<On U.S. Finished Gasoline Stocks and Gasoline Refining Capacity The Oil Drum DrumBeat: December 11, 2006>
<The Round-Up: December 8th 2006 The Oil Drum: Canada The Round-Up: December 12th 2006>

15 comments on A Mackenzie Valley Pipe-Dream?

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

| Show without comments | PDF version

Oil Watcher Named Ed on December 10, 2006 - 10:47pm Permalink | Subthread | Comments top
We are starting a consortium to build a loading LNG loading terminals in MacKenzie delta, an off loading terminal at a Central Alberta NG hubs and a convoy of lighter than air airships.

This transport system will significantly reduce the pipeline related issues, permafrost pipeline heaving, native land transversal, and ecological damage. There are environmental safety issues related to the transport of LNG, but we estimate that these costs will still make the venture significantly more profitable than the pipeline.

We will add airships as production increases in the delta. This solution is scalable. When NG production begins to tail off in the future, the airships transport will be relocated for other transport services, including LNG transport in Khasikstan, Siberia and etc., to extend returns in capital invested.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
toilforoil on December 11, 2006 - 3:09am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
Have you floated this idea anywhere else?
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
John McFadden on December 11, 2006 - 5:41am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
The idea of using giant airships in the north of Canada has been around for a long time.

I could see them being very useful in building the pipeline, but I have trouble envisioning LNG floating slowly through the air getting past aviation security people in Canada, let alone the Caspian region.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Oil Watcher Named Ed on December 11, 2006 - 9:41am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
We don't want to get around the security people. We need the security people to ensure that that no crazed individual or terrorist with SAM tries to shoot our cargo down.
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
tom deplume on December 11, 2006 - 2:11pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
Giant airships to transport nat gas would not involve liquifaction. Nat gas is roughly half as dense as air so it would act as the lifting gas of huge blimps. The blimps would be filled at the artic gas field, flown south using a protion of the gas as fuel, then deflated at a southern pipeline terminal.  The deflated blimps would return to the gas field by ship or plane to repeat the cycle.
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Oil Watcher Named Ed on December 15, 2006 - 10:51am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
But the surface area displace would be huge. If not pressurized or liquified, you have problems with push a surface area like that through the air. You need power to push that area, and you have a static charges building up. So there are two problems to deal with.

H2 is still 7 times as lighter. Than methane and will provide much less surface area.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
PhilRelig on December 15, 2006 - 10:51am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
Who in their right mind would want to pilot or man the crew on one of those things?

Remember the Zeppelin!!!

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

15 comments on A Mackenzie Valley Pipe-Dream?

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

| Show without comments | PDF version