Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Montana
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 10-13-2010, 09:50 PM
 
291 posts, read 668,566 times
Reputation: 118

Advertisements

Just a dumb question, but why not utilize a different Port in Wash. and bring this equipment up I90 instead. Shouldn't cause anyone any grief in the middle of the night going through Spokane and Coeur De Lane.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 10-14-2010, 12:10 AM
 
Location: Brendansport, Sagitta IV
8,085 posts, read 15,111,493 times
Reputation: 3732
From one of the articles, which I'm too lazy to go reread this instant, there was some mention of a contract for part of the trip already set up in Lewiston ID. Maybe just as the final river port, I don't recall offhand. But as I mentioned above, this all seems to have assumed that using Hwy 12 was also feasible, and that may have been, uh, overly-optimistic.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-14-2010, 03:40 AM
 
Location: Coos Bay, Oregon
7,138 posts, read 10,999,679 times
Reputation: 7808
Quote:
Originally Posted by strudel42 View Post
Thoughts?
"It's jobs, jobs, jobs"

The only thing the Governor doesn't say is, WHO'S jobs. These people love to create jobs when they are for Canadians or Koreans, or anybody other then Americans.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-14-2010, 06:12 AM
 
Location: C-U metro
1,368 posts, read 3,210,065 times
Reputation: 1192
Default Overpasses

Quote:
Originally Posted by Reziac View Post
From one of the articles, which I'm too lazy to go reread this instant, there was some mention of a contract for part of the trip already set up in Lewiston ID. Maybe just as the final river port, I don't recall offhand. But as I mentioned above, this all seems to have assumed that using Hwy 12 was also feasible, and that may have been, uh, overly-optimistic.
The reason they chose not to use I-90 is due to the overpasses. These drums are 100 feet in diameter and, obviously, that will not fit under an overpass. The exits would have to be able to accommodate the drum and most exit ramps are single lane, not double lane which is necessary to move down the road.

A better question would have been why not use a route in Hudson Bay? There usually isn't much traffic there (outside of Churchill) and not many overpasses either. It takes much longer by ship but you won't have that many people squawking about "my little slice of heaven that can never, ever, ever, ever, ever change or have anything bad happen to it caused by someone, even me, or an act of god".
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-14-2010, 08:38 AM
 
Location: Brendansport, Sagitta IV
8,085 posts, read 15,111,493 times
Reputation: 3732
Quote:
Originally Posted by flyingcat2k View Post
The reason they chose not to use I-90 is due to the overpasses. These drums are 100 feet in diameter and, obviously, that will not fit under an overpass. The exits would have to be able to accommodate the drum and most exit ramps are single lane, not double lane which is necessary to move down the road.
As I speculated in a previous post -- overpasses are the usual Interstate bugaboo when moving some huge load, and can completely nix the operation. And there may be points where the exit goes under the main freeway, rendering that exit impassable. (I don't recall if there are any such on I-90 but it's certainly not uncommon, especially in mountain areas.) The rigid length of the load may preclude using something as curved as the up-and-down of an exit, too. (I gotta wonder how it'll make some of the turns on Hwy 12. Seems to me if no prior loads of this size have gone that way, it would be prudent to build a dummy load, same dimensions but no real weight, and give it a trial run. Would be a lot cheaper than backing the first real load halfway across Idaho if it didn't work out, or resulted in a situation like trucks on Tail of the Dragon.)

Quote:
Originally Posted by flyingcat2k View Post
A better question would have been why not use a route in Hudson Bay? There usually isn't much traffic there (outside of Churchill) and not many overpasses either. It takes much longer by ship but you won't have that many people squawking about "my little slice of heaven that can never, ever, ever, ever, ever change or have anything bad happen to it caused by someone, even me, or an act of god".
Aside from the fact that it's another half-turn around the world from Korea?? and probably has to go around either South America or Africa to boot? (Given that the Northwest Passage isn't doable for container ships, and that they're probably too large to come via the ancient, relatively narrow Panama Canal, and maybe the Suez too -- I know both have size limits that prohibit a lot of modern cargo ships.)

Probably because then you wind up with a timing issue and perhaps an insurmountable transportation issue. Far as I know there's no real roads westbound from the western part of Hudson Bay, and most of that area is subarctic tundra, which is to say, bogland (some forested, some not). So you can't build a road either -- it sinks the first time you put a load on it. The solution when stuff has to be moved is to wait for winter, build a temporary snow road, and use that... with all the attendant problems of running diesel equipment in -40F temperatures. Then if you build a dock it sinks into the bog when you put that 300 ton load on it. Meanwhile your ship is frozen into the bay (you DID make sure the hull can take that, right? Most can't.) But even deep winter ice won't support a 300 ton load, let alone 200 of them, so getting your stuff OFF the ship is a problem too. This is the same problem Russia has had since forever with trying to settle and develop Siberia. It can be done, but it's a one-piece-at-a-time, highly seasonal operation, and there are some severe limits and impediments imposed by the underlying bog.

And meanwhile the Canadian greenies are jumping up and down about destruction of pristine wilderness (which is what most of that area IS, being pretty much useless for anything else until we get another couple degrees of global warming).

Looks to me like if you're going to do an eastern route, you need to come up through the Great Lakes to Thunder Bay (Lake Superior) and take the Trans-Canada highway to Winnepeg, Saskatoon, and Edmonton. While this route is relatively flat and about as direct as you can get from the east coast, I have no idea what the highway itself is like or whether it's got its own array of obstacles and restrictions, or whether the antique locks on the St.Lawrence channel are up to passing a barge of the needful size. If not, you have to start hauling from Quebec City or Montreal, and overland transport of loads of this magnitude is vastly more expensive than going by water -- the sheer distance might render it impractical (or raise costs beyond what we'd care to pay for the eventual product).

Maybe the solution is smaller tanks (since a domestic steel mill that can do the job doesn't seem likely to appear any time soon), but I expect they've developed at the size they are because that's the only way to make the extraction operation profitable. Most people don't realise the scale we're talking here... it ain't no backyard operation. Think on the scale of the Butte mining pit, only liquid.

Not that Hwy 12 is a great solution, but might be it's the best available. Or maybe it's not. As I said the whole thing needs more study; seems to me it's being rushed as there are some special interests along the way (like the contract with Lewiston ID) that are pushing it no matter what.

Last edited by Reziac; 10-14-2010 at 08:46 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-14-2010, 08:48 AM
 
Location: Brendansport, Sagitta IV
8,085 posts, read 15,111,493 times
Reputation: 3732
Quote:
Originally Posted by KaaBoom View Post
"It's jobs, jobs, jobs"

The only thing the Governor doesn't say is, WHO'S jobs. These people love to create jobs when they are for Canadians or Koreans, or anybody other then Americans.
Globalization: a method for developing economies to extract money from richer economies without the tiresome bother of spending their own money. Rinse and repeat until every country is equally poor.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-15-2010, 08:55 AM
 
Location: Brendansport, Sagitta IV
8,085 posts, read 15,111,493 times
Reputation: 3732
Two articles from New West magazine (which I usually take with a bucket of salt as they tend to be treehugger-wacko at times, while simultaneously espousing residential development of rural lands) on this issue and the court case now pending in Idaho. Obviously if it gets blocked in Idaho, the question becomes moot for Montana's end of Hwy 12.

Standing in the Way: How One Idaho Couple Plans to Stop Big Oil’s Big Rigs, Part 1 | Steve Bunk | Energy | NewWest.Net

Standing in the Way: How One Idaho Couple Plans to Stop Big Oil’s Big Rigs, Part 2 | Steve Bunk | Energy | NewWest.Net

There is a photo of one of the cylinders, and it notes that the contract apparently goes back to 2006 -- long before any road permits were requested or issued.

It also notes that over 100 turnouts have been added to Hwy12 in Idaho -- I can't see that as a bad thing itself, given that any slow load can cause a backup for miles on a windy two-lane road with no turnouts.

The couple's own website (strident in tone, but with some good photos);
http://www.fightinggoliath.org/

Side note: Montana is one of the few places where I've seen mountain road passing lanes and turnouts in logical places. In California they usually put the passing lane at the very top of the hill or even on the downslope side -- AFTER you needed it, and half the time you can't get around the now-accelerating slow truck before the lane ends!!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-15-2010, 11:09 AM
 
7,366 posts, read 12,616,013 times
Reputation: 9959
One of our Idaho members posted this yesterday: The first shipment has arrived in Lewiston.
New mega-loads arriving at Port of Lewiston | KLEW CBS 3 - News, Weather and Sports - Lewiston, ID - Lewiston, Idaho | Local & Regional
I'll copy the two New West websites and post them over on the Idaho thread. Thanks!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-16-2010, 12:02 AM
 
Location: Coos Bay, Oregon
7,138 posts, read 10,999,679 times
Reputation: 7808
Quote:
Originally Posted by Reziac View Post
Aside from the fact that it's another half-turn around the world from Korea?? and probably has to go around either South America or Africa to boot? (Given that the Northwest Passage isn't doable for container ships, and that they're probably too large to come via the ancient, relatively narrow Panama Canal, and maybe the Suez too -- I know both have size limits that prohibit a lot of modern cargo ships.).
I agree with most of what you say. But I'm pretty sure that one of the existing routes talked about in this video, is the Panama Canal. These loads will be up to 24 feet wide. The Panamax ships that go through the Panama Canal are 106 feet wide. These may be wide loads for the highways, but they are a piece of cake for the Panama Canal.

I think its all about economics, not necessity. Exxon will save a million dollars or more a load, on shipping costs by cutting out passage though the Panama Canal. Of course they are going to try to ship through Montana, if they can save a couple of hundred million dollars. Even if it is not the most practical route.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-16-2010, 09:28 AM
 
Location: Spots Wyoming
18,700 posts, read 41,965,616 times
Reputation: 2147483647
Quote:
Originally Posted by KaaBoom View Post
I agree with most of what you say. But I'm pretty sure that one of the existing routes talked about in this video, is the Panama Canal. These loads will be up to 24 feet wide. The Panamax ships that go through the Panama Canal are 106 feet wide. These may be wide loads for the highways, but they are a piece of cake for the Panama Canal.

I think its all about economics, not necessity. Exxon will save a million dollars or more a load, on shipping costs by cutting out passage though the Panama Canal. Of course they are going to try to ship through Montana, if they can save a couple of hundred million dollars. Even if it is not the most practical route.
There are political ramifications to using the Canal. The Canal is currently operated by the Chinese and as such, they will not allow countries that they are not friendly with, to use the canal. So the question is, is China friendly with the flag these ships are flying? Makes a big difference.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Settings
X
Data:
Loading data...
Based on 2000-2020 data
Loading data...

123
Hide US histogram

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Montana

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 03:00 AM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top