So This Is Where The Natural-Gas-Is-Good Stories Came From

[William Ashley]

Why a 16 Billion project when you could have put Natural Gas along the 401 for 1 Billion and had an actual direct impact on the environment, rather than cutting 1600km x 1km etched througouth the west 1600km x 1km is a lot of land cut down for bringing in gas - why not just transfer it down the river?.

It would be way cheaper to bring it down the river also.

Edited January 5, 2010 by William Ashley

[blueblood]

Why a 16 Billion project when you could have put Natural Gas along the 401 for 1 Billion and had an actual direct impact on the environment, rather than cutting 1600km x 1km etched througouth the west 1600km x 1km is a lot of land cut down for bringing in gas - why not just transfer it down the river?.

It would be way cheaper to bring it down the river also.

Because in the long run piping is the cheapest way of transfering goods. No loading and unloading, less labour, just vast amounts of material shooting through a pipe. Imagine a non-stop train of natural gas.

[Wilber]

Why a 16 Billion project when you could have put Natural Gas along the 401 for 1 Billion and had an actual direct impact on the environment, rather than cutting 1600km x 1km etched througouth the west 1600km x 1km is a lot of land cut down for bringing in gas - why not just transfer it down the river?.

It would be way cheaper to bring it down the river also.

I believe in this case it would be up the river. How would you do it?

[William Ashley]

Because in the long run piping is the cheapest way of transfering goods. No loading and unloading, less labour, just vast amounts of material shooting through a pipe. Imagine a non-stop train of natural gas.

It isn't the cheapest - hot air balloons would be cheaper.

[William Ashley]

Because in the long run piping is the cheapest way of transfering goods. No loading and unloading, less labour, just vast amounts of material shooting through a pipe. Imagine a non-stop train of natural gas.

-

Edited January 5, 2010 by William Ashley

[William Ashley]

I believe in this case it would be up the river. How would you do it?

I have my ways, how much is it worth to you?

[blueblood]

It isn't the cheapest - hot air balloons would be cheaper.

If water transport/hot air balloons are so cheap, why aren't the prairies full of zeppelins in the air and canals?

To suggest that transporting something along shallow western Canadian rivers and in hot air balloons are cheaper than trains/pipelines is insane.

The cost to put natural gas in containers to go on barges vs. a pipeline is far more expensive than a pipeline. There is a reason oil companies go with pipelines, they don't want to lose their shirts transporting oil to market.

[William Ashley]

If Canada banned the production or importation of gasoline vehicles, it could reduce carbon emissions by a whoping 30% easily meeting any carbon reductions requirements.

This would also force the industry to produce new energy vehicles - AND position Canada to be positive force of change in the industry and lead north america in New Energy Vehicle production...

Currently canada is the 3rd largest world producer of natural gas but only has about 12000 natural gas vehicles.

Edited January 5, 2010 by William Ashley

[William Ashley]

If water transport/hot air balloons are so cheap, why aren't the prairies full of zeppelins in the air and canals?

To suggest that transporting something along shallow western Canadian rivers and in hot air balloons are cheaper than trains/pipelines is insane.

The cost to put natural gas in containers to go on barges vs. a pipeline is far more expensive than a pipeline. There is a reason oil companies go with pipelines, they don't want to lose their shirts transporting oil to market.

Oh, oil isn't easier transported by lighter than air transport but natural gas certainly is.

Not only this but the ballons could be used to transport alternate goods - the more product the more load.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lighter_than_air

It could have to do with other markets like a lagging mining industry and proping that up.. but pipes arn't the most efficient - actually they are some of the most costly and destructive.

http://www.chem.hawaii.edu/uham/lift.html

It could be used for personnel or material transport in addition to otherwise, meaning the whole of the north would be opened up by low cost economic balloons.

It may be hard for you to beleieve but this is the truth!!

Edited January 5, 2010 by William Ashley

[blueblood]

Oh, oil isn't easier transported by lighter than air transport but gas certainly is.

Please tell me how an airship will transfer more product than a pipe 30" around going for hundreds of miles almost 24/7, not to mention one way.

It has all been costed out. It's cheaper to build and maintain a pipeline than to have airships that can only take a small amount at a time, have enourmous handling costs, and then have to fly back empty.

You tell me how airships are cheaper than pipelines, this ought to be interesting.

[William Ashley]

Please tell me how an airship will transfer more product than a pipe 30" around going for hundreds of miles almost 24/7, not to mention one way.

It has all been costed out. It's cheaper to build and maintain a pipeline than to have airships that can only take a small amount at a time, have enourmous handling costs, and then have to fly back empty.

You tell me how airships are cheaper than pipelines, this ought to be interesting.

lots of balloons? and robotics.. automated flight / ai systems

It may seem far fetched but if you look at the actual cost of production, destruction, and material use.. having a whole lot of reusable lighter than air transports, fueled by the product not only allows that material to be transported but other northern resources. something a pipeline can't do for anything other than the materials it is designed to transport - such as a gas or liquid or hybrid.

18 billion can build a lot of lighter than air balloon shells.

You could also generate some advertising revenue.

It would save cutting down 1600km of forest AND be faster to implement.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WALRUS_HULA

is just one example.. however my idea is a little more elaborate and cost effective

Edited January 5, 2010 by William Ashley

[Riverwind]

most Canadians daily driving needs could be met by battery powered cars

Sorry to break it to you but people do NOT choose cars based on whether they meet their daily needs. They choose cars based on whether they will meet most of their needs. e.g. someone who drives less than 40km per day would not buy an electric car if they expected to go on a weekend road trip a couple times per year. Electric cars without gas engine backups will be nothing but niche players until the recharge time problem is solved economically. Edited January 5, 2010 by Riverwind

[blueblood]

lots of balloons? and robotics.. automated flight / ai systems

It may seem far fetched but if you look at the actual cost of production, destruction, and material use.. having a whole lot of reusable lighter than air transports, fueled by the product not only allows that material to be transported but other northern resources. something a pipeline can't do for anything other than the materials it is designed to transport - such as a gas or liquid or hybrid.

18 billion can build a lot of lighter than air balloon shells.

It's simple math. Figure out the volume of a cylinder, that's what a pipeline is.

Not only that, it runs continuously. Finally, it's one way. No destruction and recycling of material use. The sheer size and amount of balloons to compete with the amount of product moved with a pipeline could very well be an expensive and cause greater ecological harm than a pipeline.

If a pipeline piping gas is so expensive and hot air transport is cheaper, why aren't the oil/gas companies all over that so they wouldn't be getting soaked by the pipeline companies/costs of constructing a pipeline?

With that logic you should be running out to the store and buying batteries to power all of your home appliances with, because electricity which is essentially piped to your house is too "expensive".

[William Ashley]

It's simple math. Figure out the volume of a cylinder, that's what a pipeline is.

Not only that, it runs continuously. Finally, it's one way. No destruction and recycling of material use. The sheer size and amount of balloons to compete with the amount of product moved with a pipeline could very well be an expensive and cause greater ecological harm than a pipeline.

If a pipeline piping gas is so expensive and hot air transport is cheaper, why aren't the oil/gas companies all over that so they wouldn't be getting soaked by the pipeline companies/costs of constructing a pipeline?

With that logic you should be running out to the store and buying batteries to power all of your home appliances with, because electricity which is essentially piped to your house is too "expensive".

Honestly, I don't know. I think part of the issue is that they arn't tech savy, they are business people of the old way of doing things. They don't understand how it would work, but I do know it would be more cost effective and less environmentally destructive to use LTA transport. It likely has to do with "land control" rather than delivery systems.

Batteries are part of it, the wind/solar or turbine systems are the other part. I could power my electric use by working out alone.

Edited January 5, 2010 by William Ashley

[Wilber]

It isn't the cheapest - hot air balloons would be cheaper.

What do you heat the air with?

[blueblood]

Honestly, I don't know. I think part of the issue is that they arn't tech savy, they are business people of the old way of doing things. They don't understand how it would work, but I do know it would be more cost effective and less environmentally destructive to use LTA transport. It likely has to do with "land control" rather than delivery systems.

Batteries are part of it, the wind/solar or turbine systems are the other part. I could power my electric use by working out alone.

Are you serious?

Those "big oil/gas companies" are throwing around piles of money getting their oil/gas to market. That means they are employing the best of the best in order to get that oil/gas from point a to point b. They understand how it works and think its proposterous. I don't think you realize the sheer volume a pipe line can handle. Those LTA things could maybe transport 500 tons. There is probably 500 tons of gas in a quarter mile of pipe. The logistics just aren't there.

You've completely missed the point of my example.

Which is cheaper, buying electricity off the grid, or going to canadian tire and buying a car load of batteries for the month? Your suggestion equates to the latter.

[wyly]

Sorry to break it to you but people do NOT choose cars based on whether they meet their daily needs. They choose cars based on whether they will meet most of their needs. e.g. someone who drives less than 40km per day would not buy an electric car if they expected to go on a weekend road trip a couple times per year. Electric cars without gas engine backups will be nothing but niche players until the recharge time problem is solved economically.

sorry to break it to you I know you've lived locked away in a cave for decades but many many families have commuter cars they use only for daily city driving...they DO choose cars based on daily needs...

[Alta4ever]

sorry to break it to you I know you've lived locked away in a cave for decades but many many families have commuter cars they use only for daily city driving...they DO choose cars based on daily needs...

So o enlightened one, what do those people do on the weekend when they want to visit the family 4 hours away, do they take the bus or drive the car?

Have you ever left the city have you seen the world beyond your commute to work?

[Riverwind]

sorry to break it to you I know you've lived locked away in a cave for decades but many many families have commuter cars they use only for daily city driving

So your 'solution' to the recharge problem is to require that everyone consume even more resources by buying and maintaining two cars? Edited January 6, 2010 by Riverwind

[Hydraboss]

Honestly, I don't know. I think part of the issue is that they arn't tech savy, they are business people of the old way of doing things. They don't understand how it would work, but I do know it would be more cost effective and less environmentally destructive to use LTA transport. It likely has to do with "land control" rather than delivery systems.

Batteries are part of it, the wind/solar or turbine systems are the other part. I could power my electric use by working out alone.

Are you actually trying to take yourself seriously? This idea is something that even Oleg would consider in the realm of acid-droppers. Do you understand ANYTHING about the oil and gas industry? At all?

[William Ashley]

What do you heat the air with?

No need to heat hydrogen is already lighter than air - that is natural gas.

Now I know you may be thinking hiddenberg but hydrogen balloons have gotten much safer over the last 100 years.

Also with newer compression technologies you get more. Better yet, you use the cargo for lift meaning you get more cargo with the more cargo you have.

These things can go above the clouds without even needing upward thrust.. to near space I think close to 40km high... meaning they can travel extreme distance much faster. There are a lot of little systems that increase travel efficiency, momentum, air resistence reduction etc.. depending on the level of compression and storage medium different levels of lift can be acheived, which can be adjusted based on any additional cargo. Such as lumber rock, people, military supplies etc..

Lighter than air transport is one of them forgotten things like use of sail for great lakes transport - sail is actually the most energy efficient way of traversing the great lakes - and don't think ricketty wood boat.. modern ship hulls can be used with modern sails which can also be rigged with solar absorbant material for energy production which can generate energy for motors. For mass cargo transfer. Not to mention wind power.

Edited January 6, 2010 by William Ashley

[William Ashley]

If you are wondering i have a system to economize the production of hydrogen from Methane - also by using methanogenic organisms to convert the co back into methane.

Also often helium also lighter than air is often found with methane

This will also help with removal of CO from the air by providing a biofactory for methanogenic organisms

Edited January 6, 2010 by William Ashley

[Wilber]

No need to heat hydrogen is already lighter than air - that is natural gas.

Now I know you may be thinking hiddenberg but hydrogen balloons have gotten much safer over the last 100 years.

Also with newer compression technologies you get more. Better yet, you use the cargo for lift meaning you get more cargo with the more cargo you have.

These things can go above the clouds without even needing upward thrust.. to near space I think close to 40km high... meaning they can travel extreme distance much faster. There are a lot of little systems that increase travel efficiency, momentum, air resistence reduction etc.. depending on the level of compression and storage medium different levels of lift can be acheived, which can be adjusted based on any additional cargo. Such as lumber rock, people, military supplies etc..

Lighter than air transport is one of them forgotten things like use of sail for great lakes transport - sail is actually the most energy efficient way of traversing the great lakes - and don't think ricketty wood boat.. modern ship hulls can be used with modern sails which can also be rigged with solar absorbant material for energy production which can generate energy for motors. For mass cargo transfer. Not to mention wind power.

You said hot air balloons. However, hydrogen is no less flammable than in the days of the Hindenburg. Weather, which destroyed the majority of airships is no less violent than then. Like any other gas, hydrogen gets heavier as you compress it which means it produces less lift. Carrying CNG would be a waist of time. You would need an airship the size of a city to carry any appreciable amount which means you would have to carry it in liquid form which presents its own problems. There is no something for nothing here. Fuel contains energy by weight not volume, that's why aircraft fuel quantity systems are calibrated in pounds or kilos, not gallons or liters.

There may be a future for airships but not as bulk carriers of energy.

[ZenOps]

The Mackenzie natural gas pipeline is currently designed as a pressurized 1200 kilometer transport system of 1.2 Billion linear cubic feet of natural gas... per day. This will meet about half of the expected capacity of the area it is intended to connect to (the amount of natural gas that we as humans can reasonably expect to be able to tap into during the lifetime of the pipeline, there is actually much more natural gas up there that that.)

I don't think any non-pressurized system would be able to handle that type of flow. Luckily the cold weather will make it much easier to compress the gas to start with - Liquified Natural gas requires a temperature somewhere around -183 degrees to liquify without compression.

The biggest issue to me has nothing to do with capacity or the ethics of carbon fuels. It has to do with who the heck are they going to find to build this beast. Arguably - it will be as dangerous if not more dangerous to build than the railroads. I'm pretty sure that they will probably have a minimum weight requirement (or risk death from freezing in sub zero temperatures)

The terrain is flat thankfully, but if you thought Winterpeg was cold - Just try Northern Alberta which is equally as desolate.

This project is *vital* to the growth of Canada. Natural gas is what keeps us all warm 9 months of the year, and cold weather is a major barrier to Canadas growth.

With this project Natural gas could be subsidized back to under $1 per GJ (if there is enough political will) which could easily create a mini-boom.

This is 10 billion or so dollars much better spent - than a theoretical oil refinery.

The Chinese man in me tells me that the natives in those areas would probably give a thumbs up if you could halve their heating bills - all the way to giving them a complete subsidy of any personal home heating natural gas coming off the Mackenzie in exchange for using the very small land footprint that it requires.

Edited January 6, 2010 by ZenOps

[Wild Bill]

This all reminds me of Petro Canada, where by the time they paid far too much to buy up companies like BP and Gulf the world market had passed them by.

Pay attention, people! SHALE GAS! It's here, it's loud and it's proud!

If they build this pipeline it may well prove to be another boondoggle that takes 50 years to show a profit. Natural gas is going to be relatively cheap for decades from all the shale sources.

Here's just ONE link! (a google will give you pages and pages of them!)

http://www.unbridledenergy.com/gas/shale.asp

"The article also reviews the historical aspects of shale developments since the late 1800’s. Suffice to say there will be many tcf’s produced from shale gas reservoirs over the next 50 years.

The key to successfully unlocking the enormous gas in place in most shale resource plays consists of using cost effective, high-technology data analysis and field procedures to maximize the contacted reservoir volume."

Any project or discussion that fails to include the shale gas factor is like planning a marketing campaign for typewriters in today's business world.