Talk about antigargled engineering and planning...

">they don't want their rivers and roads destroyed"

Rivers destroyed by transporting something on a barge?

I believe what has their panties in a wad is the improvements that would have to be made (in pristine wilderness areas) to accommodate a heavy haul road, along with its continual use.

Maybe they could negotiate with the companies to place the road in some 'not so sensitive' areas and reap the benefits of some infrastructure improvements that could ultimately benefit the people of the State. Although there are probably some that consider the whole State a wilderness and any 'improvements' would be a travesty.

My bet is the "BigOil" will somehow prevail (spelled "grease-a-few-palms").

Or maybe they could go through Alaska. You betcha. "Haul, Baby, Haul."

a:) either people here will reply to the thread without reading the link(s) through,

or

b:) there are plenty of people in the world who think this a perfectly logical plan.

Whatever.

Cost of doing business

The cost of doing business is doing it right.

That SHOULD mean putting in proper infrastructure rather than just destroying the poor roads that already exist.

That SHOULD mean being responsible for preventing any environmental problems.

That SHOULD mean cleaning up any environmental problems that you create.

Yet, we have people who act like business should not be responsible, and that "the gubmint is the debil" for nothing more than making businesses be responsible for their impacts.

God forbid should we expect business to do the right thing, heck that could make prices go up or hurt profits. Well, if that's the case, then business needs to find a different way to do it. Why should they profit when it hurts everyone else and causes everyone else expense? Why should taxpayers subsidize private profit, as they are likely to end up doing, when they find themselves holding the bag paying to repair the damaged infrastructure and the environmental disaster left behind?

Cost of doing business

Please keep your P&R posts in their proper category.

It's hard to believe. 135 views and not one usually hardnosed pragmatic all knowing engineer/surveyor type puke has posed the question, "Why did they not design the modules so they could be accommodated by the existing infrastructure"?. I mean, wut? This whole idea is 'nutty'. No wonder our energy costs are so high, eh? Is it some kind of generational shift where common sense does not exist, or just nobody gives a crap or cares? You people out there in Idaho, Washington , Oregon and Montana have a chance to, and should , make sure this plan is 'revised'. Your reactions to this debacle might just make a difference in the bigger picture of things. If you know what I mean.

Take care,
Ed

Why don't they build them where they are needed?

> Why don't they build them where they are needed?

Dan, exactly. THE VERY FIRST question. But, if S.Korea can build them cheaper, which I'm sure they can, then at least why in the hell can't they come up with a plan to ship the product there without disrupting.......WHAT ALL?! ..........

It's just the way of the world anymore. Up is down, left is right, war is peace, the whole nine yards.

Take care,
Ed

here's a link from a source who doesn't have their thong tied in a crown knot

this whole thing is over blown -

and Ed ask yourself this- what happens when the those loads reach the Canadian line?

Where is all the Canadian opposition?

If the Canucks thought this was unsafe/ environmentally hazardous, do you think they would have even shipped the stuff from Korea? FWIW, they're (the Canadians) are so green, they make you look like a slash and burn logger from the 1900's...

Maybe it doesn't have anything to do with engineering.

Ed, think about it.

What incentive do they have to do things in any sensible way?

Whatever it ends up costing, they will just pass it on, and the end consumers will just pay whatever it costs, because consumers have little alternative, recourse or choice to do otherwise.

And the oil companies will still make huge profits regardless.

Maybe it doesn't have anything to do with engineering.

Everything needs to be kept in Canada, including what is produced.

The idea for most of the production is to pipeline it to Oklahoma to be mixed with better oil to get adequate oil to then be shipped to China. Wouldn't it make more sense to ship the goo from Canada and the oil from somewhere other than the US to China and have it mixed there? Why import oil to the US and send US oil to China to mix with Canadian goo? Why not mix the Canadian goo with Canadian oil and use it there?

> here's a link from a source who doesn't have their thong tied in a crown knot
>
> this whole thing is over blown -
>
> and Ed ask yourself this- what happens when the those loads reach the Canadian line?
>
> Where is all the Canadian opposition?
>
> If the Canucks thought this was unsafe/ environmentally hazardous, do you think they would have even shipped the stuff from Korea? FWIW, they're (the Canadians) are so green, they make you look like a slash and burn logger from the 1900's...

Rankin, I read your link and all I took away from it is the state of Idaho is willing to bend over that extra mile for the sake of commerce. No surprise there considering all those permit fees they're going to collect. But, maybe you missed the point I was trying to bring up here. I'm no greeny, I don't know where you got that from. The point is the absurdity of designing such a structure and building it on the other side of the world from where it is needed and then having to go through all this infrastructure disruption to get it there. There is Canadian 'opposition' to this. The OP link is just that. But, as we all know, as Paden pointed out this shipment will go through. Enough money will pass hands, the people who live and work along these routes of shipment will endure the inconveniences wheher they want to or not and big oil will pass along the extra costs for widening streches of road and relocating utility lines and such to the ultimate consumers. Gunter pointed this fact out earlier, these people have no incentive to do otherwise. This story is, to me, just another example of how the world has lost it's collective freakin mind.

Consider The Impact On The Roads

200 loads? "The loads are projected to weigh 300 tons, stretch 227 feet long, and reach 27 feet high and 29 feet in width."

Every load that size reduces the life cycle of the pavement and more specifically the bridges. I doubt there are any back roads that can handle something of that length. To say that they are 2 lanes wide ignores the fact that the length requires much wider roads due to the overhang. Even cutting them in half would not make the shipments economically feasible as far as roadway costs.

I would say the design engineers blew it big time in their cost saving analysis. A 300 ton load is going to need at least a 50-100 ton carrier underneath it to distribute the load. With at least 4 pulling tractors plus an equal amount for braking at the rear. You are looking at 80 axles on the ground.

This will make a major engineering movie if they can in fact do it. In my opinion at the end of the day the entire length of highway and all bridges will require replacement.

Paul in PA

Consider The Impact On The Roads

More info here: http://allagainstthehaul.org/

Currently, it appears ConocoPhillips' plan is to ignore most of the impact and just let the taxpaying dupes eat the cost after the fact. That's what big business does. And here we have plenty of folks who don't want evil gubmint getting in the way of that kind of thing.

Frankly, ConocoPhillips should have planned to factor in the cost of replacing the infrastructure along their entire route, plus any other potential liabilities (like accidents, spills and so on) and add that into the cost of doing business, and then see if the project still makes sense. But again, we'd eat the cost either way, because we have no alternatives.