I think there might be a problem with the muskeg up north - trying to get a firm spot of ground that can withstand the weight of the pipeline. At least the mountains bear weight.
The risk, of course, is that the world oil market in 3-5 years will be sane. Might not provide enough economic return to pay for the buildout. But there’s a lot of crazies out there. Anybody actually building refineries?
Almost a year, on their hoped-for timeline, just to complete the review process. No mention of how many years to build it.
Building across the mountain ranges of BC won't be easy. And being a pipeline, not a drop of oil can flow 'till it's done.
Vs. how much quicker & cheaper might it be to build a pipeline over flat ground to Hudson's Bay, then use icebreakers to keep the tankers moving in winter? Yes, it's further to Asian markets from there. But tankers sailing around Africa are still far faster and cheaper than pipeline construction through mountains.
> Vs. how much quicker & cheaper might it be to build a pipeline over flat ground to Hudson's Bay
I suspect that this would actually be much harder to build, for two reasons:
1. That part of the country is almost unimaginably remote, even by Canadian standards. There are small towns and farms scattered across most of the country, but there's almost nothing between Fort McMurray and Hudson's Bay [0] [1]. And even when you get to Hudson's Bay, the only major settlement doesn't have any roads [2]. You don't need a lot of local resources to build a pipeline, but everything gets much harder when you're hundreds of miles away from the nearest road or gas station.
2. That region is covered in the Canadian Shield [3], which is really hard to dig through. There's actually quite a bit of topsoil in most parts of the Rockies, but the Canadian Shield is pure rock. This is also why there are hardly any towns/farms/roads up there.
> Building across the mountain ranges of BC won't be easy.
I agree that it will be hard, but there are already quite a few major highways [4] and pipelines [5] running through the Rockies, so we mostly already know how to build stuff there. Whereas there are no pipelines or major highways that run between Fort McMurray and Hudson's Bay, so there are probably too many unknowns there to make it a feasible option.
Not my area of expertise - but a deserted flat stretch of bedrock sounds perfect for building a major pipeline. Nobody living there means no issues with locals. Build it elevated (like the US's Alaska Pipeline) - so no issues with excavation. Surface bedrock makes support footings trivial (vs. Alaska has to deal with frost heaves and other soil issues). Road building is also pretty trivial.
Google Maps says it's <1000km. Easy enough for Canada to put out a RFP, noting "don't bother us if you think it'll be over C$25 billion". That's C$1M for each 40 meters of pipeline, at scale. Maybe you want 6 pairs of footings per 40m? Sounds like it could go up darn fast, with the footing crews working a week or two in front of the pipe crews. (And building it fast also minimizes the supplies you have to haul in & out in an area where, as you noted, you can't lean on local water & sewer & electrical service, and the corner hardware store for a odd-sized wrench you just realized you needed:) Meanwhile, a few Nordic shipyards are building the icebreakers, and another firm is digging the new harbor and channel on Hudson's Bay.
Vs. in mountains - yeah, roads are a big issue there. Because the roads themselves can take years to construct. And still, being a mere 1/2 km from the road isn't much comfort if that is up and down sharp slopes - which will mean soil stability and erosion and pipeline pressure issues, every meter of the way.
I think there might be a problem with the muskeg up north - trying to get a firm spot of ground that can withstand the weight of the pipeline. At least the mountains bear weight.
The risk, of course, is that the world oil market in 3-5 years will be sane. Might not provide enough economic return to pay for the buildout. But there’s a lot of crazies out there. Anybody actually building refineries?
Not much muskeg between Bruderheim and Delta.
[dupe] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49923575
Doh, should've searched first. Thank you!
Almost a year, on their hoped-for timeline, just to complete the review process. No mention of how many years to build it.
Building across the mountain ranges of BC won't be easy. And being a pipeline, not a drop of oil can flow 'till it's done.
Vs. how much quicker & cheaper might it be to build a pipeline over flat ground to Hudson's Bay, then use icebreakers to keep the tankers moving in winter? Yes, it's further to Asian markets from there. But tankers sailing around Africa are still far faster and cheaper than pipeline construction through mountains.
> Vs. how much quicker & cheaper might it be to build a pipeline over flat ground to Hudson's Bay
I suspect that this would actually be much harder to build, for two reasons:
1. That part of the country is almost unimaginably remote, even by Canadian standards. There are small towns and farms scattered across most of the country, but there's almost nothing between Fort McMurray and Hudson's Bay [0] [1]. And even when you get to Hudson's Bay, the only major settlement doesn't have any roads [2]. You don't need a lot of local resources to build a pipeline, but everything gets much harder when you're hundreds of miles away from the nearest road or gas station.
2. That region is covered in the Canadian Shield [3], which is really hard to dig through. There's actually quite a bit of topsoil in most parts of the Rockies, but the Canadian Shield is pure rock. This is also why there are hardly any towns/farms/roads up there.
> Building across the mountain ranges of BC won't be easy.
I agree that it will be hard, but there are already quite a few major highways [4] and pipelines [5] running through the Rockies, so we mostly already know how to build stuff there. Whereas there are no pipelines or major highways that run between Fort McMurray and Hudson's Bay, so there are probably too many unknowns there to make it a feasible option.
[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_of_Canada#/media/Fi...
[1]: https://assets.science.nasa.gov/content/dam/science/esd/eo/i...
[2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Churchill,_Manitoba#Transporta...
[3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Shield
[4]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Numbered_highways_in_Canada#/m...
[5]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pipelines_in_Canada#/media/Fil...
Not my area of expertise - but a deserted flat stretch of bedrock sounds perfect for building a major pipeline. Nobody living there means no issues with locals. Build it elevated (like the US's Alaska Pipeline) - so no issues with excavation. Surface bedrock makes support footings trivial (vs. Alaska has to deal with frost heaves and other soil issues). Road building is also pretty trivial.
Google Maps says it's <1000km. Easy enough for Canada to put out a RFP, noting "don't bother us if you think it'll be over C$25 billion". That's C$1M for each 40 meters of pipeline, at scale. Maybe you want 6 pairs of footings per 40m? Sounds like it could go up darn fast, with the footing crews working a week or two in front of the pipe crews. (And building it fast also minimizes the supplies you have to haul in & out in an area where, as you noted, you can't lean on local water & sewer & electrical service, and the corner hardware store for a odd-sized wrench you just realized you needed:) Meanwhile, a few Nordic shipyards are building the icebreakers, and another firm is digging the new harbor and channel on Hudson's Bay.
Vs. in mountains - yeah, roads are a big issue there. Because the roads themselves can take years to construct. And still, being a mere 1/2 km from the road isn't much comfort if that is up and down sharp slopes - which will mean soil stability and erosion and pipeline pressure issues, every meter of the way.