<html><head><style type="text/css"><!-- DIV {margin:0px;} --></style></head><body><div style="font-family:times new roman,new york,times,serif;font-size:12pt;color:#000000;"><div id="PrintContainer">
<h1>Giant Alberta-bound oil-sands shipments stall in Idaho as opposition mounts</h1>
<h5>Published: Sunday, December 05, 2010, 9:00 PM Updated: Monday, December 06, 2010, 6:13 AM</h5>
<div class="author_info">
<img src="http://media.oregonlive.com//avatars/richpic.jpg" alt="Richard Read, The Oregonian" height="40" width="40">
<span>
<strong>
Richard Read, The Oregonian
</strong>
<br>
</span>
</div>
<div id="asset-9096083" class="entry_widget_large entry_widget_left"><span class="adv-photo-large"><img class="adv-photo" alt="OILSANDS21.JPG" src="http://media.oregonlive.com/business_impact/photo/9096083-large.jpg" height="252" width="380"><span class="photo-data"><strong>View full size</strong><span class="byline">Benjamin Brink/The Oregonian</span><span class="caption">Workers
at the Port of Vancouver prepare an Imperial Oil module for barging to
Lewiston Idaho. Imperial, which needs the factory building blocks for an
$8 billion project in Alberta's oil sands, is trying to get permits to
truck the South Korean-made behemoths through Idaho and Montana to
Canada. </span></span><span class="photo-bottom-left"></span><span class="photo-bottom-right"></span></span>
</div><span id="asset-9097340"><div class="entry_widget_left">
<span style="display: inline;" class="mt-enclosure mt-enclosure-photo">
<span class="adv-video">
<strong></strong>
<span class="video-data">
<span class="title"><strong>Alberta's Oil Sands</strong></span>
<span class="caption">In northern Alberta,
Canada's province north of Montana, miles of pristine forests, rivers
and wetlands are transformed into giant strip mines to extract oil from
the gooey sand. The process is expensive and energy -intensive, but as
easy drilling options dry out, Alberta's oil sands are looking like
gold-rush territory. They've Canada our biggest supplier of oil.</span>
</span>
<span class="photo-bottom-left"></span><span class="photo-bottom-right"></span>
</span>
</span>
</div>
</span> <strong>Imperial Oil</strong> managers thought they'd discovered a new <strong>Northwest Passage </strong>when they decided to send more than 200 giant factory building blocks from South Korea to Canada via Idaho. <br><br>The largest of the massive modules, built as pieces of an <strong>$8 billion project</strong> in Alberta's <strong>oil sands</strong>, are wide as two-lane highways, taller than freeway overpasses and two-thirds the length of football fields. <strong>Imperial planned</strong> to ship the behemoths to <strong>Vancouver</strong>, barge them upriver and unload them in <strong>Lewiston</strong>, Idaho. <br><br>For
$100 million or so, Imperial intended to relocate overhead wires in
Idaho and Montana, build dozens of highway pullouts and haul each load
in the dead of night to Canada. The route, on winding highways free of
overpasses, would avoid a much longer journey through the Panama Canal,
the Great Lakes and Minnesota.<br><br>(<b>Related story:</b> <strong>The sands of Canada: Oil supply salvation or sinkhole?</strong>) <br><br>
<div id="asset-9096131" class="entry_widget_large entry_widget_left"><span class="adv-photo-large"><img class="adv-photo" alt="BZ.GOLIATH.jpg" src="http://media.oregonlive.com/business_impact/photo/9096131-large.jpg" height="333" width="380"><span class="photo-data"><strong>View full size</strong><span class="caption"></span></span><span class="photo-bottom-left"></span><span class="photo-bottom-right"></span></span></div>But Imperial finds its <strong>initial 34 shipments</strong>
stranded in Lewiston, lacking state highway permits to complete the
U.S. portion of the trip and facing activist groups with names like <strong>Fighting Goliath</strong> and <strong>All Against the Haul</strong>. Environmentalists are seizing the chance to rally U.S. opposition to Alberta's <strong>oil sands</strong>, where miners wrest tarry deposits from sand and send about 780,000 barrels of petroleum a day to the United States. <br><br>Imperial
Oil remains determined. "Our bottom line is to move these modules
safely and efficiently with a minimum of impacts on the people that we
pass," said Pius Rolheiser, a spokesman at Imperial's Calgary
headquarters. <br>
<div id="asset-9096146" class="entry_widget_small entry_widget_right"><span class="adv-photo-small"><img class="adv-photo" alt="BZ.OILDEPOSITS.jpg" src="http://media.oregonlive.com/business_impact/photo/9096146-small.jpg" height="154" width="155"><span class="photo-data"><strong>View full size</strong><span class="caption"></span></span><span class="photo-bottom-left"></span><span class="photo-bottom-right"></span></span></div><br>The enormous scale of just one tentacle of Alberta's <strong>oil-sands</strong>
operations illustrates the lengths to which companies will go to
procure oil after depleting reserves easily accessed by conventional
drilling. <br><br>The <strong>oil sands</strong> help make Canada the top U.S. oil supplier, providing a secure source of petroleum from a friendly democratic neighbor. But <strong>oil-sands</strong> companies do so at a cost, using large amounts of energy and water to extract and process <strong>bitumen</strong>, a black tarry raw material. They discharge toxic wastewater, air pollutants and more <strong>greenhouse gases</strong> than are emitted when producing conventionally drilled oil. <br><br>Environmentalists
oppose Imperial's mega loads on two main grounds, one being what they
call permanent industrialization of Idaho and Montana scenic corridors,
and the other being oil-sands impacts on Alberta and climate change. <strong>Bob McEnaney</strong>, a <strong>Natural Resources Defense Council</strong>
public-lands expert, dug up Korean-language documents showing, he says,
that over the next 10 years ExxonMobil expects another 1,000 massive
factory modules made by South Korean company <strong>Sung Jin Geotec</strong>. <br><br>"You're
basically industrializing what is one of the nation's first wild and
scenic rivers," said, McEnaney, referring to Idaho's Lochsa River.
"We're opposed to the tar sands to begin with because of the <strong>climate impacts</strong>." <br><br>Opponents are well organized with legal backing.<br> <br>
<div style="border-width: 4px 1px 1px; border-style: solid; border-color: rgb(102, 102, 102); padding: 12px 12px 4px; line-height: 16px; background-color: rgb(241, 241, 241); margin: 0pt 0pt 15px 15px; width: 250px; font-family: Verdana,sans-serif; float: right; color: rgb(34, 34, 34); font-size: 11.8px;" class="m-factbox">
<div style="margin-bottom: 12px; color: rgb(153, 0, 0); font-size: 15px; font-weight: bold;" class="m-factboxhed">Portland's Sulzer Pumps U.S. makes key pieces for proposed oil-sands pipeline </div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 8px;">As <strong>Imperial Oil</strong>
shipments languish in Lewiston, workers in Oregon assemble equipment for
another colossal oil-sands project awaiting government action. </div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 8px;"><strong>Sulzer Pumps U.S. Inc</strong>., the Portland-based arm of a Swiss manufacturer, is already making pumps for a $7 billion <strong>pipeline extension</strong> proposed by <strong>TransCanada Corp</strong>. The <strong>Keystone XL</strong> line could carry <strong>375,000 barrels</strong> a day from the oil sands to U.S. Gulf Coast refineries. </div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 8px;">Unlike Imperial, though, Sulzer has the work regardless whether the pipeline goes through. </div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 8px;">U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is <strong>expected to decide </strong>early next year whether to authorize construction of <strong>Keystone XL</strong>, which received the Environmental Protection Agency's <strong>lowest possible ranking</strong> in a draft impact statement. U.S. senators Jeff Merkley, D-Ore., and Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., are leading members of Congress <strong>urging Clinton to weigh impacts</strong> of the pipeline. </div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 8px;">"This toxic pipeline would put American drinking water, air and farmland at great risk," said Kate Colarulli, <strong>Sierra Club</strong>
dirty-fuels campaign director. "Building this pipeline would be like
putting 6.5 million new cars on America's roads, right when we are
making strides in fighting global-warming pollution." </div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 8px;">If Clinton turns down <strong>Keystone XL</strong>, pressure will increase for a double-barreled <strong>Enbridge Inc. pipeline</strong> that could carry 525,000 barrels a day from Edmonton to Kitimat, B.C., where tankers would depart for China and elsewhere. <strong>Kinder Morgan Inc.</strong> also wants to <strong>expand its Trans Mountain line</strong> from Alberta to British Columbia to supply Washington, British Columbia and Asia. </div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 8px;">The Keystone and Imperial debates are
raising the oil fields' profile in the United States. The Sierra Club
and other groups launched a national <strong>television ad campaign</strong> last week opposing Keystone XL. Cosmetics giant <strong>Avon announced last week</strong> it would ask its transport partners to avoid high-impact, high-carbon fuels such as those from the oil sands. </div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 8px;">Canada's government officials, launching their <strong>own public-relations campaign</strong>, stress the oil sands' outsize economic impacts on the United States. </div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 8px;">Oil-sands production will likely climb from 1.2 million barrels a day to about 4 million barrels in 2025, according to the <strong>Canadian Energy Research Institute</strong>.
Companies are expected to invest and spend $379 billion by 2034, the
institute said, resulting in 343,000 new U.S. jobs by 2015 alone. </div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 8px;">Sulzer, the pump manufacturer, won't reveal how much it will be paid for the 104 pumps it's making for Keystone XL. </div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 8px;">Jack Feinstein, Sulzer's vice president
of project management, said the company made 134 pumps for the original
Keystone pipeline, which at more than 2,000 miles is one of the world's
longest crude-oil lines. It's designed to bring petroleum from Alberta
to refineries in Oklahoma and Illinois. </div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 8px;">Together the Keystone and Keystone XL
orders are the largest non-nuclear project Sulzer, with a century's
history in Portland, has ever done.<br><br>-- <strong>Richard Read</strong> <br></div></div>"I'm
very concerned about the long-term effects of these heavy trucks on our
federal highway infrastructure," said Patricia Weber, a Corvallis
engineer who co-founded opposition group All Against the Haul. <br><br>Rep. Peter DeFazio, D-Ore., has <strong>asked</strong> the U.S. Transportation Department to investigate the state permitting process. <br><br>"The
oversized loads... will degrade highway surfaces and subsurfaces,
damage bridges and road shoulders and dramatically increase maintenance
and repair costs," DeFazio said. "I am opposed to subsidizing ExxonMobil
oil-sands mining in Canada with taxpayer dollars." <br><br><strong>Jim Lynch</strong>, <strong>Montana Transportation Department </strong>director,
said opposing highway permits because of oil developments outside the
state is unusual. Lynch said the heaviest shipments would have less
impact than people realize, distributing 600,000 pounds across 14 axles
with eight tires each, for a total 112 tires. <br><br>A huge truck, a
pusher truck, three pilot cars and two police cruisers would take nine
nights to bring each load on the 510-mile route through Idaho and
Montana. "They're moving at a time when most Montanans are in bed,
between 2 and 5 in the morning." Lynch said. "At 2 a.m., the bars aren't
even open." <br><br>Imperial's permit applications are mired in a thicket of state court decisions and bureaucracy. <br><br>The controversy has snagged separate shipments of giant coker-drum equipment that Clackamas heavy hauler <strong>Emmert International</strong> plans to truck from Lewiston to a <strong>ConocoPhillips </strong>refinery in Billings, Mont. The four loads would travel partway on the same U.S. 12 route as the Imperial modules. <br><br>The ConocoPhillips debate went to the <strong>Idaho Supreme Court</strong>, which returned it to the state transportation department. A hearing is planned in Boise Wednesday and Thursday. <br><br>"We're
still sitting and waiting," said Mark Hefty, project development
manager for Emmert, which specializes in large loads. "It's the first
time we've ever run into anything like that." <br><br>Oil-sands critics are not generally trying to shut down operations. Instead The <strong>Pembina Institute</strong>,
a Canadian research organization, calls for a pause on new approvals to
give time to plan new projects responsibly and to reduce cumulative
effects. <br><br>Until now the U.S. government has largely supported the oil sands. A <strong>confidential memo</strong>
written by a U.S. diplomat based in Calgary said a secure U.S. oil
supply was so important that Washington should shelve concerns about
carbon emissions and support fitful attempts to "green" the oil sands. <br><br>"U.S.
interests are best served by creating a context that facilitates the
'greening' rather than the suppression of oil-sands output," <strong>Tom Huffaker</strong> wrote in 2008, when he was U.S. consul general in Calgary. Huffaker subsequently quit the foreign service and works for the <strong>Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers</strong>. <br><br>Lobbyists
for the Albertan and Canadian governments are trying to weaken
clean-energy and climate-change policies in the United States and Europe
to protect oil-sands interests, according to a <strong>report</strong>
released this month by Climate Action Network Canada. The activist group
said officials seek to undermine California's low-carbon fuel standard
and U.S. and European clean-fuels policies. <br><br>Opponents say they
often feel the deck is stacked against them, given the momentum behind
projects, the money involved and growing world oil demand. That sense
was reinforced last week as critics examined an official-looking
document that appeared to predetermine Montana's approval of the
Imperial Oil shipments. <br>
<div id="asset-9096133" class="entry_widget_large entry_widget_left"><span class="adv-photo-large"><img class="adv-photo" alt="BZ.LENGTH.jpg" src="http://media.oregonlive.com/business_impact/photo/9096133-large.jpg" height="188" width="380"><span class="photo-data"><strong>View full size</strong><span class="caption"></span></span><span class="photo-bottom-left"></span><span class="photo-bottom-right"></span></span></div><br>The 76-page <strong>draft</strong>, discovered on the Internet by <strong>Eugene Weekly</strong> reporter <strong>Camilla Mortensen</strong>,
includes responses to 22 areas of concern in some 7,200 public comments
submitted last spring. Lynch, the Montana Transportation Department
director, disowned the document, which is a "finding of no significant
impact," or FONSI. <br><br>Computer technicians refer to the document as a "<strong>ghost FONSI</strong>,"
given that it's a Google-created version that lingered on the Web after
disappearing from the transport agency's servers. Greg Robertson,
public works director in Missoula county, where <strong>commissioners oppose</strong> the shipments, calls the document an "oops FONSI." <br><br>"Whoever wrote it sure knew what they were writing about," Robertson said. "I can't imagine it just magically showed up." <br><br>--<strong>Richard Read</strong>
</div>
<p class="copy">© <span id="year">2010</span> OregonLive.com. All rights reserved.</p></div><br>
</body></html>