the plant. The Anglesey pipeline closed in the 1980s, replaced by a much shorter 15 mile line to the Tranmere Oil Terminal on the River Mersey. Output is delivered by pipeline via the UKOP pipeline, road, rail, and the Manchester Ship Canal.

The Shell business has always made use of rail transport, however the matter of livery seems a little complicated. The examples shown are intended to give some idea of the basic liveries applicable to the stated periods, to assist when selecting a ready-to-run model. However this is a tiny selection and if modelling a wagon you need a good photo (Mr Tourret's book on tanks wagons is a good starting point, see Bibliography)

Fig ___ Shell tanks pre Shell-BP

In 1927 they had at least one triple compartment tank with odd external pipework and a discharge pump on one end marked Shell Lubrication Oil (their number No.2454 1927 and registered on the LMS), this had a very light coloured body with (I think) red lettering. I believe Shell were also behind a company called Lubricant Oil Producers who operated 45 ton tanks in the later 1960s.
Shell is the world's largest oil and gas producer, with the largest oil reserves, and is responsible for 5% of the world's oil and gas production (1987). It has 2,000 operating companies worldwide. It is also the world's largest retailer, with (1994) 40,000 petrol stations in 100 countries. Its sales turnover in 1992 amounted to more than the gross national product of any country except the 23 richest.

Shell-BP
Shell-BP was a joint oil shipping and marketing operation within the UK only, set up in 1932 when the Great Depression hit. The statement released was as follows:

" The Anglo-American Oil Company, the Anglo-Persian Oil Company, the Burmah Oil Company, the Mexican and Canadian Eagle Oil Companies, and the Shell group of companies, considering that the present currency difficulties can best be met and most speedily brought to a successful conclusion by the closest possible industrial co-operation, have decided to that end to collaborate to the fullest extent in the United Kingdom. They will accordingly develop ways and means to secure that this co-operation will afford the unhampered supply of the requirements at the lowest possible cost. They hope that other industries and similar organisations will follow their example. The world is faced with the most serious crisis in its history, and co-operation amongst the industrialists is the main factor which must tell in the end in providing the remedy for the world's present troubles, because industry provides the only real necessities of life and gold need not play such an important role".

Originally S.M. & B.P.'s was owned 40% each by Shell and BP and 20% by the Eagle Group but in 1959 the Shell group took over the Eagle group, and their 20% share of ownership.

This joint operation lasted until 1976 when Shell and BP again split their distribution networks. During this period the lorries and railway tanks were marked SHELL-BP. Not all the railway tanks were marked in the joint logo however, the specialised oils were not joined and motor spirit (petrol) tanks remained separate as the two petrols were different The basic livery for Class B tanks is shown below on an elderly rectangular tank (some shell-BP tank in the 1960s dated back to the 1880s).

Fig ___ Shell-BP tank wagon in early livery

There were many variations on the livery, I read somewhere that some class A tanks had the word SHELL (plain lettering in red, not the logo) on one side with BP (in a serif font and green) on the other, both in lettering about three feet high, these would not have been used for petrol (the two brands were different) but may have been used for other Class A liquids. This asymmetric marking was I believe the standard on the road tankers until after the war when the logos were used in place of the names. The picture below is a 1925 Thornycroft with a 600 gallon (2,728 litres) tank (Shell bought six of these in 1925). The illustration based on a tracing of a photo of a restored tanker on show at Hampshire County's collection of rare Thornycroft vehicles at Milestones.

Fig ___ Shell-BP lorry in early 1932

In about 1955 the road and rail tankers changed to having the company logo's on the sides in place of the names. On the lorries these were at either end of a white rectangle (the tank body was red), in the centre was a red rectangle with the words 'petroleum products'.

Fig ___ Mid 1950s to early 1960s Shell-BP lorry markings

In Mr Tourret's book on Petroleum Tank Wagons (see Bibliography) there are photos of Class B tanks bearing variations this sinage, but I am not sure if they ever ran in traffic. The sketch below shows an in-traffic wagon using the new logos. The sketches below are typical for the later 1950s on.

Fig ___ Shell-BP tank wagons in post war livery

From 1966 the Shell and the BP Service Station networks were managed by separate sales organisations within Shell-Mex and B.P and in 1976 the two companies decided to end their co-operation in the UK distribution market. The road lorries were then re-branded with the individual company livery, although the rail tankers took a lot longer to be brought into line.

Fig ___ Shell-BP lorry in early 1960s

Benzole & By-Products Ltd
This company, of Mitcham, Surrey, had some Class A wagons built in the 1920s which were marked as carrying '"B.M." Motor Spirit'.

Carburine Motor Spirit & Glico Petroleum
The Gas Lighting Improvement Co Limited based at West Ham marsh, London was established in 1888. By about 1900 they were selling Carburine motor fuel (derived from coal tar) and operating a small fleet of Class A tankers to carry it, initially branded with the company name above the red line and London below with the number to the left and the 'no naked light' warning to the right, both below the line.

Fig ___ Carburine enameled sign

By 1914 they were selling 'Carburine' and 'Gilco' motor spirit and motor oils, as well as 'Gilco' turps, benzene, benzolene, benzol and even solvent naphtha for paint and varnish manufacture. The name 'Glico' is actually the company initials (Gas Lighting Improvement Co), in much of their earlier advertising they had used G.L.I.CO and the customers started asking for Glico. In the 1920s they changed the company name to Glico Petroleum, however Carburine was an established brand and remained in use in parallel with Glico (the tank on below right was built several years after the name changed but was still branded Carburine). In the later 1930s they merged with Redline to become Redline-Glico. This company was taken over by Esso in the later 1950s.

Fig ___ Carburine & Glico tanks

Redline
Originally the Union Petroleum Products Co, selling 'Redline' and 'Ensign' brands of petrol the name changed to Redline Motor Spirit Co in the later 1920s. Early tanks resembled the example shown but had 'redline and ensign' above the central band, the word 'and' being half the height of the other two words, and 'motor spirit' below the band. The plate shown below was on top of one of the early 'iron maiden' type petrol pumps (the subsequent illuminated glass 'globes' were initially the same shape, later changing to round).

Fig ___ Redline tank and advertising plate

Following the merger with Glico in the later 1930s the brand above the Class A tank band was Redline Glico, they sold three grades 'Super Ethyl Petrol', 'Super Petrol' and 'Benzol Mixture'. Redline-Glico was a successful company, recognised as one of the larger UK companies but they were bought out by Esso in the later 1950s. The example livery shown serves from the mid 1920s through to World War Two. The illustration below shows a 1935 Leyland lorry in what I believe was the Redline-Glico road vehicle livery.

Fig ___ Redline-Glico road tank livery

National Benzole
This company was formed in 1919, 'Benzole' refers to an additive they employed, derived from coal tar. During the war plants had been set up to recover benzole for explosives manufacture, when the war ended the National Benzole Co. Ltd. was formed as a co-operative selling organisation by the benzole producers. At first they simply sold the benzole for use as an alternative to petrol, motorists liked the product but some preferred to mix it 50/50 with petrol (where it this prevented engine knocking and improved acceleration and smoothness). In 1922 the National Benzole brand (selling the benzole petrol mixture) was set up, obtaining its petrol supplies from B.P.

. National Benzole used a picture of Mercury (they called him Mr Mercury) in advertising and adopted the head (in black and gold) as their logo. The mixture proved to be very popular with British motorists and the National brand became a common sight at the roadside.

Fig ___ 1950 Austin K4 5 ton lorry in 1950s livery and tank in early 1960s livery

After the war they were the UK's best selling brand but were taken over by Shell-Mex-BP in 1957 (their operation being merged with the Power Petroleum business). During the late 1950s Benzole was found to be hazardous to health and therefore from the early 1960s onwards National only sold petrol, at this time they changed the logo to a 'more modern' yellow blue and white design, although still based on the Mr Mercury head.

Fig ___ National Benzole logos

From the later 1980s BP steadily re-branded the 'National' stations as BP, but in 2001 a Scottish firm (Scottish Fuels, formed in 2001 by buying some of BP's local assets in Scotland) licenced the name and for several years there were several stations using it, although the petrol was supplied by BP.

Dominion
This company started in 1923, supplying imported Russian petrol to English filling stations but became a wholly-owned subsidiary of Sealand Petroleum Co. Ltd. when that company was incorporated in 1926 (Sealand was the UK branch of the US company Marland Oil which at the time owned 10 percent of the worlds oil reserves. Marland later became Conoco, re which see below). Sealand was sold off in 1933 to Shell-Mex & BP Ltd, however the Dominion name continued to be used as a discount brand at free stations until 1957. Dominion petrol stations sold Royal tyres (made in Canada I believe). The original Dominion pump globe was a distinctive pyramid topped affair (below left), this was to be replaced in the later 1930s by a more rectangular design, however this does not seem to have caught on and at a lot of stations the old design was shown as an outline drawing on a spherical globe.

Fig ___ Dominion Petroleum logo and globes

I could not find any reference to a UK refinery owned by either Dominion or Sealand/Marland, nor could I find any reference to either rail or road tank wagons. They may have had both but equally (prior to the takeover by Shell-BP) they may have used hired-in rail tanks and set up distribution arrangements with local hauliers.

Russian Oil Products (R.O.P.)
This was a UK registered independent company set up in 1925 that distributed Russian petrol from the Caspian Sea within the UK during the 1920s and 30s, branded as R.O.P. and also as ZIP for their premium grade petrol. R.O.P. was sold to Regent in 1948. They had no refinery but bought petrol on the 'spot market' via brokers and sold it on to the retailers, usually at below oil company prices. This would entail a simple 'tank farm' close by a port. They had a fleet of both Class A tanks (for petrol) and Class B tanks (for paraffin, marked Kerosene, illustrated in Mr Tourret's book on petroleum tank wagons).

Fig ___ R.O.P. tanker and pump globes

Power Petroleum
Originally formed as the Medway Oil & Storage Co they operated a refinery on the Isle of Grain cracking imported Russian paraffin. Power Petrol was their distribution business set up in the early 1920s (the company then changed its name to Power Petroleum). They bought their supplies of Russian oil on the spot market and sold this on to retailers. This would entail a simple 'tank farm' close by a port. They were operating tank wagons from the mid 1920s (possibly earlier). They were taken over by the joint Shell-Mex & BP Ltd. distribution organisation in 1934 but the brand continued in use for some time under the new ownership, the sketch below shows pre-war and immediate post-war tank liveries. Their 'logo' in the 1920s and 30s consisted of a raised hand with the word Power on it as shown, they had glass pump globes made in this shape. Post war the globes were a simple flat sided diamond shape with the word Power on them in green (these may have appeared in the later 1930s).

Fig ___ Power petrol tanks

The illustration below shows the 1950s livery for road tankers (taken from a 1:76 scale Vanguards model) and the post war petrol pump globe design.

Fig ___ 1950s Power petroleum road tanker and post war pump globe

Cleveland Oil
Cleveland petrols were formed in 1928 as the Petroleum Storage and Finance Corporation Ltd. to acquire the undertaking of Cleveland Petroleum Products Company and to carry on business as shippers, importers, exporters and distributors of petrol and allied products. They were supplied by ICI with benzol (and possibly synthetic petrol) and by Distillers Ltd with alcohol which they blended with petrol, marketing their fuels as Cleveland Motor Spirits and Cleveland Discol Motor Spirit respectively ('Discol' was an abbreviation of Distillers Company Alcohol). I could not find any reference to an refinery owned by Cleveland (Standard Oil of New Jersey was a major partner in the original business) however by 1938 Anglo-American owned 51 percent of the share capital and in 1954 it acquired a further 37 percent In 1958 Cleveland became its wholly-owned subsidiary of Esso (as it was then called), but the Cleveland name and blended fuels continued in production, trading as the Cleveland Petroleum Products Co. This gave Cleveland five different petrols at a time when many firms had only two or three. Cleveland also marketed their Iceberg brand of oils and greases. In April, 1963 Cleveland had changed the name of its 50/50 Mixture (i.e. a mixture of 50 per cent, standard grade and 50 per cent, premium grade petrol) to Cleveland Premium, but the octane rating (94$) and the retail price (4s. 7d.) remained unchanged. This annoyed Shell and BP as it effectively undercut their own (higher octane) 'Premium' brands. In 1973, Esso chose to end the Cleveland brand and gave up selling benzole or alcohol blends. Cleveland's 2,000 filling stations were switched to the Esso brand. The illustration shows the pre-war logo and what I believe was the post war delivery lorry livery.

Fig ___ Cleveland pre-war logo and post war lorry livery

Cities Service Oil Co
Set up in 1927 as the British arm of a very large American oil company (the odd name came from their involvement in providing municipal services in the US). In the 1930s this firm had a fleet of Class A tank wagons carrying their 'Citex Motor Spirit' in the UK which they supplied to independent retailers. One of their brands was 'Citex Koolmotor alcohol blend spirit', a petrol with 25 percent alcohol mixed in, introduced in 1932 (the petrol being imported from America and the alcohol sourced in the UK). At the time Nature magazine commented; A mixture of alcohol in petrol has been in common use in racing cars for a year or two, but now the ordinary public will have for the first time an opportunity of testing its merits, in particular the absence of knocking. The British petrol supply business was bought by Petrofina (of Belgium) in 1953 and re branded Fina. The American company changed their name to CITGO in 1965 and were bought out by Occidental Petroleum in 1982 it is now owned by a Venezuelan company.

Fig ___ Cities Service logo and Citex petrol tin

Cory Brothers
This company were based in London, they built an oil storage depot (and possibly a refinery) at what is now called Coryton on the Thames. They had operated a fleet of Class A tanks in the 1920s and 30s branded Corys Motor Spirit and Class B tanks branded Corys Fuel Oil. In 1950 they sold the Coryton site to Vacuum Oil Co (Mobil Oil) and ceased selling petrol.

Fig ___ Cory's motor spirit 2 gallon can

This firm started life as a coal merchant on the grand scale, Cory Bros mines in Wales supplied coal to ships coaling stations around the world. They were at one time the owner of the largest private owner wagon fleet in the UK (mostly coal wagons, the tank fleet was never very large). In 1942 the company was bought by the Powell Duffryn Group, but maintained its identity. In the 1960s Cory's were a distributor for Shell-BP domestic heating oils (a business they stayed with until the 1980s). The road delivery tankers were branded Shell-BP but had the Cory logo on the cab doors (illustrated above under 'Distribution Centres and goods-yard retailers')and in the later 1960s they were involved with Hovermarine, a hovercraft company. They operated 'shipping agents' in many ports (I know this company well as they were one of the shipping agents used by the P&O). In 1972 W.M. Cory & Son was bought out by the Ocean Group (an international shipping and distribution company). In the 1980s they closed down the oil distribution business. The Coryton district of Cardiff is named after Sir Herbert Cory, one of the brothers of the title.

Fina
This is the British arm of the Belgian company Petrofina, they started trading in the UK in the later 1940s but only established a British retail brand in 1953 when the bought out Cities Service Oil Company Ltd. (an existing distributor of petroleum products) and several small distribution chains. Fina ware themselves bought out by Total in 1999.
Fina were buying and using railway tank wagons in their livery by the later 1950s (some of which were second hand stock). They have operated rail tankers, both Class A and B, in their livery. In the early years the Class A tanks were silver or very light grey with the word FINA about 30 inches (75cm) high on the upper side in red outlined in black. Under this was 'motor spirit' in black. The Class B tanks used the company logo, usually to the left and with 'fuel oil' in lettering about a foot high on the right.
The illustration below shows the early logo (left, still in use in 1958) and the more recent logo (right, in use by 1964).

Fig ___ Fina tank logos and petrol pump globe

By the later 1960s newer Class A tanks were dove grey and carried the standard Fina 'shield' logo to the left end of the tank, however I believe some of the new tanks used the old Class A livery (as seen on the Peco model below). The company used both 45 ton tanks and 100 ton bogie tanks in the new dove grey livery. The the 100 tonner livery was sketched from a photo taken in the late 1970s

Fig ___ Fina Class A tank markings

Total
This is a French company (a subsidiary of Compagnie Francaise des Petroles), Total was incorporated in the UK in 1955, started selling in the retail market in 1958 and began using rail tanks in 1968 to transport fuel imported from French refineries. Initially the UK business sold their product only to independent filling stations but from 1960 began buying their own petrol stations which they leased to tenants. Their (leased) Class B 100 ton bogie tankers were as shown below in the early 1980s, later in that decade they leased some four wheelers as shown below right.

Fig ___ 1980s leased tanks in Total livery

TOTAL operates two refineries in the UK, Lindsey Oil Refinery in Immingham (shown on the map as Killinghome and jointly owned with Fina plc.) and Milford Haven Refinery in West Wales.

Regent
This company appeared in the 1920s as and independent petrol station chain (no refineries they were just a distributor), they were purchased in 1930 by the Trinidad Oil Company to sell their (imported) products in the UK. They had a number of tank wagons during this period but I am unsure as to their livery (they bought some in Class A tanks 1942). The Regent Oil Company was formed in the United Kingdom in 1947 as a joint operation between the Texas Oil Co (Texaco Petroleum Products - see Texaco below) and the Trinidad Leaseholds Company. Texaco was an American petroleum company that had been operating in the United Kingdom since 1916. During the 1950s, Regent began to expand its operations, including selling branded petrol in the UK as well as shipping and refining ventures abroad. They operated large (for the time) tankers using ports such as Gloucester. Regent was then completely taken over by Texas Oil (Texaco) in 1956 but was then run as a joint operation by the US companies Texaco and Chevron until 1967. One retailer in 1956 displayed the notice: " Sold!—Regent to America together with the independence of thousands of British garages ". Texaco opened its Pembroke Refinery in South Wales in 1964.

Fig ___ Regent tanks

In 1967 the joint Texaco Chevron operation was wound up and after that date Texaco began replacing the Regent brand with the Texaco name. However, in 2004 the Regent brand name was reintroduced as Texaco consolidated some of its smaller brands under one name that would be familiar to UK customers.
The illustration below left is based on a Corgi model of a tanker in Regent livery, I believe the livery dates from the 1950s, the illustration on the right is based on the Vanguards 1:76 model and (I believe) shows the later livery.

Fig ___ Regent lorries in the 1950s and 60s

The picture below left is from a Regent ad from 1963, the lorry is delivering lubricating oils to a ship (hence the two ships officers). To the right are the original square and oddly shaped Regent pump glove and the later (late 1950s) design.

Fig ___ Regent lorry delivering lubricating oil in 1963 and pump globes

Regent stations sold Havoline lubricating oils (owned by Texaco) branded as 'A Regent Product' and their 'own' brand of paraffin, branded 'Super Green'.

Fig ___ Regent logo, Havoline Oil (a Regent product) and paraffin sign

Jet
This company was established in 1953, owned by and supplying a group of commercial vehicle owners. They started selling to other haulage firms, buying their fuel from Regent (Jet has never owned a refinery, it is an oil dealer). Jet then started building ocean terminals with large tank farms to take imported oil, mainly from Germany.

Fig ___ Jet's first lorry in the 1950s

In 1958 Jet entered the retail market, selling via independent petrol stations to the general public. A survey carried out by Jet at this time showed that about 7 per cent of all retailers in the United Kingdom were free of solus ties. At first Jet followed the price levels of the larger companies, but in early 1960 it adopted the policy of lower prices and lower retail margins (with the expectation of increased turnover). One thing that helped was that the octane rating of its petrol was higher than that sold by the other companies.

Jet initially painted their lorries all-over red, the first example has the stripes shown above but later trucks were plain red. The logo changed to the yellow box with black JET in the later 1950s, the white lettering on the tank says Jet Petroleum Ltd.

Fig ___ Jet lorry in about 1960

In June, 1961 Jet became a subsidiary of Continental Oil Company of Delaware (better known as Conoco, and since 2002 as ConocoPhillips), described by Jet as a 'big independent' with 'abundant sources of Libyan crude oil'. It was the intention that Jet should market this oil after it had been processed in German or Italian refineries run by Conoco. In the same year Jet purchased its first petrol station and introduced its first solus agreements. The company continued through difficult times, in the 1980s it expanded a bit then in 2001 it sold all its outlets, although it still supplies them with petrol.

Fig ___ Jet commercial tanker and distributors tanker in 2009

Images copyright and courtesy of ConocoPhillips

Lobitos Oilfields Ltd
This company was formed in 1908 to operate oil concessions in Peru, South America. Lobitos had its own refinery capacity in the United Kingdom but its main business was as an independent supplier in South America. Its main interest in Britain was the production of specialty products (white oils, transformer and cable oils and bitumen); petrol was produced only as an unavoidable by-product which the company supplied to retailers, commercial customers and ex-tank buyers.

Fig ___ Lobitos tank wagon

In 1962 they became a subsidiary of Burma Oil Co. but continued selling under their own brand. In 1964 the company's sales of petrol amounted to 12 million gallons. Nearly 80 per cent, of this total was supplied to the retail market, about 70 per cent of it in Northern Ireland where about half of the nearly 300 retailers marketing its petrol had entered into solus arrangements. In England, on the other hand, most of the petrol sold was to retailers without solus arrangements. Lobitos also owned a few petrol stations in the later 1950s and 1960s, branded Lobitos, which they set up because the solus schemes were killing the independent retailer market. The picture below is from a 1967 advert for Thornycroft lorries, the inset shows the Lobitos logo. Their railway did not use the logo (as far as I am aware).

Fig ___ Lobitos branding (used at petrol stations)

Berry Wiggins & Co
Established an oil refinery at Kingsnorth on the Hoo peninsular in Kent in 1930, accessed via a single line gated branch from the nearby Southern Railway line which ran as a three line set of long loops before serving numerous sidings in the works. This firm also operated a site at Weaste (near Manchester). This firm operated a large fleet of both Class A and Class B tank wagons, some of the latter being for bitumen and marked "Liquaphalt" in a yellowish roundel. Their Class A tankers had a similar logo design but with Kingsnorth Petroleum inside the roundel.

Fig ___ Berry Wiggins & Co branding for Class B (left) and Class A (right)

The Berry Wiggins complex ceased to refine oil in 1977, and refining at the comparatively newer BP Isle of Grain complex (built in 1951) also stopped in 1982. Subsequently, oil was shipped into the country in an already refined state, but deliveries were still made to the Isle of Grain thereafter, the last oil train not departing until 1999.

Butlers Chemicals Ltd. This company started life as a tar distillers (for details of that operation see under Lineside Industries - Coal Tar Distillers). In 1903, William Butler & Co (Bristol) Ltd formed a subsidiary called The British Refined Motor Spirit Co. selling benzole from a distillation plant purchased in the 1890s. Butlers pulled out of the tar distilling business in 1962, by 1965 they had transferred everything to their oil products plant centered on the new Rockingham Works at Avonmouth where they operated under the name of Butlers Chemicals Ltd. In 1972 the name changed again, to Butlers Oil Products, by which time there were Butlers branded petrol stations. The company was taken over by Fina in 1988, and then Total Oil in 2001 and as of 2008 it is still trading as Total-Butler supplying fuel oils. Total Butler holds a royal warrant for fuel oil supplies but as far as I am aware this company distributes only by road haulage from the Avonmouth plant (but I may be wrong on that).

Sinclair Union Petroleum Co
This was an American firm who started trading in the UK about the time of the First World War, I do not believe this firm operated a UK refinery but I understand it did operate a number of Class B tanks carrying lubricants (sold under the Sintex brand) from the 1920s on and I believe in the 1930s they had some Class A tanks carrying paraffin (but marked 'Kerosene'). They were very big in Belgium from the 1920s (and are still there today) and I believe they may have sold their Opaline brand lubricating oils through UK garages in the 1940s. In 1968 they bought out ABCO Ltd, a petroleum oil brokers who, trading as Arthur Brown and Company, had been one of the first importers of Russian oil after World War One. In the 1960s they bought out the small independent Abco and Gainsborough chains of service stations, and so may have operated some petrol tankers at that time, but that operation was in turn bought our by AtlanticRichfield Company (ARCO) in 1969.

Western Refining and Marketing Co
Another American firm, based in Texas I believe, and listed in America as Western Refining. They (or someone using this name) operated a small fleet of Class A tanks in the UK at some point (pre World War Two), the logo from which is shown below, beyond which I have no details.

Fig ___ Western Refining and Marketing Co tank logo

ICI (Imperial Chemical Industries Ltd.)
ICI manufactured petrol from coal on Teeside from 1935, changing to using creosote in 1939, this production continued up to about 1950. I have not yet found details of any tank wagons used for this petrol, the livery would have been similar to the methanol wagon shown above (but presumably with something else written under the red tank band). In the later 1940s ICI began to build a giant integrated chemicals plant at Wilton on Tees (often called the North Tees Works), part of which was an oil-cracking plant for processing petroleum oil. This came on stream in 1950, ICI wanted the naphtha, the petrol was just a by-product it sold off to oil companies. In 1966 ICI went into partnership with Phillips Oil to form Phillips Imperial and further investment in refining was injected, in September 1966 a second distillation unit came on stream which added 4 million tonnes a year to the existing annual capacity of 1 million tonnes from the refinery. The 4 million tonne unit was the first major refinery to be built in the North East of England and the first in Britain constructed specially to use North African crudes. ICI consumed the naphtha and some fuel oil from the refinery, the remaining products, kerosene, diesel, gas oil and fuel oil were sold by Phillips Petroleum Products Ltd (sole agents for PIP) who used rail tanks (as well as road and seabourne tankers and a pipeline). ICI sold its own refinery in 2000 (to Huntsman Corporation) and it's share of the joint Phillips Imperial refinery to Petroplus in 2001.

For rail traffic in the 1960s ICI used hired tank wagons until the early 1970s, after which they operated some tanks themselves, some of which carried their logo. They used a range of wagons for their petrol traffic, the illustration shows a tank (leased from STS) in ICI livery.

Fig ___ Post war ICI Class A tank wagon

Post 1960s British Petrol Company Names

During the 1960s, Britain was a booming market and many oil companies set up a UK based distribution system. Most did not last although Total, Conoco and Murco, who all arrived at this time, are still operating their own chains of service stations.

V.I.P.
This was a brand introduced in 1960 by a distributor called Isherwoods Petrol Company. Isherwoods was established in 1934 as a wholesale distributor of petrol and other oil products (their tanker lorries had SUPER in (I think) red on a white rectangle with Petrol to one side) and the company details confined to the cab doors. Isherwoods owned and operated a small chain of petrol stations and a fleet of road tankers and purchased bulk supplies of petrol (both imported and from British refineries) both for its own stations and for sale to other retailers and to commercial consumers. In 1951 a new company was formed to hold and operate the chain of stations leaving Isherwoods to concentrate on wholesale distribution, originally in the Manchester area.
When the solus system was introduced Isherwoods lost most of its retail customers (although sales to commercial users remained). In 1960 the company introduced its V.I.P. brand petrol, pitching the price to compete with the likes of Jet. Towards the end of 1963, following a minor price war amongst the big companies it was able to take over the interests of two smaller wholesale distributors, Octane Petroleum Co. Ltd. and Orbit Petroleum Ltd.. These companies operated in the London area and in Yorkshire respectively, where their brands were sold at prices lower than those of the leading petrol companies. The company acquired ocean terminals and inland storage depots so it could import petrol at a lower price than it could buy it in the UK. In 1964 Signal Oil & Gas Company of California, the main supplier for the firm, bought out Isherwoods but retained the brand and the UK management. In in 1968 the brand was purchased by Occidental Oil (who built an oil refinery at Flotta in the Orkney Islands in 1976).

Fig ___ VIP branded tank wagon

Occidental Oil continued using the VIP brand but also introduced their own Oxy petrol brand at some stations. These brands were seen on road tankers and the VIP brand was also seen on rail tanks in the 1970s, but the Oxy brand was not used (as far as I know) on rail tanks.

Fig ___ VIP and Oxy logos

I have not traced any reference to Oxy branded tank wagons in the UK. In the mid 1970s the service stations were sold to Elf. I believe the V.I.P. and Oxy petrol brands had disappeared by the early 1970s.

Amoco
This was an American Oil Company, also known as also known as Standard Oil of Indiana after 1925, who entered the British market in 1964, from when they operated rail tank wagons. Amoco had a large refinery at Milford Haven which came on stream in 1973, the wagon below is both lagged and steam coiled, suggesting it was used for bitumen traffic.

Fig ___ Lagged Amoco tank in the 1970s

In 1981 Murco purchased a 30 percent share in the refinery and Amoco sold the rest to Elf in 1990 (I believe Murco are to buy out the Elf stake in 2008). In 1957 all the divisions of Amoco were consolidated into a single company, renamed the Amoco Corporation in 1985. In 1998 Amoco merged with BP to form BP Amoco, now known as BP. The sign below was photographed in the 1980s at an Amoco station.

Fig ___ Amoco

Murco
This company was established as a UK company in 1960 (as the British arm of the US oil company Murphy Oil) Murco entered the British market in 1962 by buying two small British chains EP (European Petroleum) and Olympic. Olympic was phased out by about 1970 but some EP branded stations remained. Initially they purchased an oil terminal at Grays in Essex, allowing them to tanker in their own fuel, they hired in 45 ton 4 wheelers for this traffic but these were not branded. This was followed by the development of rail fed terminals at Bedworth, Warwickshire and Theale, Berkshire to supply the expanding Murco and EP service station chains. In 1981 the company took an effective 30% interest in the (then Amoco now Elf) oil refinery in Milford Haven, Wales allowing them to refine their own North Sea Oil supplies. In 1990 the final link in the supply chain was added with the opening of the Westerleigh terminal near Bristol. The sketch below shows the livery on some bogie tankers operating in the 1990s.

Fig ___ Murco rail tanker in the 1990s and detail of logo

In 1981 Murco expanded its UK operations with the purchase of 30% of Amoco UK’s Milford Haven Refinery. In December 2007 Murco purchased the remaining 70% interest in the refinery to become the 100% owner. Murco owns and operates three storage and distribution terminals within the U.K all of which receive product by rail. The terminals are located in Bedworth, Theale and Westerleigh. The illustration is based on a photograph taken from promotional literature.

Fig ___ Murco road tanker in 2007

Although a small company by comparison to others in the field Murco has managed to survive and thrive by reacting quickly and effectively to the ever changing market conditions. Today Murco supply over 160 company owned and 260 independently owned service stations in addition to a growing number of commercial customers. Being an independent company the benefits of rail transportation outweigh the costs of pipeline building so rail deliveries remain in use in 2007. At some point I believe they merged with Amoco and the petrol stations were branded as Amoco but I am very unsure on this.

Texaco
The Texaco Petroleum Products Company first began marketing fuel and lubricants in the UK in 1916, notably offering the Havolene lubricant brand (originally a 'wax free' petroleum based oil, which they had bought in 1909). It operated a joint distribution system with Standard Oil of California (later Chevron) from the mid 1930s supposedly using the brand name Caltex but in Britain the joint operation used the brand Regent from 1947 (Regent was an existing British independent distributor, see above). They purchased Regent Oil outright in 1956. The illustration below shows a Texaco on 1950s livery, based on the Vanguard Models 1:76 model.

Fig ___ 1950s Texaco tanker

Texaco opened its Milford Haven refinery in 1964 (their only UK refinery) and was one of the last companies to operate the original 35 ton 4 wheel anchor mounted tanks. Caltex was wound up in 1965, at which point the Regent brand was absorbed by Texaco. Texaco merged with Chevron Oil in 2001. The illustration shows the logo used in the 1930s (left) and the post war logo (sometimes used on petrol station signs which changed to the Texaco brand after 1967), the logo on the right is used on petrol stations (after 1967) and on the road and rail tanks.

Fig ___ Texaco logo

In 2001 Chevron and Texaco merged to form a new company called Chevron Texaco.

Chevron
Originally Standard Oil of California, became a separate company with the break up of Standard Oil in 1911. It operated a joint distribution system with Standard Oil of California (later Chevron) from the mid 1930s supposedly using the brand name Caltex but in Britain the joint operation used the brand Regent from 1947 (Regent was an existing British independent distributor, see above). The Chevron brand first appeared in the UK in 1967 following the end of the Chevron-Texaco joint operation under the Regent banner. In the 1980s the company decided to concentrate its activities in the US, I believe they sold their remaining British interests to Texaco in 1984. In 2001 Chevron and Texaco merged to form a new company called Chevron Texaco.

Fig ___ Chevron logo & 100T Tank

Gulf Oil
This was a major global oil company from the 1900s to the 1980s. The eighth-largest American manufacturing company in 1941 and the ninth-largest in 1979. Gulf Oil had operated in the UK since at least the 1920s (in 1929 Silvertown Lubricants on the Thames near London was acquired by the Gulf Oil Corporation, and in 1950 its name was changed to Gulf Oil (Great Britain) Ltd.) As a petrol station brand however Gulf first appeared in Britain in 1962, their first tanks were some second hand fuel oil anchor mounted tanks but were painted blue with orange lettering.

Fig ___ Early Gulf tanks

The Gulf Oil Refinery at Milford Haven operated from the mid-1960s until 1997, when refining operations ceased and the outlets were sold to Shell. By the mid 1970s they were using their logo in place of the word GULF, this was applied to some 100 ton Class A and Class B tanks, positioned toward the ladder end in both cases.

Fig ___ Gulf 100 ton tanks

The petrol was branded No-nox and Good-Gulf. The Gulf company was taken over by Chevron in 1984 but the Gulf brand was then sold to the Hinduja family and since 1999 the brand has been licenced to a number of smaller companies in Europe including in the UK (although obviously none of the Gulf-branded petrol now sold in the UK actually comes from a Gulf refinery). The illustration shows what I believe to be the 1960s livery for lorries (this may be in error it was taken from a restored lorry) and the Gluf logo.

Fig ___ Gulf lorry and logo

Another wholly-owned subsidiary, Continental Oil (U.K.) Ltd., entered the United Kingdom market in 1963. It operates solus arrangements, its petrol being marketed at prices similar to those of the leading suppliers.

Conoco
Continental Oil (UK) Ltd, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Continental Oil Corp of the USA Conoco was taken over by Marland Oil Co who ran the UK based Dominion distribution company in the 1930s, the Marland triangle logo was retained but the Conoco name was used as it was an established brand. Conoco began operating branded stations in the UK in the 1960s after discovering an oil field in Libya, and built the Humber Refinery, South Killingholme (opened in 1969). In 1961 they bought the Jet chain but retained the brand, which had a loyal following. By the later 1960s Conoco was operating both 4-wheel 45 ton tanks and also 100 ton bogie tanks (the latter operated as block trains of 18 wagons). In 2002 Conoco merged with Phillips Petroleum. The triangular logo was in use in the 1950s, replaced by the oval type upper right at some point, then by the joint ConocoPhillips logo.

Fig ___ Conoco logos

In the 1970s Conoco leased some 20 foot wheelbase 50 ton four wheelers from Procor, these were slightly unusual in design but as a challenge you could fabricate something rather similar by cutting down a pair of Peco tank wagons, although this does leave you with two short ends. There is a drawing and several photographs in Mr Tourret's book on Petroleum Railtanks (see bibliography), the sketch below shows the livery in the later 1970s.

Fig ___ Conoco leased 50 ton tanker

Phillips Petroleum
This company started operations in the UK in the 1960s, combining with ICI as Philips Imperial Petroleum but also operated a number of Class A and Class B 45 and 100 ton rail tankers it its own '66 livery' from 1966. It worked with ICI (who had an existing refinery they used to make naphtha) and built a joint refinery on Teeside. In 2002 Phillips Petroleum merged with Conoco.

Fig ___ Phillips tankers and detail of logo

Agip
Azienda Generale Italiana Petroli was established in 1926 is an Italian automotive gasoline and diesel retailer. It was a subsidiary of multinational petroleum company Eni. Agip entered the British market in 1963 but I was not able to find a reference to a UK refinery. In 1966 the British operation was bought out by Esso.

Tenneco
This was an American conglomerate that started life as the Tennessee Gas Company and diversified into a range of industries, including the oil business. They entered the UK retail petrol market by buying the existing Globe and Golden outlets but I believe they sold the chain of outlets to Jet in the early 1980s. I do not believe they had a refinery in the UK and I have not traced any references to tank wagons in their livery. In 1971 they bought into the chemicals giant Albright and Wilson, and by 1978 they owned the whole company. Albright and Wilson which retained its identity and management until 1995 when it was sold off as a part of the break-up of Tenneco (see also 'Lineside Industries - Chemicals, salt and plastics industries' for more on Albright & Wilson).

Nafta
This was a company from the Soviet Union who arrived in the mid 1960s. They sold their chain to Q8 in 1987. I believe they imported their products from Russian refineries.

Fig ___ NAFTA logo

Atlantic Petroleum
This company arrived in the UK in the 1960s, became part of ARCO in 1968, sold its British network to Total by 1970. I believe this was just a distributor with no UK refineries.

Fig ___ Atlantic logo

Elf
This is a French company, purchased Occidental's British VIP and OXY chains in 1974 and about that time merged with another big French firm but the Elf brand remained. Purchased Amoco and Heron chains in the UK in the later 1970s (I believe). Purchased a 70 percent share in the Milford Haven Refinery from Amoco in 1990. Merged with Total in 2000 (new firm called TotalFinaElf, but that was never a brand). Elf name was gone by about 2003 but the new company retained a 70 percent interest in the Milford Haven Refinery, this is (I believe) to be sold to Murco in 2008). Elf have definitely operated rail tanks in the UK, including 45 ton four wheelers and 100 ton bogie types, as I understand it the 100 ton tanks were leased and had the Elf logo toward the ladder end of the tank on both sides.

Fig ___ Elf logo

Paul Bartlett's fotopic site has several pictures of leased BRT wagons, see Appendix Seven - Photo Sites for a link to Paul's pages.

Ultramar A British oil exploration company who, in the mid 1960s began selling petrol, they ended up with a small chain of stations branded Ultramar, these changed to Arco in about 1970. I do not believe either of these names appeared on rail tankers although they may have used branded road tank lorries.

Repsol YPF, S.A. Repsol (Refinería Española de Petróleo, Sociedad Limitada or Spain Petroleum Refinery) is a newcomer, incorporated in 1986. Repsol is an integrated oil and gas company engaged in all aspects of the petroleum business, they have refineries in four countries and distribution and marketing activities in 12 countries. They have five refineries in Spain and four refineries in Latin America (Argentina and Peru) and interests in another three jointly operated refineries.

Modelling Oil Refineries and Storage/Distribution Depots

2011-05-15T11:36:00.001+03:00

Oil has been imported in bulk since the 1880's but up to the 1920's most internal movement was still in wooden barrels. Tank wagons rectangular bodies and (as per the Graham Farish model) and those with tubular barrels (resembling the Peco ten foot wheelbase model) appeared on the railways in the 1880's but there were few routes with facilities to handle bulk liquids at both ends. Horse drawn road tank wagons appeared at about the same time but these do not seem to have been very common. By 1920 the horse drawn and motor road tanks were often elliptical in section rather than rectangular or cylindrical. In the later 1920's oil tank railway wagons began to appear in greater numbers as recipients developed rail links and installed bulk storage tanks and by the mid 1930's the wooden barrels had largely been displaced.

You have to see a refinery from the air to grasp the scale of the establishment, the site will typically occupy roughly 400 acres. The sketch below shows a typical arrangement for a British based refinery on a river estuary. The railway element (tinted yellow) marked A is located on the edge of the refinery proper, in this case between the refinery and the jetties where the ships arrive (this is not uncommon, Coryton is similar). The road lorry loading depot marked B is also on the very periphery of the refinery. Both are some distance from the tall towers and other distinctive structures (in the areas tinted red).

Fig ___ Plan view of a typical refinery complex

Note the arrival, departure and run-round loops are separated from the loading sidings, railway company locomotives will drop off and collect from the loops, they are not allowed into the loading area.

The loading area will usually feature several quite long sidings to accommodate the rolling stock, an ideal minimum from the later 1960s to date would be two sidings each two feet long. That would allow a train of eight bogie 100 tonners to be handled, which looks acceptable. Cutting the sidings down to eighteen inches allows a train of six modern bogie tankers (or twelve 45 tonners), which is really an absolute minimum. For pre-war and immediate post-war (green diesel era) layouts, running the older and smaller tanks, eighteen inch sidings would be fine and you could get away with fifteen inches length.

The loop(s) must be long enough to handle the longest train, assuming they dead-end you also need a loco release headshunt. In the prototype example shown above this is very long, allowing it to be used for shunting as well, this is a feature of several refinery loop yards in the UK. An ideal minimum is two loop lines (arrivals and departures), each four feet long, and a release road. If space is very tight you can get away with shorter loops if you leave some wagons on the approach line, run round the first cut and collect the second cut for the second siding.

As well as the products being shipped out there will be some materials being supplied to the plant such as the chemicals for processing the oil. These are not delivered to the loading area but have their own siding(s). Bitumen is also usually handled at a separate set of sidings from the petrol, fuel oil and lubricants.

In the loading sidings there has to be access to the tank tops, up to the 1970s this was always open raised walk-ways with simple 'cranes' from which the loading hoses were suspended. The rake of wagons would be shunted into position by a works loco, men would open the tank lids, insert the pipes and all the tankers would be loaded more or less simultaneously. The structure was very like the 'top discharge' arrangements required for Class A liquids up to the 1960s. The example shown is for a discharge point, for a loading terminal the structure and cranes were similar but there were rather more pipes running along under the walk-ways.

Fig ___ Petrol cranes

More recently a number of terminals have installed a single loading point with a cable-hauled system to move the wagons through, each being loaded in turn. These one-at-a-time loading points are either a large girder structure enclosing the track, or an elevated building.

Loading points have a number of pipes, each delivering a different grade. These pipes would be painted either light grey or black, and in there somewhere would be a red water line to feed the fire fighting 'monitors' (which look a bit like small anti-aircraft guns and are painted red). I remember seeing a pipeline painted white as well, although I have no idea what that was for.

Where a permanent walk-way was not justified (that is where only occasional wagons were loaded, such as at a bitumen loading point, a light frame mounted on small wheels would be provided. This frame carried a swinging arm or gallows arranged to be higher than the rail tanker top hatch, and from this would trail the black rubber two inch discharge hose. These were regularly used for loading bitumen wagons at the refineries into the 1970's and possibly the 1980's. This was cheaper than building a fixed gantry, the frame could be moved along the siding to where it was needed (see under Bitumen separately).

From the above we can start looking at how a refinery might be incorporated onto a layout and as so often with industrial modelling a corner location offers the most scope in this area. The example shown is not prototypical in several ways but represents the smallest space option. For a start we can pair down the facilities, two sidings for tankers, one siding each for bitumen and refinery supplies and a single loop using the main line as a run round. Not prototypical but this is about as small as it can get. LPG is assumed to be handled at the main loading area but the facilities at C could be used (for model purposes) if the sidings were occupied. The track plan uses double slips on the loop line to save space but even so the upper section would extend some three feet six inches (about 1m 15cm) from the corner, with the lower section extending some two feet six inches (75cm) from the corner, and that is an absolute minimum. The railway is effectively passing through the refinery and there are strict rules about running pipes under or over a railway. In the UK there are places where a line passes between two sections of a refinery 'area' although I am not sure it is all one refinery, so this is borderline legitimate.

Fig ___ Refinery in a corner

The sketch is not to scale, you could probably get a few more storage tanks into the scene. The bitumen and stores sidings are usually taken off the loops (in at least three refineries I know of this is, or was, the case) and they usually run in the same direction as the petrol and fuel oil loading sidings, so a shunter is always at the same end of the rake when working the loading sidings. This was not possible in such a confined space so on the plan the bitumen and stores lines run from the far end of the loop, however as this layout does not anticipate the use of a shunter this is not a problem.

No pipework is shown on the plan but there should be rather a lot. Note that pipework in a refinery is almost always raised, typically to chest height where it runs beside a roadway but in crowded areas there is room to walk underneath. Raised pipes allow spills and leaks to be quickly spotted and metal trays can be placed under them until a repair can be effected.

There should also be pipework connecting the jetty to the refinery however that would pass over or under the 'main line' which is problematic. The plus side is that the road and over bridge are within the refinery limits, so this need only be one vehicle wide as it serves only as access to the jetty. On the model the bridge provides a scenic break between the refinery and the rest of the layout.

This suggestion really precludes the use of an industrial shunter, unless the headshunt on the loading sidings end were extended to the left by one sidings length. To allow a railway company loco to shunt the sidings without entering them a long wheelbase wagon would be left on one of the sidings. These were known as a 'reach wagon' and a Peco plate wagon or tube wagon would serve for this duty.

Given more space you can add some suggestion of the refinery proper, there are a lot of small tanks and small buildings associated with the various processes but I believe most people would wish at least a representation of the tall towers. What these look like depends on the period modelled, pre war they were encased in a scaffolding of girder work, by the 1950s there would be some kind of framework extending up at least one side, nearly to the top, with more toward the base of the structure. Pre-war everything was generally much darker than modern plant, I have only found black and white illustrations but I would suggest medium grey for the central tower and very dark grey, almost black, for the platforms and steelwork. The paints available that could handle heat and adhere to metal were limited, which is why there was comparatively little variation in railway engine colours. Industrial plant (as with goods railway engines) favoured black, but for modelling purposes dark grey looks more realistic. In the illustration below note how the pipework is elevated to above head height, you can see the roof of a small building near the bottom that gives some idea of the scale.

Fig ___ Large structure at a 1940s oil refinery

By the early 21st century the fractionating towers were virtually free standing and did not have the girder work around them. The pictures you see of modern plant usually show new installations, in use the shiny silver is often reduced to dull shades of grey and often to a dull brown (this colour seems common in areas processing lube oils) and a few are very dark grey. Similarly the storage tanks are mainly white (paint, they are made of metal not concrete) but you do get quite a few dull grey ones in process control areas and a few (presumably handling hot liquids are rust-stained.

The image below was found on Wikipedia (http://www.wikipedia.org) and a hi-res version is available on that site if you search for 'fractionating towers'. To give some idea of the scale of the things the 'man rings' on the ladders are about 3 ft or 1m apart. You can reduce the overall height quite a lot and still keep the look of the thing as they are usually seen from below (in the same way that very short model train points look okay because the real thing is seen at a shallow angle).

Fig ___ Photo of fractionating columns

At the base of the tower you need a horizontal run of pipes about a foot in diameter (I think they are lagged) leading to a row of small tanks close by the base of the tower and usually raised above head height. The Ratio oil tanks would do for these, you should have at least eight of them, ten would look better. There is then a lot of pipework connecting the tower and tanks to the rest of the refinery.

As noted above you would expect to see two such towers, and close by (often between them) will be a building with a very tall chimney (I have no idea what the chimney was for but they all seemed to have one).

There are now commercial models of oil refinery structures including some tall towers on the model railway market, however if you are broke they are not too difficult to make. Start with a suitable tube, you can use a cut-down ping pong ball for the top (cut in half, glue to the tube, trim with scissors, finish the trim with toenail clippers). The pipework on the sides are various thicknesses of wire and a straw can be used for the big gas pipe coming down from the top, modern straws have a handy 'bendy' bit that looks well on a refinery. Man holes in the sides of the towers are disks of plastic cut with a paper hole punch and bedded onto a blob of Milliput, The ladders are from signal laddering, man loops can be cut from drinking straws (although gluing these can be tricky, test a sample before doing a lot of work). Hand rails can be added using etched signal laddering (O gauge can be used as-is, OO gauge needs supports) or Slaters brass wire (rose wire and most other wires are not stiff enough to survive).

Some years ago I made a small tower (for a chemical plant) using a Vicks Inhaler (available from your local chemist) which has a nice dome ended cover. I just added a second section to make it taller and some pipework, a couple of platforms and some ladders. The tower was silver stained with black and shades of brown, the platforms walkways slate grey and the platform edging, ladders and handrails were painted white.

Another feature of a refinery (as opposed to a storage depot) would be a few tall chimneys. The process produces a series of unpleasant gasses which are passed up the chimney and often 'flared' (deliberately set on fire) at the top. The chimneys should be at least six inches tall in N and will not be the standard brick affairs associated with mills but are more likely to be silver metal with an external framework (these often have multiple pipes running up them) or a concrete tube with perhaps three metal pipes sticking out at the top.

The metal type can be made using any suitable tubing, the framework can be represented using microstrip with angled side supports from three or four Heljan 'lighting masts', suitably sanded down to give a thinner look. The side supports should extend a minimum of about two thirds of the way up the tube.

The concrete type is typically eight foot (2.5m) in diameter and white but usually the top twenty foot or so is painted black, as are the pipes sticking out of the top. The chimneys used are usually straight sided with no taper, you could use Plastruct tubing but pens with a suitably shaped body about ten to fifteen millimetres in diameter would do just as well if you can find one long enough.

Early oil storage tanks were (typically) 90 feet (30m) in diameter and 30 feet (10m) tall, they had a low conical top (usually I believe wood covered with metal plates). By the later 1930s domed tops made of welded steel were widely seen and these had replaced the older conical topped tanks by the 1960s. A lot of tanks in a modern refinery have a 'floating roof', the tank top floats on the contents, eliminating vapour-space in the tank. These are not as far as I am aware commercially available but for more on these see 'Lineside Industries - Prototype industrial ancillary structures'. On an N Gauge layout a tank farm of several seven inch (18cm) diameter tanks requires a prodigious amount of room, however you can get down to tanks of only four inches (100mm) diameter and just under two inches (50mm) in height and they still (just about) look big enough to be acceptable.

Storage tanks in a refinery are always surrounded by a low wall or earth embankment, perhaps five foot high, to act as a containment should the tank leak, technically termed a 'bund wall' the enclosed space has to be sufficient to contain a completely drained tank full, which in practice means as much space around the tank as is contained in the upper part of the tank (above the height of the wall). The pipes emerging from the tank pass over the top of this wall or bank, they do not as a rule pass through it.

There are several kits of storage tanks for both liquids and gasses available. Kibri offer what I believe is the best storage tank (B-7466 is in Esso livery, B-7462 is in Aral livery), consisting of a pair of tanks complete with a low surrounding wall and a set of pipework and control valves feeding into 'buried pipes'. Also from Kibri is a set of four small horizontal tanks and a small vertical tank ((B-7456). Faller offer a spherical tank of the kind used for holding pressurised gasses (kit number 2130) and they also offer a pair of rather small tanks, however I would suggest replacing the rather heavy handrails on the latter with Plastruct Fineline mouldings. The tops from aerosol canisters can be used to good effect to represent smaller storage tanks. Roads in the refinery area are also commonly raised on an earth bank so they will not be covered by a spill.

Refineries also make use of the tall cylindrical tanks, similar to the 'boiler' tanks used in coal tar works (see Lineside Industries - Coal Tar Distillers for a drawing), although those I have seen (since the later 1970s) have all been rather clean steel or clad in concrete. These were presumably used to handle bitumen and similar very viscous liquids, hence they would heated to allow the product to flow and would be seen close to sidings dealing with bitumen tank wagons.

Also produced at the refineries are the Liquid Petroleum Gasses (LPG), such as Butane, Propane and Ammonia. These are liquefied (usually by refrigeration) and mainly stored in spherical tanks (see Lineside Industries - Prototype industrial ancillary structures) before being shipped out in pressurised tank wagons. The BP refinery at Llandarcy (opened in 1928 and the UK's first crude oil refinery) was only source of marketable propane until well after World War Two, production began there in 1936, stopped during the war, and was resumed in 1951. Propane production at BP's Grangemouth refinery only started late in 1955.
Rail tanker LPG traffic only started in the later 1960's, prior to that date limited quantities were shipped in smaller pressure canisters and cylinders in standard railway wagons (although chlorine was shipped by rail pre-war).

Fig ___ Esso gas tanker from a 1960s BR advert

Distribution Centres and goods-yard retailers

From the refinery the oil and gas is shipped mainly to distribution depots, either by rail or pipeline within the UK. From the distribution centre it is delivered by rail or road (occasionally barge) to the customers, either larger industrial users or local retailers.

A discharge point at a distribution terminal could form part of a layout with most of the terminal itself painted on the back-scene. A typical installation has a single line passing through a gated entry into a fenced area, they might be three or four sidings, each long enough to handle perhaps ten of the 100 ton bogie tankers (or the equivalent length of other types).

It has long been standard practice to have a fairly long wheelbase wagon on hand, known as a 'reach wagon' which can be coupled between the loco and the rail tanker wagons so that the loco does not have to get too far into a dangerous installation when shunting tanks. Old plate wagons (the Peco long wheelbase 'plate' wagon) are often used as 'reach' wagons, kept at the terminal these often have their sides removed and laid on the floor. In the early 1980's redundant ferry wagons similar to the Peco long wheelbase 'tarpaulin' wagons were also used as reach wagons. If a long wagon was not available a pair of standard five plank open wagons was used, a single ten foot wheelbase wagon would not be long enough.

One point to remember is that bottom discharge of Class A (very flammable) liquids such as petrol was banned at the turn of the century, following leaks onto the track. Class A tankers were loaded and discharged through the top using hoses and at even a small terminal there would be a raised walk-way to give access to the tank tops. This would be equipped with swinging arms from which dangled the black rubber loading or discharge pipes for the wagons.

Fig ___ Petrol cranes

Having said which I received an e-mail from Ken Bassett, who's father (Lewis Bassett) and uncle (Freddie Pontin) worked at the two Kenninghall Road, Edmonton depots of Redline and Glico in the years after World War One. The rail tanks were pumped out by hand at both depots and this was apparently a day's job for two men. The men also drove the delivery vans and tankers (Albion and Leyland, purchased from war surplus after the first world war).

This requirement for top discharge of Class A liquids was dispensed with the 1960's but some of the terminals equipped for this kind of handling remained operational at least into the later 1970's as the older top-discharge wagons remained in service.

A simple storage or distribution depot is an attractive option for a layout, it might be located anywhere in the country and would consist of tanks and rail and possibly road tanker facilities. The storage tanks might be some distance from the loading/unloading point and this would not be on a siding close to the main line where sparks from steam loco's would be a hazard. A spur to an oil or petrol terminal can therefore be used to fill in an awkward corner of a layout. There are kits of oil storage tanks available in Continental ranges if you have room for them but they can be assumed to be some distance away.

A modern oil depot can be a very compact affair, these days the top discharge for Class A liquids is no longer required, flexible hoses leading to simple hydrant type connections are used. Generally at larger terminals there are two tracks, one to each side of the hydrants, however smaller terminals can have only a single track.

The hydrants feed into pipes which are sometimes buried under the ground, in which case the pipework usually comes to the surface close by and thereafter most pipes are above ground, supported on simple steel bench work and usually a light grey colour. At many installations there is a single large (6-10 inch (15-25cm) diameter) pipe running alongside the siding. The flexible hoses are dark grey (silver for LPG) and about four inches (10cm) diameter with a light grey coupling on the ends, the hoses are normally left attached to the valves and at modern installations there is sometimes a hooped support to carry the hose when not in use. The example illustrated below is typical, the hydrant at the front has a problem, hence no hose and a red warning label attached to it. The track is laid on bare concrete and sits in a shallow trench to contain any spillage, the hydrant and pipe are on a raised concrete platform and the area to the right is gravel.

Fig ___ Fuel oil terminal

Coloured bands are sometimes seen on pipes, to help the terminal workers to trace out the line. Loading valves are often painted black, red or green but the oil products break up most paints so near the hydrant connections the paint gets patchy with black areas showing through. The loading or unloading area would have a raised bank of earth round it and the gate into the area might have a rubber seal along the bottom.

Fig ___ Class B oil loading/discharging

One standard feature of any oil or gas handling installation since the 1960's would be fire monitors (a small depot might have only one). These are metal 'cannon' like objects that squirt out foam in case of a fire, they are always painted red. They can be fixed or mounted on a mobile trolley, for modelling purposes the fixed type are much easier to make.

In addition where volatile chemicals are involved (LPG, Ammonia and the like) there are usually 'Spray Rails' mounted above the tracks, these are two inch diameter pipes fitted with spray nozzles on the under side. In the event of a fire these generate a water mist over the rake of wagons, which is the best way to prevent the fire spreading and also stops the heat of the flames reaching nearby tanks etc. Normally there are two rails above each track, so that each side of every wagon will be covered, they are supported about every ten to fifteen feet by a light metal arm. Often there are two sets of arms, each one supporting one of the spray rails.

Not all depots were so complicated however, oil fired central heating appeared in the 1930's and was popular from the 1940's until the big oil price rises in the 1970's. Heating oils are Class B liquids, which do not require the top loading/discharging arrangement. Coal merchants often had a yard adjoining the railway goods yard at the local station and these firms often branched out into supplying domestic heating oil. These yard based facilities are discussed in the section on Railway Company Goods Facilities - Coal and Heating Oil. The tanks would be quite large, in N a 'till roll' with plastic card ends would serve for a horizontal tank. Add an access hatch from a disc of 40 thou card at one end and a bit of wire bent over at the top as a 'breather pipe' at the other. Alternatively the tank body from an American oil tank wagon can be used. It would be normal to enclose the tank in a brick wall so that if it leaked the spill would be contained. In addition there will be a small building housing the pump (used to transfer the oil from the rail tanks to the storage tanks and also to load delivery lorries).

Larger heating oil terminals had large storage tanks but often had smaller tanks acting as buffer stored for loading the lorries. The sketch below assumes you have used the tops from aerosol cans for the storage tanks and Ratio oil tanks for the buffer stores (raised on tall brick supporting walls so they drain into the lorries by gravity). The loading point consists of cranes supported on the H section girders supporting the corrugated iron pitched roof. The general arrangement is very loosely based on a rather larger heating oil terminal operated in the 1960's by Charringtons, a major London fuel merchant. The layout as shown is about the minimum for such a depot, the prototype had two rail tracks, several large storage tanks, a number of lorry loading points each with a smaller buffer tank or two close by and several odd buildings including a canteen or mess for the lorry crews and terminal staff.

Fig ___ Rail Connected Heating Oil Merchants

The merchant might well have a tie-in with an oil company, meaning the lorry would be in the oil company colours, typically with the merchant's name and details on the cab doors. The examples illustrated below are (left) a 1937 Albion and (right) a Cory Bros lorry (the distributors for Shell-BP heating oils in London during the 1960s).

Fig ___ 1960s Fuel Oil Distributors Lorry

A further variation is a tank farm operated by an oil importer, of which there were quite a few dotted around the coastline, mainly in industrial centres such as London, Manchester and the North East. One such establishment was set up in the early 1880s had a series of large circular iron tanks, some capable of holding 3,000 barrels of petrol. Many of the tanks were situated 15ft below ground level in a special 'oil pit', and the majority of the wharf was itself below the level of the river. This establishment was taken over by the London Oil Storage Company in 1885 and in 1913 the site was described as comprising 'a two-storey brick office building and dwelling house, a brick coopers' shop and a corrugated-iron store in a group at the entrance; two brick warehouses for storage and filling, a pump and filling house, engine house and boiler house, a carpenters' shop, blacksmiths' shop, store, and cloakroom and a total of 27 oil-storage tanks with a combined capacity of over 14,000 tons, including two giant tanks named 'Reliance' and 'Excellent' with individual capacities of 3,000 and 4,000 tons respectively.' I believe they had a railway siding from the London docks for dispatching the imported oils inland. Such a facility can be modelled against the backscene and need not take up as much room as might be thought.

The tanks at a larger inland depot do not need to be modelled unless you have the room, they were often be buried in the ground close by but small tanks from the various kit manufacturers would serve and simple tanks made from snap-on aerosol canister caps would do.

Oil Refineries, Petrol and Fuel Oils

2011-05-15T11:24:00.000+03:00

Several oil company railway tank liveries are illustrated below in the sub section on Oil Companies, lubricating and other specialist oil companies and tanks are discussed in 'Lineside Industries -Lubricating Oils & Associated Works', Bitumen companies and tanks are discussed in 'Lineside Industries - Bitumen', coal tar companies and tanks are described under 'Lineside Industries - Coal Tar Distillers' and seed crushing companies and tanks are illustrated in 'Lineside Industries - Industries associated with docks'. For more oil rail tank liveries see also 'Goods Stock - Rail Tanks' and 'Livery - Tank Wagons'.

In the present context it is possibly worth noting that several oil related locations such as oil storage depots and oil handling docks used 'fireless' locomotives (steam was pumped in to a specially constructed usually dome-ended 'boiler' and the loco used this to drive conventional pistons). These engines had no fire so no coal bunker or funnel and the pistons were often mounted at the cab end of the chassis.

Fig ___ Fireless locomotive

In the mid 1960s the Dingle Oil Jetty near Liverpool was still using a Barclay 0-6-0 fireless engine on this general type. By the 1980s diesel-hydraulic shunters were in common use, some being road-rail machines, based on (for example) the Unimog truck.

This page has ended up rather large, use these links to jump to the different sub sections below:

Go to Modelling section Go to Oil Company and suppliers section

Petroleum has been used for the last two thousand years, mainly as a 'lamp oil' and as a medicine. With the development of machinery it was also used as a lubricant but 'refining' was primitive and there was no real market for petrol or fuel oil until the 1880s when the internal combustion engine became popular.

In British law (as per the Petroleum Act 1871 et seq, the term 'petroleum' refers to 'Any rock-oil, Rangoon-oil, Burma Oil, oil made from petroleum, coal, schist, shale, peat or other bituminous substance and any products of petroleum or of any of the above mentioned oils, such as; Benzene, benzol, benzolene, diesel oil, fuel oil, gasoline, kerosene (paraffin), lythene, naphtha, petrol, toluene, turpentine etc'. These are then subdivided for various purposes by their respective 'flash point' (the temperature at which they will catch fire). There are various systems of division, ships use several categories but on the railways they have just three. Anything with a flash point below 73 deg.F. (23 deg.C.) is considered dangerous, those with a flash point above 73 deg F. but below 141 deg. F(60 deg C.) are considered worrisome and those with a higher flashpoint are considered safe. A fairly lengthy list of liquids falling into these categories has been included in the section on 'Livery - Tank wagon liveries', for this section only those likely to be encountered in connection with oil refineries are considered.

The more dangerous liquids such as petrol, gasoline, benzene, benzol, benzolene, methyl alcohol and methylated spirit) were required to have specially built Class A tank wagons, painted in a distinctive livery. These were not allowed to have bottom discharge after 1905 so there should be no valve stub on the top of these tanks. Less dangerous liquids such as paraffin (kerosene), mineral oil, shale oil, turpentine, white spirit and coal tar required special Class B wagons again in a distinctive livery. These did use bottom discharge and hence did have a valve spindle sticking up beside the filling hatch.

Class A tanks, after 1909, has a 'stone' coloured tank with a red band extending along the sides and across the ends. Class B tanks were to have a red body, but in practice heavy fuel oil and bitumen made black the only practical colour for wagons carrying them. In 1939 the red band on Class A wagons could have a gap in the centre but the solebar had to be painted red. During the 39-45 war Class A tanks were either grey or two-tone grey camouflage. After the war the red band was discontinued, tanks could be stone (rarely used) grey or silver and the sole bars had to be red.

Non dangerous liquids such as Bitumen, heavy fuel oil and lubricating oils have high flash points, but on the railways the first two were always transported in Class B wagons in with black painted tanks. Lubricating oil tanks sometimes used odd liveries (notably yellow tanks with red lettering used by Shell), but that was very much the exception rather than the rule and most had the standard Class B red oxide tanks.

In Britain the main market was initially for paraffin or kerosene for use in oil lamps and lubricating oils for the factories. Up to about 1900 the British used oil recovered from shale (sometimes encountered in coal mines) and imported more from the USA in barrels. The paraffin was then distributed either in the barrels or in small portable tanks and was retailed by ironmongers and hawkers who also sold the lamps and stoves which burnt it. The development of gas supplies and later electricity supplies reduced demand but oil lamps remained common into the 1920s. In the towns and cities paraffin heaters remained common and the 'paraffin man' with a tank on a hand cart or horse drawn cart remained a feature of life into the 1950s. In the country areas the oil lamps remained common into the 1930s as few farms had electricity or gas supplies (one common cargo in these area was wooden boxes with supplies of the glass funnels for oil lamps as people turned them up too high and the glass cracked).

Lubricating oil formed a separate market, being sold and distributed by companies established in the business of selling lubricating oil of vegetable origin before the introduction of mineral products.

After the introduction of the internal combustion engine in 1885, petrol came to be sold by chemists, paraffin sellers and (as a side line) by cycle repairers, who in time also undertook the sale and repair of motor cycles and motor cars (most of the British motor car manufacturers started out making bicycles). Prior to the 1890s most petrol was sold from a small tank, the customer providing the container to take it away in. In the 1890s Russian oil arrived, by 1900 about a third of the oil sold in the UK was from Russia, the bulk of the rest being from American oil wells. In 1890 Anglo-American (better known today as Esso) introduced a sealed two gallon petrol tin (which reassured the purchaser that the oil had not been watered down with an inferior grade). The two gallon tin proved popular and became the most popular method for selling petrol for the next 20 years.

By the time of the First World War most oil arrived in bulk tanker ships (Shell had a lot to do with developing this), the demand had grown and companies had set up ever larger storage and distribution depots all over the country. Very little oil was refined in the UK, the refineries at the time were close to the well, so the cargo on the ships was the high value product rather than the low value crude oil.

Petroleum oil of various grades has been a regular cargo on the railways since the mid nineteenth century, initially transported in wooden barrels later and (by the time of the First World War) two gallon tins and rolled steel drums. Tank wagons were introduced in limited number from the mid 19th century, however these could only operate between locations equipped to handle bulk oil, so were not terribly common until the 1920s. Up to the mid 1930s most petrol was sold in 2 gallon tins, introduced by the Americans, these were transported in vans. They were packed in open wooden crates of two tins for shipping as they could not otherwise be stacked because the handle and filling cap stuck up on the top. The two gallon tins remained in civilian use into World War Two, although as more retailers invested in tanks and pumps bulk tanker supplies were delivered. The British and American military in particular were dependent upon the two gallon tin for forward supplies, two tins in a crate was a convenient size for man-handling. during the war the 5 gallon German 'jerry can' found favour as it was made of thicker steel, could be packed more densely and could be stacked without a crate round it. By the end of the war the Allied forces had changed over to jerry can, although these were not perfect, more than one Stalwart load carrier caught fire in the 1960s and 70s when petrol from a leaking jerry can reached the hot exhaust.

Pipelines are cheaper than rail transport but cost a lot to build. The government built a pipeline system to supply oil products to military establishments in the 1930s, this remains operational today and private companies can also use it. During the invasion of Europe in 1944 this pipeline supplied the Pluto cross-channel pipeline to supply the troops with fuel. In 1969 the privately owned United Kingdom Oil Pipeline (UKOP) was opened, originally to connect the Shell refineries at Stanlow and at Shell Haven on the Thames Estuary. It has since been further extended and also supplied Nottingham and Northampton terminals. Quite early on someone discovered that you could feed one grade after another up a pipeline with very little mixing of the two grades, hence only a single pipeline is needed to carry a wide range of products.

In the 19th and early 20th Century the UK relied on imported refined oils, when demand increased in Scotland at the start of the 20th century the Anglo-Saxon Petroleum Co. Ltd. built a storage facility at Granton Docks (Edinburgh), to which the petrol and other oils were transported in tank barges towed across from refineries which had been established in Rotterdam. Granton was where, in 1850, the world's first train-ferry operated, using a paddle steamer, between Granton and Burntisland (Fife). The service ended in 1890 when the Forth Bridge opened.

Within a few years the Scottish distributor found they needed a better supply and added facilities for ocean going tankers on one of the quays at the main harbour and pipelines up to the storage tanks. By this time a typical deep-sea tanker was about two hundred and fifty feet long, which is about 20 inches in British N, 40 inches in OO. This site supplied most of Scotland's oil fuels for many years (I think it closed in the early 1970s, but I am not at all sure on that). By the 1950s the site was jointly owned by Scottish Oils (a BP subsidiary) and Shell-Mex Ltd but was still reliant on imported refined products (although regular rail shipments were received from other UK facilities).

By the time of the First World War the UK had some limited refinery capacity, however Shell had to dismantle a refinery designed to recover toluene (vital in explosives manufacture) which they had built in Holland and ship it back to the UK. This was set up at Portishead and made a seriously important contribution to the war effort.

Some sources claim that the first UK refinery to process imported crude oil was at Llandarcy near Swansea, which opened in 1928 (closing in the later 1990s), however the APOC refinery at Grangemouth opened in 1924 (although that may have been dealing with imported partly refined oils), Fawley refinery was built in 1920/21 by Anglo Gulf West Indies Petroleum Corporation Ltd but again this may simply have been reprocessing the refined products of crude oil imported from the massive refineries in Holland. Prior to the 1920s the principal (and possibly only) general petroleum refining in the UK was the processing of 'shale oil' (discussed in more detail below) mainly for use as a lamp oil and for 'medicinal purposes'.

By the later 1920s several British oil refineries were refining crude oil and marketing a full range of petroleum products within the United Kingdom including retail motor oil and lubricants. The range of products produced included industrial lubricants, fuel oil for power stations and small quantities of oil derivatives for highly specialised uses. By the 1930s 'petrochemicals' were becoming increasingly significant part of the refinery business (these are discussed in more detail separately).

There are only a few refineries in the UK, the more modern post-war examples tend to be clustered together around the ports however there have always been a number of smaller refineries dotted about the place. All larger refineries are rail connected, there have been a very few small refineries which were not. If modelling a refinery you only need the rail access area, the bulk of the establishment should be on the backscene.

From the refinery the products are shipped (by road, rail, boat or pipeline) to 'distribution depots' where it is loaded into drums or tankers for delivery to customer. These depots do not as a rule engage in further processing of the product and from a modelling perspective offer several advantages over a 'refinery' for a line side industry. All that is required is the suggestion of some storage tanks and a discharge point for the tankers.

Refining Oil

As it comes out of the ground oil is made up of a range of materials ranging from heavy tar to oils so light they will evaporate, this raw mix is of limited practical use. In a refinery the various grades of oil are separated, each being used for particular purposes.

In the 18th and early 19th century the most saleable commodity from mineral oil was paraffin (also known as kerosene), widely used for 'oil lamps' and heating and later for 'paraffin engines' (for which one manufacturer (Kelvin) suggested that Russian oil is the best, but all Russian oil is not alike, good oil is also produced in Scotland but American oil is unsuitable). In the 1920s major paraffin suppliers included Shell Mex Ltd., the Anglo-Persian Oil Co., Ltd, The Scottish Oil Agency, Ltd., The Pinkston Oil Co. of Glasgow, and the The Merchant Trading Co. of London. I believe only the first three manufactured paraffin, the remainder importing their supplies. Paraffin is technically a Class B cargo but was also seen carried in Class A wagons (it is comparatively clean and does not stain everything black).

In the early days of the industry (around the mid 19th century) the simple fractional distillation process then used on the crude oil gave four products: benzene marketed as a cleaning product for leather and furniture, kerosene for burning in lamps and stoves, paraffin wax for candle manufacture and a heavy waste oil for which there was no immediate use. Petrochemicals cam in during the 1920s, following the first production of rubbing alcohol, or isopropyl alcohol, by Jersey Standard in 1920. Petrochemicals are discussed in more detail separately.

The sulphur removed from the oil is sold or made into sulphuric acid (actually it leaves the refinery as oleum, or sulphur tri-oxide as either a solid or liquid depending on the exact formulation, just add water to get sulphuric acid). Sulphur and sulphuric acid are both valuable industrial chemicals. Paraffin wax is another valuable material with a surprising range of applications (including frozen food packaging).

The thick residue left after removal of the more valuable materials is known as residual bitumen (to distinguish it from naturally occurring 'crude bitumen'). This is used to make tarred road surfaces (mixed with limestone or granite chippings it is called asphalt) and also as a waterproofing for wood or felt roofing material. Just to confuse matters the Americans refer to bitumen as asphalt. Bitumen has largely replaced coal tar in these duties, which is handy as the coal gas plants and steel works (both large producers of coal tar) have now all but disappeared. However with the concern over oil supplies bitumen is now being made from non-petroleum based renewable resources (developed in America and hence called bioasphalt). A by product of the bitumen processing is petroleum coke (usually called petcoke) which is basically carbon and is used for making electrodes and as a fuel (although it has a high sulphur content so it is not used for domestic purposes).

Finally a range of useful gasses are produced, these are generally referred to as Liquid Petroleum Gas or LPG. Most of these gasses can be conveniently liquified and shipped at moderate pressures. They were first produced in 1910 by Dr. Walter Snelling, and the first commercial products appeared in on the market in 1912. A proportion of these gasses are used raw as fuel at the plant, when it is known as 'process gas'. The remainder is split into its component parts, mainly Butane, Propane and Ammonia for sale. Other chemicals can be recovered from the LPG, notably Propylene and butylenes, used in the production of a number of plastics.

A full blown oil refinery is a large installation characterised by numbers of storage tanks, a cluster of tall metal towers, cooling towers and a lot of pipe-work. There will also be a number of buildings, some housing processes other housing offices and laboratories. The attraction for the modeller is the range of rolling stock which would be required to handle the various petrochemicals produced. Refineries are impressive, modelled well they can be very impressive and it is perhaps worth noting that chemical plants (discussed separately) often use similar processing methods and plant but these can be very much smaller. There were also a number of rather small refineries, in the main these re-processed the materials from the oil refinery, an example being the Briggs refinery in Dundee which in later years 'cracked' the thick bituminous residue from the refineries to extract saleable fractions. These smaller establishments received their supplies by rail as well as shipping out their products.

A refinery is more a finely balanced machine than a factory as so much of what happens depends on other parts of the system functioning. Crude oil flows in at one end, this is split into its components and these are then further processed to produce saleable materials. Many of the various processes require a constant flow through the system, when something has to be maintained and no back-up is available a series of buffer tanks are used to allow the remainder of the system to continue. If a refinery has to be shut down (which can take weeks to do properly) it can be a year or more before it can be re-started.

The tall metal towers are where the initial refining takes place. The crude oil is first heated and fed into a 'fractionating column', basically a large condenser in which the different grades are condensed out at different levels, the heavier bituminous tars and oils at the bottom, and progressively lighter more volatile products; paraffin wax, lubricating oil, gas oil, motor and aviation spirit (petrol) towards the top and gasses are taken off right at the top of the tower. There are often two of these towers, the second operating in a partial vacuum in order to get a better separation of the fractions. In the illustration below the two columns can be seen on the right of the installation, there are also three thinner columns to the left.

Fig ___ Fractionating column

Over the years the design of these towers has evolved, prior to World War Two the towers tended to be encased in girderwork and had a greater number of access platforms. This type is illustrated and discussed under Modelling Refineries below

As the demand for the lighter spirits is high the heavy oils are further refined in 'cracking towers', where a heat treatment breaks down the liquid, pressurised to raise its boiling point, into a series of lighter products. The cracking process was originally developed in the later 19th century (in America and Russia), it allowed the production of high octane fuels but the oil companies decided against using it at the time due to the cost of the additional plant (they thought there was perhaps 25 years worth of petrol in the world, this was before the discovery of the Middle Eastern oil fields). The the modern cracking methodology was developed in the early 1930's by an American called Eugene Houndry (1892-1962) and arrived in Britain shortly thereafter. At the time the British oil industry was still importing most of its oils as already refined products, only after World War two did the government encourage the building of refineries to import low value 'crude', refining it in the UK and selling the high value products. The cracking process has been further refined and modern systems use a powdered catalyst as a 'fluidised bed' through with the gasses are passed, first developed in 1944 this is usually called an FCC plant for fluid catalytic cracking. I believe the three towers on the left in the illustration above are 'cracking' towers.

From the early 1950s several refineries set up chemicals units to manufacture alkylbenzenes, the basis of household detergents.

Fig ___ View of the ConocoPhillips refinery, Humberside

Image copyright and courtesy of ConocoPhillips

Note that pipework in a refinery is almost always raised, where it runs beside a road it is typically to chest height but in crowded areas there is room to walk underneath. Raised pipes allow spills and leaks to be quickly spotted and metal trays can be placed under them until a repair can be effected.

The products of the various distillations are not useable without further treatment, the distillates are commonly treated with sulphuric acid and caustic soda, when there is a lot of sulphur in the oil cupric oxide (a black solid material delivered as a crumbly loose solid) or litharge is employed as a desulphurizing agent. The acid and caustic soda are usually delivered as liquids in tanker wagons.

Petroleum oil processing developed after the advent of the railways, and the railways provided a convenient way of moving the product inland from the coastal refineries. Oil for British refineries (including refined products such as petrol) has always been imported and a number of large establishments equipped with storage tanks of various kinds have been operating since at least the early twentieth century (possibly earlier). The 'tank farms' associated with refineries tend to be rather large, just one of the refineries at Milford Haven has 145 storage tanks, 11 for crude oil delivered by the ships and the rest for the storage of petrol and other refined product.

Principal Oil Refining Areas

Due to the obvious danger of fire, and to save money on the purchase of land, oil depots were usually located outside built-up areas and tended to grow rather haphazardly as consumption for fuel and chemical industry feed-stock increased.

Because most oil is imported most oil refineries and associated petro-chemical establishments are located on large river estuaries. Generally they prefer flat land and they tend to need a lot of water for cooling purposes. Inland depots tended to be somewhat smaller but that is a relative term and they were still on the big side for inclusion on a model railway.

Fig ___ Major rail connected oil installations

As noted above however there were smaller refineries, such as the Briggs plant in Dundee, which further processed the refineries's waste products to extract saleable materials. These were often very small (compared to a full refinery), they often employed rail for both deliveries of the raw materials and shipping of the products. These small establishments represent the bridge between oil refineries and petrochemical plants.

British on-shore and off-shore oil fields

There are only limited deposits of (liquid) oil found in the UK mainland at East Nottinghamshire and in north Leicestershire, with a post war field at Wytch Farm Dorset. Oil shale (described below) was however a very significant source of certain oil products from the 1830s until after World War One (the last plants closing in the 1960s).

British Oil Shale Refining

Oil shale is a kind of rock which contains an oily liquid called kerogen which can be distilled to produce hydrocarbons similar to those in petroleum. Oil shale was regularly used from about the sixteenth century but this was mainly seen as a medicinal material. In the seventeenth century an Italian town was heated using gas made from oil shale but serious commercial exploitation only began in 1838 in France where the oil was distilled for lamp oil. If you heat oil shale to about 500 degrees Celsius you get hydrocarbons and a range of solid products most of the solids are useless but some are valuable, notably sulphur, ammonia, alumina, soda ash and nahcolite (which is used in industrial exhaust gas scrubbing).

By driving off the oil in retorts (similar in principle to those used in gas works) four types of oil could be recovered paraffin oil for burning, oil for lubricating machinery, a light volatile fluid called naphtha, and solid paraffin. The oil from the retorts was purified by mixing with sulphuric acid and allowing the acid to precipitate out the impurities. The waste material was sold as fuel (the acid was not recovered and would require regular shipments to replenish the stocks). Caustic soda was then mixed in to deal with any residual sulphuric acid and the entire process of distillation and purification was then repeated to produce the pure oils. Also produced were ammonia and ammonium sulphate (a fertilizer, sales of which kept the enterprise afloat in the early years).

Most people used whale oil for domestic lighting but by the mid nineteenth century whale oil could not meet the demand for lamp oil and prices rose. Around this time various shale oil recovery firms were established. You may see references to 'tar tunnels', these were usually coal mines which encountered a layer of oil rich coal (known as cannel) the liquid in which then leaked out and could be processed. The Ironbridge Gorge Museum complex in Shropshire includes a tar tunnel of this type.

James Young (1811-1883) was the originator of the British paraffin industry. In the later 1840's he was engaged in the manufacture of oils from a petroleum spring at Alfreton, Derbyshire, and in 1850 set up a partnership to manufacture oils from `Torbane Hill mineral', or `Boghead coal', at Bathgate. He began selling paraffin in 1856 and had a great deal of success with the product (which did not smell nearly as badly as the fish oils used in lamps). Young bought out his partners and sold the enterprise (`Young's Paraffin Light and Mineral Oil Company') in 1866. Carboniferous shale later replaced the coal and over the years the process was continuously adjusted to recover the most valuable components (at the expense of the less valuable products).

Many shale oil works failed at the end of the nineteenth century as comparatively cheap US and Middle Eastern oil came in to the UK, some firms adapted to the new oil and thrived (Walkers Century Oils in Stoke on Trent started refining shale oil in the 1870s but went on to become a major player in the UK lubricating oil business). Where the shale contained more than about five percent oil by volume recovery remained an economic proposition even after the advent of imported oil, this was mainly done by shifting the emphasis in production. For example as the Chillian guano reserves were used up in the later 19th century the shale was used to produce sulphate of ammonia fertiliser as well as oils. The shale oil refineries were quite large enterprises, several operated their own internal (narrow gauge) railways to bring the shale from the mines to the retorts, Andrew Barclay of Kilmarnock supplied at least three such engines to Young's works at Addiewell and Uphall. Shale oil was commercially refined in the Lothian area of Scotland (to the West of Edinburgh) from the 1860's until the 1960's and, on a smaller scale, in north Somerset near Watchet. At its peak, in 1913, the industry in Scotland employed over 10,000 people and that year extracted over three million tons of shale from the various mines in the area. At that time they could expect to get 30 gallons of oil per ton of shale, by the time the operation closed in 1962 they were managing only about 20 gallons per ton. The Scottish shale oil works used the Pumpherston process which employs external heating of the retort. The final types of retort used was developed around the time of the First World War, a tall vertical system using gravity to carry the shale down through the retort. In the Second World War manpower shortages saw all retorting concentrated at one plate (at Westwood). For a time in the early nineteenth century Britain was an oil exporting country but this did not last long and the vast majority of the UK's oil was imported prior to the North Sea oil boom of the late 1970's.
In the oil business oil from shale and tar sands is called syncrude. A 2005 estimate set the total world resources of oil shale at 411 gigatons — enough to yield 2.8 to 3.3 trillion barrels (520 km3) of shale oil. This exceeds the world's proven conventional oil reserves, estimated at 1.317 trillion barrels (209.4×10^9 m3), as of 1 January 2007. The United States, Russia and Brazil account for 86% of the world's resources in terms of shale-oil content with the US holding just over 60 percent.

Imported Oils

The British have to a large extent relied on imported oil for most of the 19th and 20th centuries. Early imports came from Baku (then in Russia now in Azerbaijan) where the stuff was close enough to the surface to be lifted out of holes dug in the ground. Oil was discovered in Burma in 1859, and the Burmah Oil Co was set up to exploit it. An American called Drake discovered Pennsylvanian crude oil in 1859 and the business expanded rapidly but as with most oils in the Western hemisphere the proportion of lighter fractions (kerosene, petrol, naphtha and diesel oils) was small. Oils from the Eastern hemisphere contain a higher proportion of the valuable light ingredients but less sulphur and thick residues such as asphalt and coke (which often contain metals). The heavy western oils need more energy input to break them down, typically to get two barrels of goodies from heavy oil you use one barrel of the oil as fuel. A light oil well produces about 10,000 barrels per day, heavy oil wells only deliver 5-100 barrels a day.

As result there were expeditions to various parts of the world and in the Middle East large deposits were found by British entrepreneurs, first in Iran (resulting the formation of the Anglo Persian Oil Company, now BP), then in Iraq and Kuwait. As a result the British had a considerable influence in that part of the world and by the later 19th century the UK was importing oil from this area in purpose built tanker ships (this was the basis of Shell's oil business in the early days). One of the reasons for tension between Britain and France and the Germans in the run up to World War One was the shift to oil fired warships, the Germans had no domestic oil production and were actually going to build a railway line from Berlin down to Basra in Iraq to bring oil for their fleet. The first (and one of the largest) deployments of British troops in World War One was in fact to Basra to secure the Iraqi oil fields. This was also part of the reason BP became so big, they offered guaranteed supplies to the Royal Navy in exchange for some investment by the government.

Until the end of the second world war the UK imported processed refinery products, mainly from the Western Hemisphere (ie the US and South America). By the end of 1938 some thirteen refineries in the United Kingdom were producing petrol, but the output represented less than 15 per cent of total deliveries to all home market consumers. In 1946 75 per cent of United Kingdom requirements for all petroleum products, including nearly 90 per cent of the petrol, were still imported in finished form. In the years which followed the 1939-1945 war, however, there was a shift from dollar countries to the Middle East as the main source of supply of crude oil for Western Europe. The leading oil companies in the United Kingdom were also encouraged by the Government to set up a number of new refineries and thereafter imports were increasingly in the form of crude oil rather than of finished products.

By 1963 nearly 70 per cent of all United Kingdom imports of crude oil came from the Middle East, about 11 per cent from Venezuela and a similar amount from North Africa (where oil had been struck for the first time in 1956).

Regulatory, Institutional, and Market-Based Approaches Towards Achieving Comprehensive Chemical Policy Reform.

2011-04-22T17:43:00.001+03:00

Abstract

The purpose of this article is to inform nurses and other health care professionals about the nexus between the environment and health and present approaches in which they can be involved so as to support comprehensive reform of chemicals management in the United States. It discusses the health impact of hazardous chemicals and the environmental regulatory failures within the U.S. to protect the public. It also reports on international chemical management initiatives and key elements of chemical policy reform that can guide the U.S. regulatory, market-based, and institutional-based approaches to a comprehensive, chemical policy reform. The role of nursing in advocating for these reforms will be presented.

Citation: Welker-Hood, K., Condon, M., Wilburn, S., (May 31, 2007). "Regulatory, Institutional, and Market-Based Approaches Towards Achieving Comprehensive Chemical Policy Reform." OJIN: The Online Journal of Issues in Nursing. Vol. 12 No. 2, Manuscript 6.

DOI: 10.3912/OJIN.Vol12No02Man06

Key words: advocacy, chemical, environment, environmental law, green chemistry, market-based approaches, nursing, occupational health, policy, public health, safe alternatives, toxics

Industrial societies are experiencing an increase in diseases and conditions, such as asthma, birth defects, cancers, and infertility that have been linked, to varying degrees, with chemical environmental exposures. Chemical contamination threatens human health and puts the ecosystems that sustain us in jeopardy. Even though these hazards and their associated effects warn of a future public health calamity, citizens and governments are hindered from taking precautionary action, often because of their ignorance. Currently, 80,000

Chemical contamination threatens human health and puts the ecosystems that sustain us in jeopardy

chemicals are registered in the United States (U.S.). Of these 3,000 chemicals are used in major quantities. However, safety information is exceedingly limited for the majority of chemicals produced and used within the U.S. and abroad. This data gap impedes pollution controls necessary to protect vulnerable populations, such as children and pregnant women, from disease and disability.

The purpose of this article is to inform nurses and other health care professionals about the nexus between the environment and health and present approaches in which they can be involved to support comprehensive reform of chemicals management in the U.S. It will discuss the health impact of hazardous chemicals and the environmental regulatory failures within the U.S. to protect the public. It will also report on international chemical management initiatives and key elements of chemical policy reform that can guide the U.S. regulatory, market-based, and institutional-based approaches to a comprehensive, chemical policy reform. The role of nursing in advocating for these reforms will be presented.

The Problems with Hazardous Chemicals

Increasing attention has been focused on the potential ill effects to human health resulting from exposure to man-made chemicals that find their way into the environment. Due to their particularly hazardous characteristics, one group of chemicals that has raised particular concern is the Persistent Bioaccumulative Toxins (PBT). A PBT may be a chemical 'parent compound,' or a secondary chemical that is the result of metabolism or environmental degradation. PBTs tend to have long half-lives (the amount of time it takes for 50% of a substance to break down, or be excreted) in organisms (including the human organism) and in the environment (Easthope & Valeriano, 2005).

When absorbed into organisms these chemicals, due to their lipophilic nature, may be stored in the organism's fat tissue. In this way PBTs build up in the food chain, i.e., they bioaccumulate. When a given PBT is absorbed by very small organisms, which in turn are consumed by larger and progressively larger organisms, the stored chemicals are passed along to the increasingly larger organisms, becoming more concentrated as

…citizens and governments are hindered from taking precautionary action, often because of their ignorance.

they move up the food chain. Humans, said to be at the top of this chain, consume fish or other animals below them on the food chain thereby receiving the most concentrated doses, which are more concentrated than in the surrounding environment. The amount of a chemical that bioaccumulates depends on several variables including the mode and rate of uptake, the amount of fat tissue in the organism, and the speed with which the chemical is metabolized, as well as other biological and physiological factors (Easthope & Valeriano, 2005; US Geological Survey, 2006).

PBTs can transfer between the environmental media of air, water, and land, and cross geographical boundaries to travel long distances. Hence, humans can be exposed to PBTs in a variety of ways. They can be exposed to PBTs and all environmental chemicals, through oral ingestion, inhalation, and dermal contact which can occur in their work places, homes, schools, and communities (Ott, Steineman, & Wallace, 2007).

While nurses usually do not have a background in toxicology, their familiarity with pharmacological principles provides a frame of reference to understand the toxic effects of hazardous chemicals. Both the science of pharmacology and that of toxicology deal with the introduction of chemicals into the human system and the effects these chemicals have on that system. There are many parallels between human exposure to both pharmaceuticals and to environmental chemicals (ECs). The effects of both drugs and hazardous chemicals can be seen immediately (acute), long-term (chronic), or become apparent after a latency period (Sattler, 2006). Both chemicals and pharmaceuticals are delivered in doses, though the dosing of pharmaceuticals is carefully controlled, while the dose of an EC the human receives is largely uncontrolled, unknown, and taken unknowingly (Sattler). There can be either therapeutic or 'side- effects' of pharmaceuticals, while in most cases exposure to ECs is harmful. We know many drugs can have drug-to-drug interaction; therefore patients are advised against taking these medications in combination. However, since ECs are ubiquitous and exist in mixtures, the effects that these ECs have on the human system (when they are consumed/absorbed at unknown levels and in varying mixtures) is unknown and largely unstudied (Sattler).

Toxic effects from ECs might be seen in the environment, animals, or in humans. In animals and humans these fall into broad categories including carcinogens, mutagens/genotoxins, teratogens, endocrine disruptors, neurotoxicants, reproductive toxicants, or developmental toxicants. Toxic endpoints may be to a particular organ or organ system, such as the blood, cardiovascular, kidney, liver, and others (Easthope & Valeriano, 2005).

Chemical toxicity can be determined directly through in vitro and animal lab tests, and less directly through epidemiological studies of humans. Determination of the toxic effect of chemicals in humans can be quite complicated for the following reasons:

It is difficult to determine effects from one specific chemical when there are many, since we are not exposed to single chemicals, but to mixtures of chemicals that may have additive effects.
Potential synergistic effects of these chemical combinations are difficult to study.
The exposure may be one time and acute or else chronic and for extended periods of time, so different dosages must be considered.
Some health effects may manifest long after the initial exposure.
We may not have methods sensitive enough to measure some of the more subtle effects.
Extrapolating from animal studies to humans is complicated, and direct human studies of toxic chemicals are unethical.

Although many of the toxic effects of ECs are unknown, some effects are known. One example of chemicals with known effects are the endocrine disrupting chemicals (EDCs), a group of chemicals (primarily PBTs) which have received considerable scientific attention and concern. It is known that these chemicals have the potential to alter the normal functioning of the endocrine system in animals and humans (The International Program on Chemical Safety, n.d.).

Although the exact mechanisms and links are often unclear, due to the complicating reasons cited above, general studies indicate that EDCs in humans may be responsible for certain reproductive effects, including lowered sperm quality, impaired fertility, declining sex ratios (fewer males born), and abnormal development of male reproductive organs. Other associations between EDC exposure and human health include endometriosis; precocious puberty; disruptions in neural function; disruptions in immune function; and cancers of the breast, testes, endometrium, prostate, and thyroid. The biological plausibility that these effects may be due to the EDCs is given added weight by the observations that the effects are also seen in wildlife and in lab animals (The International Program on Chemical Safety, n.d.).

Since PBTs are hazardous by definition, they have received a lot of attention and are a good starting point in a discussion of hazardous chemicals. However, it is important to keep in mind that PBTs are not the only group of hazardous chemicals to which humans are exposed. Toxic, non-PBTs found in environmental substances, such as organic solvent. Trichloroethylene (TCE), for example, is an industrial solvent used in dry cleaning that has been found in water supplies and may be encountered from exposure to contaminated air or soil. The International Agency for Research on Cancer has determined that TCE is a probable carcinogen, associated with several forms of cancer (World Health Association International for Research on Cancer, 1997). In addition, TCE exposure has been associated with a wide array of other adverse health effects, including neurotoxicity, immunotoxicity, developmental toxicity, and endocrine toxicity (Caldwell & Keshaya, 2006).

Failures in Federal U.S. Regulation

In this section, the authors will discuss various federal, environmental regulations promulgated with the intent of protecting the public from the deleterious effects of exposure to hazardous chemicals. The considerable regulation of pharmaceutical chemicals, described above, compared to that of ECs provides an instructive framework for highlighting many of the major limitations in the environmental regulation within the U.S. Consider the following:

Pharmaceuticals undergo rigorous pre-market testing and U.S. Food and Drug Administration (USFDA) oversight; ECs do not.
There is full disclosure of pre-market testing results for pharmaceuticals; there is none for ECs.
There is comprehensive labeling for pharmaceuticals regarding efficacy, interactions, and specific side effects; only limited information is available for most ECs.
There is a system for reporting unexpected side effects for pharmaceuticals; there is none for ECs.
There is a formal mechanism for recall for pharmaceuticals; again no such mechanism exists for ECs (Sattler, n.d.).

The remainder of this section will build upon these concerns by detailing the limitations of U.S. environmental regulation for industrial chemicals. Environmental regulation will be discussed in terms of

There is full disclosure of pre-market testing results for pharmaceuticals; there is none for environmental chemicals.

secondary prevention, primary prevention, and worker's right-to-know, as well as regulatory limitations impacting U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), an agency of the U.S Department of Labor, and state-level activities to regulate the chemical environment.

Secondary Prevention Regulation

In the US there are several federal environmental laws that operate in concert to limit the hazards of exposure to chemicals present within the ambient environment. A few of these chemical management laws, such as the Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, Safe Drinking Water Act, and Food Quality Protection Act, regulate the release of chemicals and set permissible limits to these chemicals in our air, drinking water, or food. Still other laws, such as Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), and the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act were promulgated to manage chemicals that are found at toxic levels in the environment and that present a risk to health. The purpose of these laws is to establish rules for the proper handling/disposal of solid and hazardous waste (RCRA) as well as provide the federal government the authority to respond to releases of hazardous substances and fund clean-up of abandoned hazardous waste sites. In addition, the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA) requires industrial reporting of toxic releases and encourages the development of local plans to respond to chemical emergencies. To learn more about the environmental laws regulated by the USEPA visit the USEPA website at www.epa.gov.

While all of these laws are critical to limiting the deleterious affect of exposures to hazardous chemicals and in identifying parties potentially exposed, these laws actually constitute a secondary, and even tertiary level of prevention for environmental pollution. Traditionally, these levels of prevention are used in public health to discuss activities aimed at early detection and early intervention to minimize the deterioration of health from a disease. By applying these concepts to laws that regulate chemicals in the U.S. it is clear that laws operating at these levels only serve to detect hazards and to limit their impact and are generally characterized as pollution management laws. Unfortunately, this approach to protecting human health from dangerous chemicals is comparable to 'closing the barn door after the horse has escaped.' These actions come too late and place vulnerable populations at risk given the limited resources the USEPA has for enforcement.

Primary Prevention Regulation

As in other arenas of public health, primary prevention is clearly the preferable and most effective method for controlling the incidence of diseases caused by environmental chemical contamination. Primary prevention for chemical regulation involves those laws that control chemicals before they are marketed and become downstream contributors to the chemical mixtures found in the global environment. There are two federal U.S. environmental laws promulgated to serve this purpose. These laws are the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) and the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). The USEPA is responsible for administering these laws.

TSCA (signed into law in 1976) authorizes the USEPA to screen existing and new industrial chemicals used in U.S. manufacturing and commerce and to identify potentially dangerous products or uses that should be subject

…primary prevention is clearly the preferable and most effective method for controlling the incidence of diseases caused by environmental chemical contamination.

to federal control. This law was enacted as the USEPA was to begin making test rules; 62,000 chemicals were in commerce at that time. These chemicals were the start of the TSCA Chemical Substances Inventory (TSCA Inventory) and still constitute the vast majority of the chemicals in use today (Guth, Denison, & Sass, 2005). The chemicals on this original list of 'existing' chemicals were allowed to continue to be used commercially without requiring product safety information. However, the USEPA has the authority to require the development by producers of test data on existing chemicals if the agency can prove that these chemicals: (a) may present an unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment' during their manufacture, processing, distribution, use, or disposal; or (b) are produced in high volume and there is potential for a substantial quantity to be released into the environment or for a substantial or significant human exposure (Fletcher et al., 2005).

While it appears at first glance that TSCA contains the necessary tools to require chemical safety information, its regulatory potency is softened by the need for the USEPA to prove and defend decisions to require more information regarding chemicals of concern. Existing chemicals can only be regulated if the chemical presents an 'unreasonable risk,' if the benefits of regulation outweigh the industry cost and lost economic and social value, and if the USEPA has chosen the least burdensome way to eliminate only the unreasonable risk (Fletcher et al., 2005). This policy creates a cost-benefit standard that favors industry over a health-based, decision-making standard that would protect public health. This point is demonstrated in the U.S. Government Accountability Office report to Congress noting that since TSCA was enacted, the USEPA has required testing on fewer that 200 of the 62,000 chemicals on the original inventory and has only banned five substances. No chemicals have been banned under this statute since 1990 (Government Accountability Office, 2005). Under TSCA, chemicals new to the market after the passage of TSCA are to be filed with the USEPA through a pre-manufacture notice before they can be manufactured or imported into the US. The USEPA has 90 days to act or the chemical may be introduced to market. TSCA does not require toxicity data for these new chemicals, and the USEPA can only require safety test data if they can prove an 'unreasonable risk' to human health. In the absence of test data the EPA uses computer modeling called Structure Activity Relationship analysis to compare its chemical structure with other existing chemicals and to negotiate some restriction and withdrawals. Although this process provides preliminary screening, it is less effective in detecting toxicity of chemicals than actual testing (Fletcher et al., 2005;Guth, et al., 2005; USEPA, 1993). Once chemicals are marketed they are added to the TSCA Inventory and subject to the same rules for regulation as those 62,000 original 'existing' chemicals on the initial inventory list.

Another important limitation to TSCA is that chemical manufacturers registering their products on the TSCA Inventory are able to withhold critical ingredient information under a confidential business clause. The manufacturer can claim that certain ingredients are trade secrets and that they are withholding information to stay competitive. The stipulation in TSCA that allows for confidential business information (CBI) withholding interferes with community and worker right-to-know laws. Thus, the ability of the public and workers to adopt preventative behaviors that would limit exposures to hazardous chemicals is thwarted.

The second federal U.S. law controlling chemicals that enter into market is FIFRA. FIFRA governs the sale and use of pesticides in the U.S. and directs the USEPA to restrict use of pesticides to prevent unreasonable adverse health effects for humans and the environment. The process by which USEPA regulates the sale and use of pesticides is through registration and labeling. Manufactures must submit data that documents how the pesticide behaves in the environment along with toxicity information. Unlike TSCA, the USEPA may require a battery of up to 100 tests of active and inert ingredients in the pesticide depending on the potential for exposure. Based on the data submitted, the EPA determines if, and under what conditions, the pesticide might exhibit an unreasonable risk to human health or the environment. Pesticides that are to be used on food crops must also employ a series of tests on their active, as well as some of the inert ingredients, to determine the amount of residue that could remain on crops and subsequently find its way into food products (Fletcher et al., 2005).

The Federal Food Drug and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), sets the conditions for 'safe' levels of pesticide residues on food and in end-product, processed foods by setting tolerance levels. If tolerance levels cannot be set because no 'safe' level for the residue can be established for human consumption, the pesticide cannot be registered for use on food crops. Any pesticide that is granted registration has specific, approved uses and conditions for use that include directions for handling, storage, and disposal. The manufacturer must then place this information on their product label before this product goes to market (Fletcher et al., 2005).

It is clear that FIFRA does a better job at assisting the USEPA to protect the environment and public health than does TSCA by requiring safety testing from manufactures before a product can be registered. However, shortcomings of this law do exist, particularly because the USEPA is required to consider the cost-benefit of not registering or banning a pesticide. This decision's impact can restrict the economic health of an industry.

Another weakness is that even with the community's right-to-know law (EPRCA) the average citizen will find it difficult to access information about pesticides that are registered. It will be difficult because the USEPA does not need to make the toxicity information available, and pesticide producers can claim that certain

The stipulation…that allows for confidential business information withholding interferes with community and worker right-to-know laws [and thwarts] ability of the public and workers to adopt preventative behaviors that would limit exposures to hazardous chemicals.

ingredients are confidential under a trade secret clause. Although coordination of pesticides through FIFRA and FFDCA has been successful in controlling exposure to these chemicals in food, the potential for exposure through other media, such as water or air, are not considered when the USEPA is determining whether or not to register a pesticide.

Worker's Right-to-Know

Another piece in the patchwork quilt of chemical policy in the US is the federal Hazard Communications Standard or the 'worker's right-to-know' rule (Hazard Communications Standard 29 CFR 1910.1200) enacted in 1983. This regulation aims at providing workers the right to know about exposure to toxic chemicals in the workplace; however, it doesn't really give workers the right not to be exposed to hazardous chemicals. OSHA enforces the Standard (U.S. Department of Labor, OSHA, n.d.).

Key elements of this right to know rule include the following:

Chemical manufacturers must determine whether or not their chemicals pose a hazard to human health and/or physical safety.
If a chemical is determined to be a threat, its manufacturer must produce a material safety data sheet (MSDS) for the chemical and distribute it.
In the workplace all hazardous chemicals must be labeled and there must be a corresponding MSDS with all workers having access to the data sheet.
All workers must be trained about the hazardous chemicals in the workplace
When new chemicals are being used, the employers must be trained in using them.
The MSDS and a written Hazard Communication Standard Plan must be accessible to all employees (Sattler & Lipscomb, 2003).

A worker's right-to-know is repeatedly limited because the MSDSs are often (a) incomplete or contain inaccurate or conflicting information, (b) are not required to contain information on environmental effects and chemical reactions, (c) have no 'plain language' requirements, and (d) are not required to undergo certification or a third party review so that the manufacturer may underestimate the hazard and its health effects to workers.

In general, it takes OSHA ten years to promulgate a new standard.

OSHA has standards for only a handful of workplace chemical exposures, such as arsenic, asbestos, benzene, cadmium, carcinogens, compressed air, ethylene oxide, formaldehyde, hazardous waste operations, lead, methylene chloride, and vinyl chloride (Sattler & Lipscomb, 2003). In general, it takes OSHA ten years to promulgate a new standard. Despite over 15 years of work on glutaraldehyde (Cidex), there is no exposure limit established for this asthmagen and potent sensitizer commonly used as a high level disinfectant in hospitals. The U.S. National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) has only a recommended exposure limit; while the European standards for this chemical are already set at one tenth the limit recommended by NIOSH.

Regulatory Limitations Impacting EPA and OSHA

An important limitation to promulgating protective environmental or occupational regulations has been placed on the USEPA and OSHA by both executive and legislative mandates. These mandates have obligated all federal agencies, including the USEPA and OSHA, to address both the cost and the benefits when considering imposing new regulations. This obligation was set forth by President Clinton through Executive Order 12866 on Regulatory Planning and Review (58 Federal Register 51735, October 4, 1993). This order requires agencies to perform cost-benefit analyses of proposed and final regulations. Under Executive Order 12866, federal agencies should promulgate only such regulations as are required by law, or are made necessary or compelling by public need. Either agency must assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives, including the alternative of not regulating. Further, in choosing among alternative regulatory approaches, agencies should select those approaches that maximize net benefits (Croote, 1999).

In addition, federal agencies were mandated by the legislative branch through the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (P.L. 104-4), Title II, to perform cost-benefit analyses when considering any promulgation. The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) requires that federal agencies perform cost-benefit analyses of their regulations, including the effects of the regulation on health and the environment (Croote, 1999). The outcome of both the Executive Order 12866 and UMRA is that federal agencies often adopt regulations that will have the least cost impact. Therefore it is cost of protection that is the driver in U.S. regulation not

…federal agencies often adopt regulations that will have the least cost impact…not the principle of choosing the regulatory option that is most health-protective.

the principle of choosing the regulatory option that is most health-protective.

States Lead the Charge for Reform

Due to the long history of TSCA's ineffectiveness in blocking dangerous chemicals from entering into market, several states have enacted state-level legislation that is more stringent in its requirements than federal legislation. One important example is California's Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1998, also known as Proposition 65. An important feature of this state law is that it prohibits the discharge of certain listed chemicals into drinking water unless the discharger can demonstrate 'no significant risk.' This law maintains a list of 750 chemicals known to cause cancer, birth defects, or other reproductive disorders. It requires manufactures to place labels alerting the public if chemicals on the list are contained in their product. The important outcome of this law is that many manufactures have opted to change their products to substitute safer chemicals in place of toxic chemical which they would have been required to report on their label under Proposition 65.

Other state level activities have involved states passing pollution-prevention legislation. These laws vary across the states; however, a common model is for states to require annual pollution-prevention planning and reporting by industry. A Massachusetts law is an example of this pollution prevention legislation. The Massachusetts Toxic Use Reduction Act requires facilities that use certain listed toxic compounds to submit annual reports on the amounts used, to pay annual fees based on usage levels, and to prepare toxics-use-reduction plans with specific details on in-plant changes to reduce, avoid, or eliminate use of these materials. This act also allows the state authority to ban or limit certain chemicals.

Overview of Changes in International Policy

Major legislative efforts to improve chemical regulation are occurring around the world. The European Union (EU) recently passed a regulation titled, "Registration, Evaluation and Authorization of Chemicals" (REACH) which regulates chemicals requiring manufacturers to provide health and safety data on chemicals, thereby moving the market towards safer alternatives. The Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs) is a treaty that has been adopted by over 150 countries to ban the 12 worst chemicals (often referred to as the 'dirty dozen') from production, use, and transport. The International Chemical Control Toolkit offers a system for identifying potential chemical hazards in the occupational setting to assist in protecting workers. These international movements are likely to have global repercussions because the European market is large, and many U.S. companies sell products in Europe. With Europe's lead, other countries are now struggling with the issue of reforming outdated and ineffective chemical policy laws. These international efforts are attempts to establish broad-based chemical policies. In order to understand what such a policy might look like, we present two international approaches to chemical usage, the Stockholm Convention for Persistent Organic Pollutants and the EU REACH, along with a description of the International Chemical Control Toolkit.

Stockholm Convention

The Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs) (sometimes referred to as the POPs Treaty) was adopted at a conference held in 2001 in Stockholm, Sweden. Over 150 countries had signed onto the Convention before it entered into force on May 17, 2004. POPs are environmental chemicals that have many of the same characteristics as PBTs (i.e. persist for extended periods of time, bioaccumulate in organisms and the environment, have toxic effects, and can be transported over long distances) except that POPs are a subclass including only organic chemicals (Orris, Chary, Perry, & Asbury, 2000). The Convention seeks to protect human health and the environment from these chemicals. Signers to the Convention agree to prohibit the production and use of certain 'intentionally' produced POPs (industrial chemicals and pesticides), restrict the use of Dichloro-Diphenyl-Trichloroethane (DDT), which has been retained for its use against malaria vectors until substitutes for it are available, and reduce or eliminate unintentionally produced POPs (dioxins and furans).

The Convention provides a process by which additional chemicals with POP characteristics may be added to the original 'dirty dozen' list so that they will be similarly controlled. Further articles of the Convention state that the Convention's participants agree to: (a) develop a plan to implement conditions of the Convention, (b) educate policy and decision makers and the public about the health hazards of POPs chemicals, (c) encourage development and use of safer alternatives, and (d) identify and appropriately manage old stockpiles and waste containing POPs (United Nation's Environment Program, n.d.).

REACH

Another European initiative is the European Union's REACH Regulation. The REACH Regulation was formally adopted on December 18, 2006, and will enter into force in June of 2007. REACH was initiated in 1998 because of the growing recognition of the need to reform chemical policy worldwide. REACH is intended to ensure that meaningful chemical safety information will be available to the users and puts the responsibility for providing this information on the chemical producers. It covers both existing chemicals (which will be phased-in) and new chemicals. This is different from TSCA which grandfathered in 'existing' chemicals when the law was enacted and has not required an assessment or an evaluation process for these grandfathered chemicals.

Under REACH, manufacturers and importers of chemicals will be responsible for 'registering' their chemicals. In the registration process they will provide safety data for chemicals produced or imported in quantities of one or more tons per year. Manufacturers and importers of chemicals of ten tons or more per year must, in addition, submit a chemical safety report in which they provide detailed hazard and risk assessment information which will describe how the chemicals can be "adequately controlled." The information will be evaluated, and further information may be requested if needed.

There is another process for chemicals of very high concern (carcinogens, mutagens, reproductive toxins, PBTs, and chemicals that have "probable serious effects to humans or the environment"). Manufacturers of these chemicals will be required to seek 'authorization' for their use, a step that will help ensure that they are analyzed, assessed, and regulated for each specific use. The analysis must show that risk from use of the chemical can be adequately controlled. An important part of this authorization process is providing information regarding alternatives to the chemical, and when available, a plan for substitution with a safer chemical (European Commission, 2006;Lowell Center for Sustainable Production, n.d., a ). Although compromises were made before this regulation was signed, REACH can serve as a model of an up-dated chemical policy.

International Chemical Control Toolkit

Persons who are exposed to chemicals in the work place experience some of the highest, most concentrated exposures. Only about 1,000 chemicals in use globally have Occupational Exposure Limits (Papp, Eijkemans, & Vickers, 2004). For this reason, safety measures have been developed to protect the health of workers, which may also be applicable to EC exposures. The World Health Organization, together with

Control Banding helps avoid the need to assess each chemical separately.

the International Labor Organization and the International Occupational Hygiene Association developed a system for classifying chemicals by hazard and risk to determine the appropriate control measures. This system, known as "Control Banding" was initiated in the United Kingdom. It was adapted for a global audience in response to the need for occupational safety expertise in developing countries and in small and medium-sized businesses, where resources may be scarce, and professional advice is at a premium. This regulation helps avoid the need to assess each chemical separately.

Potentially harmful chemicals are assigned what are called 'Risk (R) Phrases' which are categories that describe the chemicals' most harmful effects. These R Phrases are listed on the chemical label or MSDS which comes from the chemical suppliers. The R Phrases are then put into "Hazard Bands"or groupings according to their hazardous characteristics.

When a chemical's Hazard Band is known, the level of exposure to that chemical for a given task is determined. Parameters that are considered for this are the quantity of a chemical to be used, the likelihood that the chemical will become airborne, and its level of volatility. When the user has ascertained the Hazard Band and the level of exposure, or 'Exposure Band,' the appropriate control measures can be determined with the help of control guidance documents. These measures, determined by industrial hygienists, include general ventilation, engineering controls, and containment (enclosure of the process). At times the user may be advised to seek the advice of a specialist. This system has its limitations, but allows employees in areas with limited resources to protect their health (Jackson, 2004; Papp et al., 2004; Vickers, 2004)

Key Elements of Regulatory Chemical Policy Reform

Chemical policy reform encompasses a large number of elements, such as regulatory and voluntary measures, internal business policies determining chemicals to be used and how they will be used, fiscal policies (such as taxes), education initiatives (labeling programs), and investment in 'Green Chemistry.'Several other policy areas, such as occupational health, facility pollution, and emergency planning, are closely linked to chemical policy because of the needed information regarding the hazardous properties of chemicals (Lowell Center for Sustainable Production, n.d., b). Therefore, the adoption of a comprehensive, chemical-management reform would have a far-reaching impact on protecting worker, community, and consumer health. Comprehensive chemical policy reform is predicated on the Precautionary Principle. The Louisville Charter for Safer Chemicals builds on the Precautionary Principle to describe desirable outcomes for making the planet safe from hazardous chemicals. In the section that follows, we will discuss the Precautionary Principle, The Louisville Charter for Safer Chemicals, and the necessary elements for establishing a broad, chemical policy reform.

Precautionary Principle

As outlined in the section on health effects, one encounters a great deal of scientific uncertainty when trying to link a specific toxic chemical with human health effects. In the latter part of the 20^th century a principle of precaution began to take form to address a variety of potential health and environmental dangers that were not yet fully understood. This principle advocates for a preventive approach to disease, a concept familiar to nursing. The Rio Declaration on Environment and Development, developed at

The Precautionary Principle advocates for a preventive approach to disease, a concept familiar to nursing.

the Rio Earth Summit in 1992, defined this principle by stating: "Where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for postponing cost-effective measures to prevent environmental degradation" (Martuzzi & Tickner, 2004, p. 27).

Using similar language, The Wingspread Statement on the Precautionary Principle, developed at a 1998 conference in Racine, Wisconsin, stated, "Where an activity raises threats of harm to the environment or human health, precautionary measures should be taken even if some cause and effect relationships are not fully established scientifically" (Wingspread Statement on the Precautionary Principle, 1998, p. ). Precautionary action can be justified where inaction has the potential for harm to present and future generations.

The American Nurses Association (ANA) adopted the Precautionary Principle as Association policy in 2003. The ANA's Issue Statement noted that this principle allows action to be taken in the face of uncertainty; shifts the burden of proof to those who create the risks; includes analysis of alternatives to potentially harmful activities; uses participatory, decision-making methods; takes the life cycle of products or chemicals into account; and adds the proactive step of pre-market analysis of environmental harm (ANA, 2003).

Louisville Charter

The Precautionary Principle provides the philosophical base for the development of the Louisville Charter. The Louisville Charter for Safer Chemicals is a set of principles formulated in May of 2004 by groups and individuals. This Charter communicates a broad vision of the elements of comprehensive, chemical policy for protecting human health and the environment. It offers a description of the desired changes required in the chemical-management system so that it protects workers, communities, and most vulnerable populations from the deleterious effects of exposure to dangerous chemicals.

Six principles make up the Louisville Charter for Safer Chemicals. Table 1 lists the Charter's six principles and rational for their adoption. This table was developed by the authors of this paper to help communicate to the reader these principles formulated in 2004. These principles have the potential for broad application including guiding state legislative policy development that incorporates the phase-out of PBTs and other chemicals of concern, a development that could eventually lead to national chemical policy reform. The principles can also stimulate industrial innovations that would swing chemical production towards safer alternatives, processes, and solutions. Additional information about the Louisville Charter for Safer Chemicals can be found at the web site www.louisvillecharter.org.

Critical priorities of the Louisville Charter are to phase out the most dangerous chemicals, invest in research and development of safer alternatives, and promote the adoption of these alternatives. Implicit in these priorities is the desire that the high-risk communities that bear the greatest burden of environmental exposures are protected and that those responsible for creating hazardous chemicals bear the full cost of correcting damages to human health and the environment. The Louisville Charter strives for changes that would improve availability of comprehensive, safety information to workers as part of MSDS.

Table 1. Principles of the Louisville Charter for Safer Chemicals
Principles (P)	Description
P1-Require Safer Substitutes and Solutions	Hazardous chemicals and emissions can be eliminated by altering production processes, substituting safer chemicals, redesigning products and systems, and supporting innovative research and development for sustainable chemicals.
P2-Phase Out Persistent, Bioaccumulative, or Highly Toxic Chemicals	This principle is based on the idea that chemicals belonging to the Persistent Bioaccumulative Toxins (PBTs) category and other chemicals of equal concern are hazardous to human health and the environment. By virtue of their characteristics, they are very difficult to manage, having unacceptable threats to workers, the environment and/or ecosystems. Therefore, these chemicals should not be used and should be banned from manufacture, importation, and exportation.
P3-Give the Public and Workers the Full Right-to-Know and Participate	Due to barriers in access of information and insufficient data, the public and workers rarely receive adequate information about potential hazards associated with chemicals found in their workplaces or communities. Community members and workers must have the "right-to-participate" in decisions about chemicals that are manufactured and used by local industries, planned clean-up initiatives, and activities for about chemicals that are manufactured and used by local industries, planned clean-up initiatives, and activities for protecting those exposed to chemical hazards.
P4-Act on Early Warnings	The premise of this principle is precautionary. Therefore, if credible evidence resulting from new or existing chemicals is noted action should be swiftly taken to prevent, mitigate, and eliminate exposures so that human health and the environment are protected.
P5-Require Comprehensive Safety Data for All Chemicals	U.S. laws do not systematically require chemical producers to research or report on the human health effects or environmental fate of chemicals currently existing in commerce. Without this information the market is unable to stimulate innovation of safer alternatives, and the public can not make full use of environmental statutes or the liability system when harmed by chemical hazards. This principle states that only chemicals that provide adequate safety information should be allowed to stay in the market. This is the principle of 'No Data, No Market.'
P6-Take Immediate Action to Protect Communities	When communities and workers are exposed to levels of chemicals that pose a health hazard, immediate action is necessary to eliminate these hazards so that no population bears a disproportionate burden of risk.

Model Chemical Policy: Looking into the Future

While the Louisville Charter and Precautionary Principle offer a broad sweep of the changes that are necessary for chemical management in the US and abroad, the steps towards achieving these outcomes are more nebulous. A model chemical policy would correct fundamental problems that exist in the current system. Wilson (2006) referred to these fundamental problems in the U.S. as the Chemical Data Gap, Safety Gap, and Technology Gap.

Briefly, the Data Gap refers to the limited availability of comprehensive and standardized toxicity information regarding most of the chemicals in production and use. Wilson (2006) suggested that this lack of chemical information weakens the deterrent function of product liability, prevents markets from functioning properly, and weakens worker protection and worker compensation systems. The USEPA is impeded from protecting the public from dangerous chemicals because before it takes action, it must first prove that a chemical exhibits an 'unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment' which is a difficult risk to prove. Then it must mandate controls that are the least onerous to industry. The Safety Gap is fueled by lack of data on toxicity for most chemicals. At the heart of the Safety Gap is the inability of the USEPA to take action. Without adequate information, government agencies are unable to identify and prioritize chemical hazards. The Technology Gap exists because inadequate toxicity information and a weak chemical regulatory system dampen the motivation of chemical producers to invest in new, green (environmentally safe), chemistry technologies. Compounding this lack of market drivers is inadequate government investment in the research and development of green chemistry and in the training of scientists in this discipline.

Denison (2007) presents six policy activities that are likely to be important for closing these Chemical Data, Safety, and Technology Gaps. These activities involve: (a) identifying and prioritizing chemicals for action, (b) tracking chemicals through production and use, (c) requiring industry to research and report risk-relevant information, (d) government reviewing and assessing information to identify hazards, (e) imposing regulatory controls, and (f) sharing and disclosing risk-relevant information. Table 2 was developed by the authors of this paper to list Denison's six policy activities, highlight the gap(s) addressed by the activity, and describe the process by which the activity could be implemented to effect change. These activities apply to both the production and use of existing as well as new chemicals (Denison).

Table 2. Activities for Closing the Chemicals Data (D), Safety (S), & Technology (T) Gap
Activity	Gap Addressed	Process
Identifying & prioritizing chemicals of concern	Safety	S- Require the EPA to prioritize chemicals of concern that will lead to mandated reduction in use, substitution with a safer alternative, or immediate phase-out based on a chemical’s persistence, bioaccumulative nature, and toxicity to human and ecosystem health.
Tracking chemical production/use	Data Safety Technology	D-Require a nationwide searchable web-based chemicals database inventory that contains information from producers about chemical production, use, and comprehensive safety information, S- Require TSCA regulation regarding Confidential Business Information (CBI) be changed so that chemical inventories reflect actual exposure risks, require labeling of products (using barcodes) that contain highly hazardous or hazardous chemicals (see Figure 1-chemical action pyramid) (Rationale: 65% of chemical information disclosed to the U.S. EPA under TSCA regarding production and use is classified as CBI; downstream users are not fully aware of the potential hazards linked with the chemicals they are using.) T-Require full disclosure through production and use inventories in order to stimulate the development of new production processes or substitutions of safer alternatives,
Facilitating or requiring the reporting and generation of risk-relevant information	Data Safety Technology	D- Require the chemical industry to generate and distribute chemical toxicity information based on test criteria set by regulatory agency, S-Mandate industry to provide toxicity information on all new chemicals and for those existing ‘chemicals of concern’ that are in high production volume, T-Link chemicals to their toxicity to allow the market to function properly. Stimulates safer chemical alternatives,
Assessing information to determine hazards, exposures and risks	Safety	S-Require regulatory agencies to screen/ assess all new chemicals and existing chemicals of concern using health-based standard not an economic standard.
Imposing controls to mitigate risk	Safety	S-Change TSCA regulation so that regulatory agencies can impose controls on new and existing chemicals to address potential as well as documented risks without having to prove “unreasonable risk to health” or selecting a control that is least onerous to industry
Sharing & Disclosing information	Data Safety	D-Change TSCA and FIFRA so that chemical producers are mandated to share and disclose risk-relevant information along the supply chain connecting producers, processors, distributors and downstream chemicals users as well as disclose information to other countries. S-International controls on chemicals of concern should trigger assessment and decisions for imposing risk reducing controls within the U.S.

A critical activity for closing all three of these gaps in chemical management involves identifying and prioritizing chemicals of concern. Belliveau, Rossi, and Valeriano (2006) have

A critical activity for closing the Data, Safety, and Technology Gaps in chemical management involves identifying and prioritizing chemicals of concern.

created a useful framework, called the Chemical Action Pyramid (See Figure) for identifying chemicals of concern. The Figure is reprinted in this paper with the permission of its original authors (Belliveau et al.). This framework proposes a method for prioritizing actions to be taken based on a chemical's toxicity attributes. In this pyramid, chemicals are stratified into four hazard categories or tiers. The top of the pyramid represents those chemicals that are the most hazardous to human health and the environment. These chemicals are unacceptable and need to be removed from the market (phased-out). The bottom of the pyramid consists of preferred chemicals that have little or no toxicity, degrade into safe substances, and should be used in substitution of other, more hazardous, chemicals when applicable.

The Chemical Action Pyramid has a similar interpretation to the familiar food pyramid where the base constitutes the healthiest foods (fruits, vegetables, whole grains) recommended as the mainstay of our diet and the pyramid top constitutes the least healthy foods (fats, sweets) that should be consumed with marked moderation. Likewise, the chemical action pyramid follows this use gradient where highly hazardous (very persistent, very bioaccumulative) chemicals on the top should have limited use and the preferred (safe) chemicals at the base should comprise the majority of chemicals used in the market. Along the left side of the pyramid are text boxes that describe policy actions suitable for the chemicals found in each tier. Along the right side of the pyramid are text boxes that describe the rational for categorizing a chemical into a specific tier. The Chemical Action Pyramid is a valuable framework that assists in identifying and prioritizing chemicals that require more stringent controls to mitigate risk. Thus, this framework assists with policy efforts to close the Chemical Data, Safety, and Technology Gaps.

Figure 1. Chemical Action Pyramid-based on the inherent hazard of industrial chemicals and their breakdown products.

¹From “A Framework for Chemicals Policy Reform: Issues in Model Policy Development” by M. Belliveau, M. Rossi, and L. Valeriano, 2006. Copyright 2006 by the authors. Unpublished manuscript. Reprinted with permissionauthors.

Prioritizing chemicals that are to be the first controlled or eliminated, based on the chemicals classification system, is just one option for framing reform. The benefit is that it focuses attention to the obvious, dangerous chemicals, such as PBTs, and strives to remove them from the market. However, the majority of the chemicals in production and use fall into the "chemicals of unknown concern" (Tier III) category. Caution is needed to be sure that Tier I and Tier II chemicals are not substituted with Tier III chemicals because of the risk of replacing known dangers with potentially greater dangers. Perhaps another way to think about prioritizing chemicals is to consider the six activities proposed by Denison (2007). Using these activities, prioritization might focus on which chemicals ought to be assessed first (activity 4). In this way, Tier III chemicals that are in high production volume (high risk of exposure) may float up to the top of the "to do" list for assessment because of the burning need for more information to close this data gap. This is one of the approaches adopted by REACH whereby high volume chemicals (1000 tons/year or more) are being addressed before chemicals of lesser volume (100 tons/year or less).

Another approach to chemicals prioritization might be to remove barriers for disclosure of information (activity 6). Comprehensive safety information that lists all of the contents in a product is frequently withheld by producers under the guise of confidential business information (CBI). In order to close the Data Safety and Technology Gaps, prioritizing the removal of CBI would provide the ability to detect potentially hazardous exposures to consumers and workers. It would also act as a market driver for developing safer/preferred chemicals (Tier IV). The combination of all these approaches must be utilized if comprehensive chemical policy reform is to take root and grow quickly enough to make a difference.

Market-Based Approaches

A critical vehicle towards achieving reform in chemical production and use within the US or abroad is through market-centered initiatives. This approach is powerful because it suggests a 'win-win' situation in which corporations involved in chemical production and use can become part of the 'new chemical economy. The goal for this 'new chemical economy' is that corporations can remain economically viable while at the same time minimize their negative impact on human health and the environment. Market-based approaches regarding chemical management are frequently framed in the context of a pollution-tax versus a cap-and-trade system. In

The goal for this 'new chemical economy' is that corporations can remain economically viable while at the same time minimize their negative impact on human health and the environment.

the cap-and- trade system, environmental regulatory agencies establishes a 'cap' that limits total emissions from a designated group of polluters, such as a specific industry, to a level lower than their current emissions. The emissions allowed under the new cap are then divided up into individual permits for individual companies representing the right of that company to emit a specific amount of pollution. These permits take on a monetary value, and companies are free to buy and sell permits depending on their technological ability to reduce their own emissions. Although some companies are able to pollute more by buying permits, the goal of decreased emissions is still met by the industry as a whole.

Recently the market-based approach has taken on a broader meaning to encompass market-based alternatives that are aimed at pollution prevention not just pollution management. Market-based alternatives, like Green Chemistry and safer substitution, and green purchasing, will be discussed below to illustrate how these market drivers foster comprehensive chemical policy reform.

Green Chemistry

Industries producing and using chemicals contribute to the U.S. and European economies as they provide jobs, produce profits, and contribute to state and local tax revenues. Global chemical production is expected to double every 25 years for the near future (Wilson, 2006). It is clear that products created through chemicals abound and have positive purposes such as pest control, disease treatment, and

…chemicals have carved out a significant niche in modern society and are unlikely to disappear.

packaging of materials. In fact, a popular advertising slogan is "Better Living through Chemistry." As this slogan suggests, chemicals have carved out a significant niche in modern society and are unlikely to disappear.

However, it is critical to keep in mind that there is generally little relationship between a chemical's usefulness and its toxicity. Often the risk that a chemical poses to human or ecological health is unrelated to what it accomplishes. Additionally, pollution does not add to the profitability of the corporation producing it. Thus, a chemical's toxicity and resultant environmental and health impacts are really byproducts of its development. If a chemical or its production process can be designed so that its toxicity is reduced or eliminated, both industry and the public will benefit.

This decrease in environmental toxicity is the goal of a new scientific movement known as Green Chemistry, and aimed at preventing pollution through the environmentally safe design of chemical products and processes. Anastas and Warner have developed the 12 Principles of Green Chemistry which highlight for chemists principles for reducing or eliminating the use or generation of hazardous substances in the design, manufacture, and application of chemical products. Examples of these principles include preventing waste, designing safer chemicals and products, designing less hazardous chemical syntheses, and using safer solvents and reaction conditions. The 12 Principles for Green Chemistry can be viewed in its entirety on the EPA's websitewww.epa.gov/greenchemistry.

Green Chemistry offers a heady, market-based approach for driving innovations in chemical policy. In fact, experts have reported that alternative technologies, such as Green Chemistry, are less damaging, economically

If a chemical or its production process can be designed so that its toxicity is reduced or eliminated, both industry and the public will benefit.

superior, and function as well, if not better, than more traditional (toxic) options (Lowell Center for Sustainable Production, n.d., c). An important industry and regulatory gain achieved through Green Chemistry is that costs attributed to adverse health effects from handling, transporting, and disposing of hazardous materials are largely eliminated through this technological advancement. Currently, this alternative to chemical design and production is largely underutilized because little funding has been directed either to scientists or to businesses to create 'cleaner/safe' chemicals.

It should be noted that the industry push to 'greenwash' nanotechnology remains of questionable value. As with many of the chemicals currently on the market, little is known about the hazards attributed to this technology. Some scientists have found that there may be significant cardiopulmonary effects of exposure to nanotubes (Lam, James, McCluskey, & Hunter, 2004; Li et al., 2007). Therefore, caution should be used in supporting nanotechnology as a Green Chemistry method until more is discovered about its health impacts.

Safer Substitution and Green Purchasing

A common recommendation for limiting the production and use of the Chemical Action Pyramid Tier I and Tier II chemicals involves substituting hazardous substances with preferred (Tier IV) chemicals. Since substitution and green purchasing practices are closely linked they will be discussed together in this paper.

The adoption of safer chemical alternatives is one of the key principles supported by the Louisville Charter. The Charter states that substitution policies must be mandatory to achieve a world safe from hazardous chemicals. Regulatory imperatives are needed to provide enough of a competitive advantage for safer product adoption (Thorp & Rossi, 2005). Substitution and green purchasing policies are needed to provide strong incentives for the market to change and for industry to adopt safer processes. These policies can act as effective market drivers which motivate chemical producers to adopt safer processes, substitute safer (preferred) chemicals, and invest in research on green technologies to attain/maintain a competitive edge in the marketplace.

Grass roots organizations have employed this market-based approach to make safer, personal care products available. An example of this is the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics. This Campaign, described on its website www.safecosmetics.org, was launched because most chemical ingredients in cosmetics are not subject to pre-market approval by a regulatory body (USFDA, 2005) and many contain hazardous chemicals. This situation is changing in Europe where a new EU law forbids the use of over 1,000 cosmetic ingredients that are known carcinogens, mutagens, and reproductive toxins, such as DBP discussed above, (The Commission on European Communities, 2004).

The Campaign for Safe Cosmetic asks cosmetic companies to sign a pledge to remove toxic chemicals from their products and replace them with safer alternatives. This request, along with pressure from the E.U. law to formulate safer products that can meet European specifications, and be sold there, provides a two-pronged force to cosmetic companies to adopt safer practices. The campaign and the public attention it has brought to the topic is asource of market-based pressure. So far, more than 400 companies, mostly smaller and natural food store companies, but also larger companies such as Estee Lauder, L'Oreal, and Revlon, have signed the pledge (Brody, 2006).

Green purchasing practices include buying, selling, and utilizing environmentally preferable products. Environmentally preferable products are defined as "products and services that have a lesser or reduced effect on human health and the environment when compared with competing products or services that serve the same purpose" (Office of the Federal Environmental Executive, 1998). Environmentally

Green purchasing practices include buying, selling, and utilizing environmentally preferable products.

Preferable Purchasing (EPP), a term interchangeable with green purchasing, is the practice of purchasing such materials. EPP takes into consideration the effects of the products on the environment through the whole life cycle of that product. Tracking the life cycle includes following raw materials acquisition, production, manufacturing, packaging, distribution, reuse, operation, maintenance, and disposal of the product.

EPP uses the concept of substitution to replace hazardous chemicals with safer alternatives. The first chemical policy reform principle of the Louisville Charter requires safer substitutes and solutions. According to the Charter it is not enough to merely replace one chemical with another. Rather this principle requests an analysis of the function the chemical serves. Analyzing a chemical's function in a given task may lead to the discovery that changing the way the task is performed is environmentally preferable to simply replacing one chemical with another. This may lead to changes in systems, materials, processes, or chemicals; it encourages policy makers and manufacturers to support research and development of more creative, safer solutions (Thorp & Rossi, 2005).

EPP and substitution policies, when adopted by large organizations, can result in a market-based approach to chemical policy change. For example, supplies and equipment that come into the hospital may do so through Group Purchasing Organizations (GPO). A GPO brings together many purchasers in order to keep prices low, and leverage the buying power of all organization members. Vendors compete to meet the requirements set by institutions or GPOs in order to win contracts. When businesses demand products with environmentally preferable characteristics, strong incentives are created for the market to produce these products so as to meet the need and remain competitive. This results in the manufacturing, selling, and availability of safer, less hazardous products.

Institutional Approaches

A critical and exciting approach to achieving comprehensive chemicals reform involves the health care industry serving as a vehicle for inspiring greener innovation in chemicals use. The health care industry encompasses health care institutions and providers, such as nurses, physicians, and public health practitioners, as well as health professional associations. As a collective, the health care industry is a vital agent for addressing chemicals as a whole because it can use its significant purchasing power to transform the design and manufacture of products towards greater sustainability. This is a fitting role for the health care industry, which has a natural stake in reducing the use of chemicals that are linked to

The health care industry has a responsibility to learn about the hazards it creates and to lead by example through its purchasing and safe chemical substitutes priorities and to support comprehensive, chemical policy reform.

disease and an ethical responsibility to do so as the leader and advocate for the health of the communities that they serve. It is especially important that the industry lead the way in promoting safer chemicals policy, given the numerous chemicals or toxic substances still in use in health care settings which have been linked to adverse health effects, such as glutaraldehyde (linked with occupational asthma) and mercury (linked with neurotoxicity). The health care industry has a responsibility to learn about the hazards it creates and to lead by example through its purchasing and safe chemical substitutes priorities and to support comprehensive, chemical policy reform.

The steps in a comprehensive, chemical policy reform will be presented below. Examples of how health care organizations and health professionals have contributed to promoting comprehensive, chemical policy programs will be included to offer the reader ideas for greener innovations within their own workplace.

The first step of a comprehensive, chemical policy reform is for an organization to establish a written policy regarding chemicals reform. This policy should state that the company's vision, values, principles, and organizational objectives are consistent with the adoption of a safer chemicals program.

The next step of this reform is to develop a plan of action for a pilot project for implementation of a new chemical policy (HCWH, 2007). For example an organization could target individual suppliers, product areas, or specific departments. This would necessitate development of a pilot team. The team would need to identify the specific chemical that will be removed, reduced, or replaced based on the chemical's hazardous characteristics. The Chemical Action Pyramid's tiered approach to classifying chemicals could serve as a guide for prioritizing chemicals for removal from a health care institution. An action plan indicating tasks to be done, the person responsible for each task, and due dates for task completion would also be needed. Nurses should play a leadership role in the team that implements the pilot project. Nurses can use their professional education to help establish the health basis for identifying chemicals of concern, draft the organization's written policy towards toxic chemicals, develop staff education regarding the chemical hazards, and assist in identifying alternative chemicals and products that will ensure patient and worker safety and clinical efficacy.

The final step is to evaluate the results of the program, assessing the project's success in meeting its goals, the overall acceptance of the program, and barriers encountered during the project. The program can be expanded to other areas of the facility, incorporating what was learned during the pilot project (HCWH, 2007). Hospitals that implement chemical policy reform will need to work with their GPO, teaching their GPO how to ask questions about chemical components of products and materials and how to request substitutes in their proposals or purchasing bids. In this way, institutions and corporations can have an impact on the market beyond their individual place of work by signaling the market that organizations will be requiring full disclosure of chemical components and data on health testing prior to purchasing. A hospital's establishing a purchasing policy to exclude products containing certain chemicals, for example, brominated flame retardants, a class of chemicals found in computer and textile products, will necessitate manufacturers' providing safer alternatives if they want to maintain the hospital's business. This has already been done successfully in replacing mercury-containing products with mercury-free products. As more institutions and companies make the same requests for specific types of chemical-free products, more alternatives and innovations will become available to all.

Moving Beyond Individual Institutions: Nursing Initiatives

Health care's mission to prevent illness and heal disease makes the industry a potentially powerful advocate for safer chemical laws. Several professional, health-related organizations are already working to build an advocacy movement in the health care sector. Some of these efforts are aimed at creating market drivers through purchasing policies adopted by health care institutions as described above. Yet the current

…the current state of ineffective chemical regulation in the US is a situation that cannot be entirely remedied by voluntary initiatives or institutional purchasing policies, no matter how large. Laws requiring the development of safer alternatives will be necessary.

state of ineffective chemical regulation in the US is a situation that cannot be entirely remedied by voluntary initiatives or institutional purchasing policies, no matter how large. Laws requiring the development of safer alternatives will be necessary. This will necessitate recruiting health leaders who can voice the need to support state and federal chemical reform legislation. This next section will describe a variety of such efforts by nurses and the nursing profession.

The HCWH coalition has advanced environmental safety in health care organizations through the search for safer substitution of chemicals and alternatives to medical waste incineration, one of the leading causes of dioxin production. HCWH has developed a model chemical policy to assist health care institutions in using their purchasing power to advocate for safer chemicals. The HCWH model seeks to eliminate data gaps in the knowledge of the toxicity, environmental attributes, and use of the chemicals used to manufacture products; to support the substitution of toxic chemicals with chemicals or processes of lesser environmental impact; and to support an economy where manufacturers, suppliers, and consumers are provided with sufficient information to compare toxicity options and environmental impacts of the chemicals and products they use.

The ANA participated in the negotiation of the 1998 Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the USEPA and the American Hospital Association (AHA) to create the Hospitals for a Healthy Environment (H2E) program. The H2E program called for hospitals to eliminate mercury from use by 2005 and to reduce the use of PBTs. In 2001, ANA and HCWH joined as partners in H2E to assist in mobilizing hospitals and nurses to achieve the goals of the MOU. As hospitals joined the H2E 'Making Medical Mercury Free' campaign, nurses assisted by conducting inventories of mercury-containing products and developing databases of appropriate alternatives. H2E developed a model, mercury-free policy for hospitals, tools for conducting mercury inventories, information about alternatives to mercury-containing products in clinical measuring devices, and recognition awards to hospitals for successfully achieving the goal of mercury elimination. As hospitals began to demand the mercury-free alternatives, such products became available to meet the demand. By 2005 an H2E and AHA survey found that 54% of hospitals had already eliminated virtually all mercury from their institutions (HCWH, 2005). In 2005, ANA joined the Physicians for Social Responsibility, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Public Health Association, and 13 state Attorneys General in suing the USEPA over clean air standards for coal-fired power plants that were causing mercury pollution (ANA, 2005).

A barrier to eliminating toxic chemicals, such as mercury, is the current environmental regulatory process which bans one highly hazardous chemical at a time. This process requires a massive effort by agencies and activists who are trying to protect human health by gathering safety data on more than 80,000 chemicals now in use. Recognizing that reform can not effectively happen one chemical at a time, the ANA passed a resolution calling for broad chemical policy reform. This resolution also encouraged focusing on categories of chemicals such at PBTs rather than on single chemicals. This resolution titled "Nursing Practice, Chemical Exposure and Right-To-Know Action Report" (ANA, 2006) identified the need to ensure that the nursing profession supports a fundamental reform of the nation's current chemical laws, regulations, rules, standards, and policies in order to protect nurses and other health care workers, patients and their families, communities, and the environment. Further, it advocates for increased research to better understand the relationship between health and the environment, and supports the integration of environmental health policy into nursing education, practice, research, advocacy, and policy development. Finally, the resolution resolves to ensure that nurses and the communities that they serve have full access to information and the right-to-know about the potentially harmful chemicals, pollutants, and hazards to which they are exposed regardless of the setting.

State nurses associations have also engaged in advocating for chemical policy reform. State nurses associations, which are constituent member associations of ANA, met in July of 2006 with environmental health activists to determine a unified policy and strategy to address the need to reform chemical policy at the state level in concert with national reform goals. One state association, the Washington State Nurses Association (WSNA), is taking leadership in advocating for chemical policy reform at the state level and educating the public to make the connection between health and the environment. The WSNA is working with nurses who are elected officials in the Washington state legislature.

WSNA has had a strong and effective legislative program for almost 100 years (WSNA, 2007). This program now includes an annual nurse-lobby day in the legislature which attracts over 500 nurses who meet with their elected officials to educate them about nursing issues. The nurses learn how the legislature works and the importance of nurse involvement in policy making. As a result, the state of Washington has elected eight nurses to the legislature, more than any other state in the US. Nurses in the legislature have risen to leadership roles that include chairing the Health Committee and the Ways and Means Committee. In 2002, WSNA established a committee on occupational and environmental health to lead policy development within the organization and make recommendations for policy action.

One action WSNA took was to join the Toxic Free Legacy Coalition, whose organizational members work together to promote policy protecting people from toxic chemicals. WSNA, now a member of the Board of this Coalition, has promoted nurse involvement in this Coalition to the extent that, as of this writing, nurses are members of most of the Coalition committees. Another effective advocacy activity involved the coauthoring of a letter by the Executive Director of WSNA, along with the President of the Washington State Academy of Pediatrics, to the editor of a large local newspaper advocating for safer chemical policy for health. (Lawson & Huntington, 2005).

Nurses in the Washington State legislature have also taken leadership in advocating for chemical reform. These nurse legislators drafted a 'dear colleague' letter to educate their fellow elected officials about the connections between the environment and health and to urge them to support the proposed legislation banning the persistent and bioaccumulative class of chemicals found in such chemicals as the brominated flame retardants. One of the nurse legislators, Dawn Morrell, presented the work of WSNA work regarding chemical policy at the National Council of State Legislatures meeting in August of 2006. Although the legislation lost by one vote in the 2006 session, the nurses used the remainder of 2006 to educate the public about the severity of health problems resulting from these chemicals. The legislation to ban BFRs, reintroduced early in 2007, was supported by over 500 nurses attending the WSNA nurse-lobby day. In April, 2007 the Washington State Legislature passed the first-in-the nation ban on Toxic Flame Retardants. The ban passed in both the House of Representatives and in the Senate. Washington's Governor Gregoire signed the bill into law on April 17, 2007.

Conclusion

Although the 1970s was the decade that birthed the environmental movement, Earth Day, and the Environmental Protection Agency in the US, it is only, now, in the first decade of the 21^st century, that the human health effects of the chemicals formulated in the past century are publically recognized. Nurses, as health care leaders, need to know the hazards of these, currently, poorly regulated and toxic chemicals, and

Nurses, as health care leaders, need to know the hazards of these, currently, poorly regulated and toxic chemicals, and be involved in developing public policy to protect human health

be involved in developing public policy to protect human health. The voices of nurses and organized nursing must be heard in these policy debates.

The purpose of this article has been to inform nurses and other health care professionals about the nexus between the environment and health and present approaches in which they can support comprehensive reform of chemicals management in the U.S. In order to slow the increasing rates of asthma, cancer, developmental disabilities, and infertility, this article has described the way forward to safer chemical policy and highlighting opportunities for nurses to join with other organizations committed to enhancing environmental health.

Uranium Depletion

2011-04-08T20:10:00.003+03:00

Some propose that more nuclear power plants be built for generating electric power. This has been done on a large scale in France (about 75% of electric power in 2005), although the United States obtains more power from uranium than does France.

The electric power generated could be used to charge energy storage devices in vehicles for transportation.

The graph below shows the uranium extraction data for the World and a Verhulst function fit to the data in order to extrapolate into the future. The total amount to be eventually extracted used for the fit is 15,000x10³ tonnes (1 tonne = 1000 kg), which is about 3,000x10³ tonnes more than the known and estimated undiscovered uranium resources (6,260x10³ tonnes) plus the amount already extracted (5,691x10³ tonnes) (total of 11,951x10³ tonnes).

However, it has been shown (Nuclear Power: The Energy Balance and Uranium Resources and Nuclear Energy) convincingly that uranium ores of low uranium concentrations will not produce net energy. Using the ore reserves for only concentrations greater than 0.05% mass-%U₃O₈ and adding a little to be optimistic, the graph below shows three fits to the uranium extraction data.

Uranium extraction rate for the World and Verhulst function fits to the data.
The red curve is the best fit to the data; it has an eventual extraction amount of 3,967x10³ tonnes.

Note that the two big pushes (1955-1965 in the United States and Western Europe and 1975-1990 in Eastern Europe) to extract uranium during the Cold War, most of which went into building huge amounts of nuclear weapons by the United States and the Soviet Union. There is a program of the United States and Russia, called the “Megatons to Megawatts Program”, for converting high-enriched uranium used in weapons into low-enriched uranium to be used for electric power.

The graph below shows the extrapolation of the fits to year 2300.

Uranium extraction rate for the World and Verhulst function fits to the data and their extrapolations into the future.

I expect that there will be a large peak in uranium extraction in the next few decades as crude oil and natural gas extraction decline, followed by a possible sharp dip after a major nuclear-reactor accident or terrorism involving a nuclear reactor, and then a rise again to then follow the declining curve of uranium depletion.

The four major extractors of uranium are Canada, Australia, Commonwealth of Independent States (11 states of the former Soviet Union) and the United States.

The recent rising demand for uranium is indicated by the recent fast rise in the price of uranium oxide as shown in the graph below. The price on 30 January 2006 was $37.50. Price per pound is expected to reach $50 per pound in the near future.

Spot prices per pound for U₃O₈. Note the Cold War prices peak and the 1970's energy-crisis peak.

Spot prices per pound for U₃O₈ 1987-2008.

Spot prices per pound for U₃O₈ 2006-2008.

One can see why the uranium price has been rising at a fast rate by comparing the extraction rate to the usage rate in the Western World, as shown in the graph below.

Western World uranium supply versus demand.

The environmental situation for use of uranium as an energy source is very problematical:

Safe storage of radioactive waste for tens of thousands of years is required, which is well into the next Major Ice Age. It is a major problem. (Deep Time: How Humanity Communicates Across Millennia, Gregory Benford, Perennial, 2000.)

Use of uranium for weapons of mass destruction, for radioactive terrorism, as armor for military weapons and in the tips of warheads of standard weapons are major problems. Uranium-tipped weapons were used extensively in the Gulf War, Bosnia War, Kosovo War and Bush Iraq War by the United States armed forces. See The Trojan Horses of Nuclear War, NEIS, 2003. Also, see http://arts.bev.net/roperldavid/politics/WeaponsRadioactive.htm for descriptions of the inhumanity of such weapons.

Benford relates the history and details of attempts to design warning systems for humans up to 10,000 years from now regarding underground storage sites for radioactive nuclear wastes. It is interesting that this time period is about the time to the first minimum of the next Major Ice Age. Perhaps humans will dig up the radioactive wastes to try to use them to keep warm or for religious rites. Read about how an event similar to the latter happened in Brazil: http://arts.bev.net/roperldavid/GRI.htm .

For more positive views of nuclear power see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power and World Nuclear Association.

For negative views of nuclear power including a net energy analysis, see Nuclear Power: The Energy Balance, Uranium Resources and Nuclear Energy, Nuclear Power is Not the Answer by Helen Caldicott and The Nuclear Illusion by Amory B. Lovins and Imran Sheikh.

Energy from Uranium

An interesting question to ask is how much primary energy is supplied by "burning" uranium in nuclear reactors? The best analysis of energy produced by nuclear reactors I have found gives the following constants needed to do this calculation:

The fraction of natural uranium in U₃O₈ ore is 0.846.
The amount of electrical energy delivered by nuclear reactors is about 151.8 Tjoules/tonne of natural uranium = 144 10⁹MBtu/tonne.
The factor to convert electrical energy into thermal energy for nuclear reactors is about 2.6, which corresponds to a conversion efficiency of 1/2.6 = 0.38.

The amount of nuclear thermal energy produced by reactors as a function of time, assuming a very optimistic amount of nuclear resources, is shown in the following graph:

The red curve is a fit where the amount to eventually be extracted is double the amount of the blue curve, an extremely optimistic case.

It was assumed that all uranium mined is eventually used to extract energy. Of course, much of it was used and will be used to make nuclear weapons; however, some weapons were dismantled and their uranium used to extract energy. So this calculation is extremely optimistic for useful electrical energy that can be gotten from uranium.

The graph below compares the world energy consumption to the total energy supplied by the fossil fuels and uranium:

Doubling the total uranium finally extracted has very little effect. The conclusion is that uranium will never supply very much energy for humans to use.

The amount of energy that must be supplied by sources other than fossil fuels and uranium are shown in the graph below:

Breeder Reactors

Some claim that using breeder reactors instead of normal nuclear reactors will help solve the problem of fossil-fuels depletion. The claim is that breeder reactors will allow almost all of the uranium to yield energy instead of only about 1% as is the case for normal nuclear reactors. If that were true the uranium energy curve would be multiplied by about 100 in the graphs above.

Since breeder reactors are much more complicated than normal nuclear reactors and very little energy will be produced by normal nuclear reactors, the eventual amount of increase in nuclear energy for breeder reactors is probably far less that 100 times what will be produced by normal nuclear reactors. So, I would guess that the amount will be about 10 times what will be produced by normal nuclear reactors. That is, instead of nuclear energy from uranium fuel peaking at about 18x10⁹ MBTU/year it would probably peak at about 180x10⁹ MBTU/year, if indeed breeder reactors ever work out on a large scale. This is about the size of each of the fossil-fuels energy contribution and peaking at about the same time as or somewhat later than fossil fuels peak. That is, uranium fuel is not the salvation from fossil-fuels peaking.

Thorium Nuclear Fuel

Some claim that thorium will greatly increase the amount of nuclear energy available for human use, since thorium is three to five times more abundant in the Earth crust than is uranium. Bombarding thorium with slow neutrons converts it into uranium 233, which is fissionable similar to uranium 235.

Thorium nuclear reactors are more complicated than are uranium reactors. So, I would guess that the amount of energy available for use by humans from thorium fuel will never be as large as that available from uranium fuel.

I have done a depletion analysis of thorium.

Conclusion

It is possible that the decline in extraction of fossil fuels will cause a population collapse. This would surely cause the world energy consumption to also fall to some new asymptote. In that case the amount of energy that must be supplied by other than fossil fuels and uranium would be less than shown above.

Oil refinery

2011-03-23T21:03:00.005+02:00

An oil refinery is an industrial process plant where crude oil is processed and refined into more useful petroleum products, such as gasoline, diesel fuel, asphalt base, heating oil, kerosine, and liquefied petroleum gas. Oil refineries are typically large sprawling industrial complexes with extensive piping running throughout, carrying streams of fluids between large chemical processing units.

Operation

Crude oil is separated into fractions byfractional distillation. The fractions at the top of thefractionating column have lower boiling points than the fractions at the bottom. The heavy bottom fractions are often cracked into lighter, more useful products. All of the fractions are processed further in other refining units.

Raw or unprocessed ("crude") oil is not useful in the form it comes in out of the ground. Although "light, sweet" (low viscosity, low sulfur) oil has been used directly as a burner fuel for steam vessel propulsion, the lighter elements form explosive vapors in the fuel tanks and so it is quite dangerous, especially so in warships. For this and many other uses, the oil needs to be separated into parts and refined before use in fuels and lubricants, and before some of the byproducts could be used in petrochemical processes to form materials such as plastics, detergents, solvents, elastomers, andfibers such as nylon and polyesters. Petroleum fossil fuels are used in ship, automobile and aircraft engines. These different hydrocarbons have different boiling points, which means they can be separated by distillation. Since the lighter liquid elements are in great demand for use in internal combustion engines, a modern refinery will convert heavyhydrocarbons and lighter gaseous elements into these higher value products using complex and energy intensive processes.

The oil refinery in Haifa, Israel is capable of processing about 9 million tons (66 million barrels) ofcrude oil a year. Its two cooling towers are landmarks of the city's skyline.

Oil can be used in so many various ways because it contains hydrocarbons of varyingmolecular masses, forms and lengths such as paraffins, aromatics, naphthenes (orcycloalkanes), alkenes, dienes, and alkynes. Hydrocarbons are molecules of varying length and complexity made of only hydrogen and carbon atoms. Their various structures give them their differing properties and thereby uses. The trick in the oil refinement process is separating and purifying these.

Once separated and purified of any contaminants and impurities, the fuel or lubricant can be sold without any further processing. Smaller molecules such as isobutane andpropylene or butylenes can be recombined to meet specific octane requirements of fuels by processes such as alkylation or less commonly, dimerization. Octane grade of gasoline can also be improved by catalytic reforming, which strips hydrogen out of hydrocarbons to produce aromatics, which have much higher octane ratings. Intermediate products such asgasoils can even be reprocessed to break a heavy, long-chained oil into a lighter short-chained one, by various forms of cracking such as fluid catalytic cracking, thermal cracking, and hydrocracking. The final step in gasoline production is the blending of fuels with different octane ratings, vapor pressures, and other properties to meet product specifications.

Oil refineries are large scale plants, processing from about a hundred thousand to several hundred thousand barrels of crude oil per day. Because of the high capacity, many of the units are operated continuously (as opposed to processing in batches) atsteady state or approximately steady state for long periods of time (months to years). This high capacity also makes process optimization and advanced process control very desirable.

Major products of oil refineries

Most products of oil processing are usually grouped into three categories: light distillates (LPG, gasoline, naphtha), middle distillates (kerosene, diesel), heavy distillates and residuum (fuel oil, lubricating oils, wax, tar). This classification is based on the way crude oil is distilled and separated into fractions (called distillates and residuum) as can be seen in the above drawing.

Liquid petroleum gas (LPG)
Gasoline (also known as petrol)
Naphtha
Kerosene and related jet aircraft fuels
Diesel fuel
Fuel oils
Lubricating oils
Paraffin wax
Asphalt and Tar
Petroleum coke

Common process units found in a refinery

The number and nature of the process units in a refinery determine its complexity index.

Desalter unit washes out salt from the crude oil before it enters the atmospheric distillation unit.
Atmospheric Distillation unit distills crude oil into fractions. See Continuous distillation.
Vacuum Distillation unit further distills residual bottoms after atmospheric distillation.
Naphtha Hydrotreater unit uses hydrogen to desulfurize naphtha from atmospheric distillation. Must hydrotreat the naphtha before sending to a Catalytic Reformer unit.
Catalytic Reformer unit is used to convert the naphtha-boiling range molecules into higher octane reformate (reformer product). The reformate has higher content of aromatics, olefins, and cyclic hydrocarbons). An important byproduct of a reformer is hydrogen released during the catalyst reaction. The hydrogen is used either in the hydrotreaters or the hydrocracker.
Distillate Hydrotreater unit desulfurizes distillates (such as diesel) after atmospheric distillation.
Fluid Catalytic Cracking (FCC) unit upgrades heavier fractions into lighter, more valuable products.
Hydrocracker unit uses hydrogen to upgrade heavier fractions into lighter, more valuable products.
Visbreaking unit upgrades heavy residual oils by thermally cracking them into lighter, more valuable reduced viscosity products.
Merox unit treats LPG, kerosene or jet fuel by oxidizing mercaptans to organic disulfides.
Coking units ( delayed coking, fluid coker, and flexicoker) process very heavy residual oils into gasoline and diesel fuel, leaving petroleum coke as a residual product.
Alkylation unit produces high-octane component for gasoline blending.
Dimerization unit converts olefins into higher-octane gasoline blending components. For example, butenes can be dimerized into isooctene which may subsequently be hydrogenated to form isooctane. There are also other uses for dimerization.
Isomerization unit converts linear molecules to higher-octane branched molecules for blending into gasoline or feed to alkylation units.
Steam reforming unit produces hydrogen for the hydrotreaters or hydrocracker.
Liquified gas storage units for propane and similar gaseous fuels at pressure sufficient to maintain in liquid form. These are usually spherical vessels or bullets (horizontal vessels with rounded ends.
Storage tanks for crude oil and finished products, usually cylindrical, with some sort of vapor emission control and surrounded by an earthen berm to contain spills.
Amine gas treater, Claus unit, and tail gas treatment for converting hydrogen sulfide from hydrodesulfurization into elemental sulfur.
Utility units such as cooling towers for circulating cooling water, boiler plants for steam generation, instrument air systems for pneumatically operated control valves and anelectrical substation.
Wastewater collection and treating systems consisting of API separators, dissolved air flotation (DAF) units and some type of further treatment (such as an activated sludge biotreater) to make such water suitable for reuse or for disposal.
Solvent refining units use solvent such as cresol or furfural to remove unwanted, mainly asphaltenic materials from lubricating oil stock (or diesel stock).
Solvent dewaxing units remove the heavy waxy constituents petrolatum from vacuum distillation products.

Flow diagram of typical refinery

The image below is a schematic flow diagram of a typical oil refinery that depicts the various unit processes and the flow of intermediate product streams that occurs between the inlet crude oil feedstock and the final end products. The diagram depicts only one of the literally hundreds of different oil refinery configurations. The diagram also does not include any of the usual refinery facilities providing utilities such as steam, cooling water, and electric power as well as storage tanks for crude oil feedstock and for intermediate products and end products.

Schematic flow diagram of a typical oil refinery

There are many process configurations other than that depicted above. For example, the vacuum distillation unit may also produce fractions that can be refined into endproducts such as: spindle oil used in the textile industry, light machinery oil, motor oil, and steam cylinder oil. As another example, the vacuum residue may be processed in a coker unit to produce petroleum coke.

Specialty end products

These will blend various feedstocks, mix appropriate additives, provide short term storage, and prepare for bulk loading to trucks, barges, product ships, and railcars.

Gaseous fuels such as propane, stored and shipped in liquid form under pressure in specialized railcars to distributors.
Liquid fuels blending (producing automotive and aviation grades of gasoline, kerosene, various aviation turbine fuels, and diesel fuels, adding dyes, detergents, antiknock additives, oxygenates, and anti-fungal compounds as required). Shipped by barge, rail, and tanker ship. May be shipped regionally in dedicated pipelines to point consumers, particularly aviation jet fuel to major airports, or piped to distributors in multi-product pipelines using product separators called pipeline inspection gauges ("pigs").
Lubricants (produces light machine oils, motor oils, and greases, adding viscosity stabilizers as required), usually shipped in bulk to an offsite packaging plant.
Wax (paraffin), used in the packaging of frozen foods, among others. May be shipped in bulk to a site to prepare as packaged blocks.
Sulfur (or sulfuric acid), byproducts of sulfur removal from petroleum which may have up to a couple percent sulfur as organic sulfur-containing compounds. Sulfur and sulfuric acid are useful industrial materials. Sulfuric acid is usually prepared and shipped as the acid precursor oleum.
Bulk tar shipping for offsite unit packaging for use in tar-and-gravel roofing.
Asphalt unit. Prepares bulk asphalt for shipment.
Petroleum coke, used in specialty carbon products or as solid fuel.
Petrochemicals or petrochemical feedstocks, which are often sent to petro chemical plants for further processing in a variety of ways. The petrochemicals may be olefins or their precursors, or various types of aromatic petrochemicals.

Siting/locating of petroleum refineries

The principles of finding a construction site for refineries are similar to those for other chemical plants:

The site has to be reasonably far from residential areas.

Facilities for raw materials access and products delivery to markets should be easily available.

Processing energy requirements should be easily available.

Waste product disposal should not cause difficulties.

For refineries which use large amounts of process steam and cooling water, an abundant source of water is important. Because of this, oil refineries are often located (associated to a port) near navigable rivers or even better on a sea shore. Either are of dual purpose, making also available cheap transport by river or by sea. Although the advantages of crude oil transport by pipeline are evident, and the method is also often used by oil companies to deliver large output products such as fuels to their bulk distribution terminals, pipeline delivery is not practical for small output products. For these, rail cars, road tankers or barges may be used.

It is useful to site refineries in areas where there is abundant space to be used by the same company or others, for the construction of petrochemical plants, solvent manufacturing (fine fractionating) plants and/or similar plants to allow these easy access to large output refinery products for further processing, or plants that produce chemical additives that the refinery may need to blend into a product at source rather than at blending terminals.

Safety and environmental concerns

MiRO refinery at Karlsruhe

The refining process releases numerous different chemicals into the atmosphere; consequently, there are substantialair pollution emissions and a notable odour normally accompanies the presence of a refinery. Aside from air pollution impacts there are also wastewater concerns, risks of industrial accidents such as fire and explosion, and noise health effects due to industrial noise.

The public has demanded that many governments place restrictions on contaminants that refineries release, and most refineries have installed the equipment needed to comply with the requirements of the pertinent environmental protection regulatory agencies. In the United States, there is strong pressure to prevent the development of new refineries, and no major refinery has been built in the country since Marathon's Garyville, Louisiana facility in 1976. However, many existing refineries have been expanded during that time. Environmental restrictions and pressure to prevent construction of new refineries may have also contributed to rising fuel prices in the United States. Additionally, many refineries (over 100 since the 1980s) have closed due to obsolescence and/or merger activity within the industry itself. This activity has been reported to Congress and in specialized studies not widely publicised.

Environmental and safety concerns mean that oil refineries are sometimes located some distance away from major urban areas. Nevertheless, there are many instances where refinery operations are close to populated areas and pose health risks such as in the Campo de Gibraltar, a Spanish state owned refinery near the towns of Gibraltar, Algeciras, La Linea, San Roque and Los Barrios with a combined population of over 300,000 residents within a 5-mile (8.0 km) radius and the CEPSA refinery in Santa Cruz on the island of Tenerife, Spain which is sited in a densely-populated city centre and next to the only two major evacuation routes in and out of the city. In California's Contra Costa County and Solano County, a shoreline necklace of refineries and associated chemical plants are adjacent to urban areas in Richmond, Martinez, Pacheco, Concord, Pittsburg, Vallejo and Benicia, with occasional accidental events that require "shelter in place" orders to the adjacent populations.

History

The world's first oil refineries were set up by Ignacy Łukasiewicz near Jaslo, Austrian Empire (now in Poland) in the years 1854-56 but they were initially small as there was no real demand for refined fuel. As Łukasiewicz's kerosene lamp gained popularity the refining industry grew in the area.

The first large oil refinery opened at Ploieşti, Romania in 1856. Several other refineries were built at that location with investment from United States companies before being taken over by Nazi Germany during World War II. Most of these refineries were heavily bombarded by US Army Air Forces in Operation Tidal Wave, August 1, 1943. Since then they have been rebuilt, and currently pose somewhat of an environmental concern.

Another early example is Oljeön, Sweden, now preserved as a museum at the UNESCO world heritage site Engelsberg. It started operation in 1875 and is part of theEcomuseum Bergslagen.

At one time, the world's largest oil refinery was claimed to be Ras Tanura, Saudi Arabia, owned by Saudi Aramco. For most of the 20th century, the largest refinery of the world was the Abadan refinery in Iran. This refinery suffered extensive damage during the Iran-Iraq war. The world's largest refinery complex is the "Centro de Refinación de Paraguaná" (CRP) operated by PDVSA in Venezuela with a production capacity of 956,000 barrels per day (152,000 m³/d) (Amuay 635,000 bbl/d (101,000 m³/d), Cardón 305,000 bbl/d (48,500 m³/d) and Bajo Grande 16,000 bpd). SK Energy's Ulsan refinery in South Korea with a capacity of 840,000 bbl/d (134,000 m³/d) and Reliance Petroleum's refinery in Jamnagar, India with 660,000 bbl/d (105,000 m³/d) are the second and third largest, respectively.

Early US refineries processed crude oil to recover the kerosene. Other products (like gasoline) were considered wastes and were often dumped directly into the nearest river. The invention of the automobile shifted the demand to gasoline and diesel, which remain the primary refined products today. Refineries pre-dating the EPA were very toxic to the environment. Strict legislation has mandated that refineries meet modern air and water cleanliness standards. In fact, obtaining a permit to build even a modern refinery with minimal impact on the environment (other than CO₂ emissions) is so difficult and costly that no new refineries have been built (though many have been expanded) in the United States since 1976. As a result, some believe that this may be the reason that the US is becoming more and more dependent on the imports of finished gasoline, as opposed to incremental crude oil. On the other hand, studies have revealed that accelerating merger activity in the refining and production sector has reduced capacity further, resulting in tighter markets in the United States in particular.

Bioptigen imaging systems

2011-02-21T12:12:00.002+02:00

Bioptigen imaging systems are based on the technology of Optical Coherence Tomography (OCT). OCT is analogous to ultrasound, but uses light waves instead of sound waves. Light backscattered from within a sample is processed to develop a high-resolution, depth-resolved image suitable for analyzing internal microstructure, in vivo, without physical contact. With appropriate lateral scanning, two-dimensional and three-dimensional images with resolution better than 10 micrometers are acquired rapidly and non-invasively.

Figure 1: Principles of Optical Coherence Tomography

The longitudinal profiling capability of OCT is based on the science of low coherence interferometry. In low coherence interferometry, wide bandwidth light is split and sent along two paths. Light that is reflected or backscattered from a subject sample along one path combines, or interferes, with light reflected from a known reference along another path. This interference signal is collected on a photodetector; the signal strength is directly related to light absorption and scattering properties of the sample precisely at the point where path lengths to the sample and to the reference are matched. The axial (depth) resolution depends critically on the bandwidth of the source light. Very fine depth discrimination requires a specialized wide-bandwidth source.

Figure 2: Low-Coherence Interferometry – Time Domain technology

Figure 3: Low-Coherence Interferometry – Fourier Domain technology

Bioptigen OCT systems utilize a narrow single-mode beam from a wide bandwidth light source to probe the structure of a sample. A single line image of the internal structure of a sample is commonly known as an A-scan, in analogy to ultrasound. By scanning the single-mode beam laterally in on dimension, a two-dimensional B-scan is acquired. A B-scan provides an informative depth-resolved image along a slice without ever making a cut. A series of B-scans can be acquired to develop a three-dimensional image suitable for visualizing internal structures, layers, and volumes with high resolution in all three dimensions.

Figure 4: Representative A-scan of finger

Figure 5: Representative B-scan of finger

Figure 6: Representative volume reconstruction of finger

Bioptigen currently develops OCT systems in two different wavelength regions. Mid-infrared systems operating at a 1310 nm center wavelength are preferred for highly-scattering subjects, such as biological tissues, where maximum depth penetration is desired. Near-infrared systems operating at an 820 nm center wavelength are preferred where scattering is less, absorption by water is higher, or where higher resolution images are desired. Because of the shorter wavelength, the resolution is generally superior at 820 nm, but there is a tradeoff between image brightness, imaging depth, and resolution that must be considered for each application. For biological samples, the general rule is that ophthalmic retinal imaging uses 820 nm because the light beam must travel through a significant length of water in the aqueous before reaching the retina. Conversely, measurements of the epidermis or mucosal tissue benefit from the increased penetration afforded by the 1310 nm wavelength.

Figure 8: Comparison of images of a finger obtained at 1310 nm and 820 nm

OIL RIGS and PLATFORMS

2011-02-07T10:15:00.001+02:00

OIL PLATFORMS

An oil platform is a large structure used to house workers and machinery needed to drill and then produce oil and natural gas in the ocean. Depending on the circumstances, the platform may be attached to the ocean floor, consist of an artificial island, or be floating.

Generally, oil platforms are located on the continental shelf though as technology improves, drilling and production in ever deeper waters becomes both feasible and profitable. A typical platform may have around thirty wellheads located on the platform and directional drilling allows reservoirs to be accessed at both different depths and at remote positions up to 5 miles (8 kilometres) from the platform.

Many platforms also have remote wellheads attached by umbilical connections, these may be single wells or a manifold centre for multiple wells.

Oil Platform Hibernia

Platform types

Larger lake and sea-based oil platforms and oil rigs are some of the largest moveable man-made structures in the world. There are several distinct types of platforms and rigs:

Fixed Platforms, built on concrete and/or steel legs anchored directly onto the seabed, supporting a deck with space for drilling rigs, production facilities and crew quarters. Such platforms are, by virtue of their immobility, designed for very long term use (for instance the Hibernia platform). Various types of structure are used, steel jacket, concrete caisson, floating steel and even floating concrete. Steel jackets are vertical sections made of tubular steel members, and are usually piled into the seabed. Concrete caisson structures, pioneered by the Condeep concept, often have in-built oil storage in tanks below the sea surface and these tanks were often used as a flotation capability, allowing them to be built close to shore (Norwegian fjords and Scottish firths are popular because they are sheltered and deep enough) and then floated to their final position where they are sunk to the seabed. Fixed platforms are economically feasible for installation in water depths up to about 1,700 feet (520 m).
Compliant Towers, consist of narrow, flexible towers and a piled foundation supporting a conventional deck for drilling and production operations. Compliant towers are designed to sustain significant lateral deflections and forces, and are typically used in water depths ranging from 1,500 and 3,000 feet (450 and 900 m).
Semi-submersible Platforms having legs of sufficient buoyancy to cause the structure to float, but of weight sufficient to keep the structure upright. Semi-submersible rigs can be moved from place to place; and can be lowered into or raised by altering the amount of flooding in buoyancy tanks; they are generally anchored by cable anchors during drilling operations, though they can also be kept in place by the use of steerable thrusters. Semi-submersible can be used in depths from 600 to 6,000 feet (180 to 1,800 m).
Jack-up Platforms, as the name suggests, are platforms that can be jacked up above the sea, by dint of legs than can be lowered like jacks. These platforms, used in relatively low depths, are designed to move from place to place, and then anchor themselves by deploying the jack-like legs.
Drillships, a maritime vessel that has been fitted with drilling apparatus. It is most often used for exploratory drilling of new oil or gas wells in deep water but can also be used for scientific drilling. It is often built on a modified tanker hull and outfitted with a dynamic positioning system to maintain its position over the well.
Floating production systems are large ships equipped with processing facilities and moored to a location for a long period. The main types of floating production systems are FPSO (floating production, storage, and offloading system), FSO (floating storage and offloading system), and FSU (floating storage unit).
Tension-leg Platforms, consist of floating rigs tethered to the seabed in a manner that eliminates most vertical movement of the structure. TLPS are used in water depths up to about 6,000 feet (2,000 m).
Seastars are mini TLPs of relatively low cost, used in water depths between 600 and 3,500 feet (200 and 1,100 m). They can also be used as utility, satellite or early production platforms for larger deepwater discoveries.
Spar Platforms, moored to the seabed like the TLP, but whereas the TLP has vertical tension tethers the Spar has more conventional mooring lines. Spars have been designed in three configurations: the "conventional" one-piece cylindrical hull, the "truss spar" where the midsection is composed of truss elements connecting the upper buoyant hull (called a hard tank) with the bottom soft tank containing permanent ballast, and the "cell spar" which is built from multiple vertical cylinders. The Spar may be more economical to build for small and medium sized rigs than the TLP, and has more inherent stability than a TLP since it has a large counterweight at the bottom and does not depend on the mooring to hold it upright. It also has the ability, by use of chain-jacks attached to the risers, to move horizontally over the oil field. The first Spar was Kerr-McGee's Neptune, which is a floating production facility anchored in 1,930 feet (588 m) in the Gulf of Mexico. Dominion Oil's Devil's Tower is located in 5,610 feet (1,710 m) of water, in the Gulf of Mexico, and is the world's deepest spar. The first (and only) cell spar is Kerr-McGee's Red Hawk.

Oil Platform California USA

Maintenance and supply

A typical oil production platform is self-sufficient in energy and water needs, housing electrical generation, water desalinators and all of the equipment necessary to process oil and gas such that it can be either delivered directly onshore by pipeline or to a Floating Storage Unit and/or tanker loading facility. Elements in the oil/gas production process include wellhead, production manifold, production separator, glycol process to dry gas, gas compressors, water injection pumps, oil/gas export metering and main oil line pumps. All production facilities are designed to have minimal environmental impact.

Larger platforms are assisted by smaller ESVs (emergency support vessels) like the British Iolair that are summoned when something has gone wrong, e.g. when a search and rescue operation is required. During normal operations, PSVs (platform supply vessels) keep the platforms provisioned and supplied, and AHTS vessels can also supply them, as well as tow them to location and serve as standby rescue and firefighting vessels.

Risks

The nature of their operation — extraction of volatile substances sometimes under extreme pressure in a hostile environment — has risk and not infrequent accidents and tragedies occur. In July 1988, 167 people died when Occidental Petroleum's Alpha offshore production platform, on the Piper field in the North Sea, exploded after a gas leak. The accident greatly accelerated the practice of housing living accommodation on self-contained separate rigs, away from those used for extraction.

However, this was, in itself, a hazardous environment. In March 1980, the 'flotel' (floating hotel) platform Alexander L Keilland capsized in a storm in the North Sea with the loss of 123 lives.

Further risks are the leaching of heavy metals that accumulate in buoyancy tanks into water; and risks associated with their disposal. There has been concern expressed at the practice of partially demolishing offshore rigs to the point that ships can traverse across their site; there have been instances of fishery vessels snagging nets on the remaining structures. Proposals for the disposal at sea of the Brent Spar, a 137-metre (449 ft) tall storage buoy (another true function of that which is termed an oil rig), was for a time in 1996 an environmental cause célèbre in the UK after Greenpeace occupied the floating structure. The event led to a reconsideration of disposal policy in the UK and Europe, though Greenpeace, in hindsight, admitted some inaccuracies leading to hyperbole in their statements about Brent Spar.

Environmental effects

In British waters, the cost of removing all platform rig structures entirely was estimated in 1995 at £1.5 billion, and the cost of removing all structures including pipelines — a so-called "clean sea" approach — at £3 billion.

In the United States, Marine Biologist Milton Love has proposed that oil platforms off the California coast be retained as artificial reefs, instead of being dismantled (at great cost), because he has found them to be havens for many of the species of fish which are otherwise declining in the region, in the course of 11 years of research. Love is funded by mainly by government agencies, but also in small part by the California Artificial Reef Enhancement Program. NOAA has said it is considering this course of action, but wants money to study the effects of the rigs in detail.

In the Gulf of Mexico, more than 200 platforms have been similarly converted.

Mobile RC Oil Rig

Large platforms

The Petronius platform is an oil and gas platform in the Gulf of Mexico, which stands 2,000 feet (610 metres) above the ocean floor. This structure is partially supported by buoyancy. Depending on the criteria it may be the world's tallest structure.

The Hibernia platform is an oil and gas platform in the Atlantic Ocean off the coast of Newfoundland. The gravity base structure sits on the ocean floor in 200 m (660 ft) of water with its topsides extending 50 m (160 ft) above the surface. The platform acts as a small concrete island with serrated outer edges designed to withstand the impact of an iceberg. The GBS contains production storage tanks and the remainder of the void space is filled with ballast with the entire structure weighing in at 1.2 million tons.

History

The first oil platform in the world is the Oil Rocks (Neft Daşları), built near Baku in Azerbaijan. This platform was built in 1947 as an exercise of Soviet and Azeri ambition. The Oil Rocks lies 45–50 km (about 25 nautical miles) offshore on the Caspian Sea. The most unique feature of the Oil Rocks is that it is actually a functional city with a population of about 5000. The Oil Rocks is a city on the sea, with over 200 km of streets built on piles of dirt and landfill. Most of the inhabitants work on shifts; a week on Oil Rocks followed by a week on the shore. The small city includes shops, school, library, etc. After almost 60 years the Oil Rocks is still quite unique as the world's first and largest oil platform.

DRILLING RIGS

A drilling rig or oil rig is a structure housing equipment used to drill for water, oil or natural gas from underground reservoirs. Sometimes a drilling rig is also used to complete (prepare for production) the well. However, the rig itself is not involved with the extraction of the oil, its primary function is to make a hole in the ground so that the oil can be produced. Drilling rigs can also be used to drill for water or for exploration purposes, or to obtain mineral core samples.

The term can refer to a land-based rig, or a marine-based structure commonly called an 'offshore rig'. The term correctly refers to the equipment that drills the oil well including the rig derrick (which looks like a metal frame tower). Laypeople also refer to the structure upon which the rig sits and from which the wells produce as a 'rig', but this is not correct. The correct name for the structure in a marine environment is platform. A structure upon which wells produce is a production platform. A floating vessel upon which a drilling rig sits is afloating rig or semi-submersible rig because the whole purpose of the structure is for drilling.

Drilling rigs can be huge, capable of drilling through thousands of metres of the Earth's crust; large "mud pumps" are used to circulate drilling mud (slurry) through the drill bit and the casing, for cooling and removing the "cuttings" whilst a well is drilled; hoists in the rig can lift thousands of tons of pipe; other equipment can force acid or sand into reservoirs to facilitate extraction of the oil; and permanent living accommodation and catering for crews which may be greater than a hundred people in number. Marine rigs may operate many hundreds of miles or kilometres offshore with infrequent crew rotation.

Mobile Oil Well Spudder

The drilling and production of oil and gas pose a safety risk and a hazard to the environmentfrom the ignition of the entrained gas causing dangerous fires and also from the risk of oil leakage polluting water, land and groundwater. For these reasons, redundant safety systems and highly trained personnel are required by law in all countries with significant production.

Mobile drilling rigs

In early oil exploration, drilling rigs were semi-permanent in nature often being built on site and left in place after the completion of the well. In more recent times drilling rigs are expensive custom built machines that are capable of being moved from well to well. Some light duty drilling rigs are similar in nature to a mobile crane though these are more usually used to drill water wells. Larger land rigs must be broken apart into multiple sections and loads in order to move to a new location, a process which can often take weeks.

Small mobile drilling rigs are also used to drill or bore piles. Rig can range from 100 ton continuous flight auger (CFA) rigs to small air powered rigs used to drill holes in quarries, etc. These rigs use the same technology and equipment as the oil drilling rigs, just on a smaller scale.

The drilling mechanisms outlined below differ mechanically in terms of the machinery used, but also in terms of the method by which drill cuttings are removed from the cutting face of the drill and returned to surface.

OIL EXPLORATION

Since our appetite for cheap energy appears insatiable, it is necessary to search and find oil to replace the wells that are running dry. Oil rigs are used to drill exploration wells to look for oil. And oil platforms are used to drill into an oil field to extract the oil. There are several different types of oil rig and platform.

Types of offshore oil platforms

Notice how tall the offshore platforms are compared with the BT tower in London. The water in the North Sea is often over 200 metres deep. Floating rigs, more like ships are used to drill test holes and find oil. These are held (moored) in place by anchor chains or computer-controlled propellers.

Oil platforms are huge structures. Some have concrete legs that sit on the sea bed. They had to be made in a shipyard and towed out to sea. Some oil platforms are also held by giat sea anchors. Other platforms have metal legs - sometimes they are jacked up. People who work on oil platforms have to go to work by helicopter.

Some oil reservoirs need to be pumped. In this case, there are small pumps inside the well pipes. Also, water is pumped into the well to force the crude oil mixture out. This water is pumped down injector wells while the oil is pumped out of production well. The top end of the well is called the well head. This is where the oil is removed from the well.

An oil well gets its name from traditional water wells. It is a hole that is drilled into the ground to reach a reservoir of liquid - in this case oil. However, an oil well can be a little more complicated than a water well - especially oil wells under the sea bed. First of all, the drill thread has to be lowered to the sea bed before it can start drilling through the cap rock.

Secondly, the well often spans out horizontally once has penetrated the reservoir. This is because the oil is held in porous rock - it is not like an underground stream. Often the oil has to be pumped out of the rock. It is only oil close to the end of well that is retrieved.

CRUDE OIL

Crude oil is sold between countries in quantities called barrels. (The same measurement is used to sell whisky.)

One barrel of oil is the same as:

159 litres (about 80 large fizzy drink bottle)
35 gallons (enough to fit in the petrol tanks of about 4 cars)
280 pints (a lot of bottles of milk)

The weight of a barrel depends on where the oil comes from. However, there are about 8 barrels in a tonne. You could fit nearly 2 million barrels of oil into a football stadium - or one and a half tankers. This is how much oil we use in the UK every day.

In 2004 the cost of a barrel of crude oil rose to a record of $50 - about £30.

Product	Gallons from 42 in barrel
chemical feedstock	1.2
refinery gas	1.9
petrol	19.5
kerosene's	4.1
diesel fuel	9.2
lubricants	0.5
fuel oil	4.1
bitumen	1.3

Gallons of fuel barrel of oil going as products are shown above and below

The oil we find underground is called crude oil. Crude oil is a mixture of hydrocarbons - from almost solid to gaseous. These were produced when tiny plants and animals decayed under layers of sand and mud millions of years ago. Crude oil has to be changed before it can be used for anything. This happens in an oil refinery.

Crude oil doesn't always look the same – it depends where it comes from. Sometimes it is almost colourless, or it can be thick and black. But crude oil usually looks like thin, brown treacle.

It's not just the appearance of crude oil that changes. Crudes from different sources have different make-ups. Some may have more of the valuable lighter hydrocarbons and some may have more of the heavier hydrocarbons. The compositions of different crudes are measured and published in assays. The refinery uses the information in these assyas to decide which crudes it will buy to make the products that its customers need at any given time.

When crude oil comes out of a well (especially an undersea well), the crude oil is often mixed with gases, water and sand. It forms an emulsion with the water that looks a bit like caramel. The sand is suspended in the emulsion, adding to the caramel effect. The sand will settle out and the water is removed using de-emulsifying agents. They have to be separated from the crude oil before it can be processed ready for transportation by tanker or pipeline.

The dissolved gases have to be removed at the well. Otherwise, they might come out of solution and cause a build up of pressure in a pipe or a tanker. The crude oil also contains sulphur. This has to be removed from any fractions that are going to be burnt because it forms sulphur dioxide which contributes to acid rain. So any fractions that go into fuels pass through hydrofiners to remove the sulphur.

Crude Oil