Did they pay extra for the barrel itself? Surely that steel doesn't come for free.
The barrels never had been used for crude oil when I’ve inquired. Sometimes a refined oil product likely used as a raw material for a manufacturing process, but never crude. I think it’s never transported in such small quantities to make sense of using actual barrels. It’s more so a unit of measure, probably with some valid historical context.
My understanding is it’s most likely transported from a well via a pipeline and may need a short trip in a truck or train (tanker style) to get to the pipeline from the well. The well itself usually has a collection reservoir to allow for 24/7 extraction.
I don’t know exactly I’ve just been vaguely around oil industry and engineers my whole life due to where I live.
In small fields they'll typically have larger tanks from the 1,000 to 10,000 gallon size. Wells typically also produce some water and small amounts of nat gas so they'll have some way to either store or burn the gas, and they'll either separate the water on site for disposal, or have a mixed oil/water product that is seperated at a later stage.
If the node isn't on a pipeline a vacuum/pump truck will show up either when the alerting systems hit a particular level, or when a particular interval of time has passed to ensure the equipment is still working.
Modern bulk pump trucks are simply the fastest way to move the product. No one in it for profit is going to move the unrefined product in amounts that small. It's not valuable enough.
https://www.skolnik.com/blog/oils-long-history-with-the-55-g...
https://aoghs.org/transportation/history-of-the-42-gallon-oi...
A BBL is not just a standard quantity equal to 42 US gallons.
It's 42 US gallons @ 60 DEG F.
Now when they discovered oil in western Pennsylvania, one day there were farmers, the next day they were rich farmers.
They might not have had the highest education, but they didn't like getting ripped off. What was sought was precise 42 gallon liquid-tight wooden casks. So it could be assured if the barrel was within a couple inches of full, it contained a good 42 gallons.
When the oil made its way to a major port, there would be a large change of custody, and the buyers would want to be sure it was all there according to the documents.
This is when the cargo surveyors would inventory the barrels as they were being loaded on to the ships, plus check for fullness by opening the cork and sticking in their thumb. The replaced corks were often then sealed with wax identifying the inspector.
In the oilfield and the port this is how a very trusted barrel-maker ended up becoming a surveyor.
Plus it was somewhat recognized that liquids expand with heat and shrink with cold. With oil, different oils respond to temperature to different degrees.
This was well-established scientifically for generations with vegetable oils and whale oils, but was something new for petroleum companies to grasp.
In the laboratory, the surveyors made independent precise tables to correct oils for temperature, this was really essential after many barrels were emptied into a large storage tank, like they were long using for things like molasses or whale oil. The tank temperature is measured, and corrections are made to determine the billable quantity of BBL there would be if it was actually 60 DEG F.
And so it started out with surveyors having technology quite a bit beyond what oil companies had. (The unspoken thing is that the surveyor has to be trustworthy more so than the oil company.)
Well, I have always refused to relent :)
With numerous gifted engineers and now even an abundance of PhD's, the majors with their resources have been unlimited for quite some time before I was born, compared to my labs being minuscule by comparison.
So what. A significant part of my life's work is carrying on the technology advantage that I directly inherited from that 19th century origin anyway. I just could never settle for what many oil companies settle for using the latest instrumentation & techniques over the decades. Chemicals too, with way more byzantine technology needs, but they're mostly billed by weight, not volume. Plenty of room for improvement across the board.
I guess I'm an energy guy, but have always been interested in solar more than oil, too bad there was no way that would pay the bills during the Reagan Recession, so I joined a hundred-year-old company when the startup research lab I was helping build ended up imploding. There was also one notable ex-plosion too, which happened seconds after I was there taking a reading, and it was an engineering defect. Since I was almost a victim I had to overengineer the weaknesses that the actual engineers had failed at. You get used to it after a while.
People are just not careful enough, whether it's equations or toxins :\
Now for some use that may be fine, but that also requires proper cleaning (following environment proection rules etc)
My question was more like a cycle. The metal itself certainly got some value as well.
But if, as you say the largest emission comes from manufacturing the plastic bottle, not the transport of the bottle AND the content; then it seems possible to lower the carbon footprint by switching to glass (on top of the other advantages like reducing landfill use/litterring/environmental pollution).
Lmao, that's on the order of 1-2%.