Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Bitumen balls could be a pipeline-free way to transport Alberta oil

cbc.ca

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 80 posts

Re: Bitumen balls could be a pipeline-free way to transport Alberta oil

#21

Post by PeterisP »

Joe-Z wrote: post #9
gattilorenz wrote: post #7

Nice, although I'm wondering which company will trade efficiency (using spheres to transport a liquid means you have lots of "wasted" space) for environmental safety... without a law imposing it, at least. Maybe the economic incentive of balls just "rolling away" (thus remaining recoverable) in the event of a pipeline/tanker/carriage leak could balance this?

They are not only trading it for environmental saftey. As mentioned in another comment, using these balls you don't have to rely on specialized rail waggons anymore. So, while you may lose some space due to inefficient packing, you could easily make that up by using lots more of (assumedly) cheaper general-purpose/coal waggons.

Specialized rail wagons aren't expensive compared to other parts of the transportation costs - if you have the option of 5 specialized wagons or 6 "cheap" wagons, then using 5 wagons is cheaper.

Re: Bitumen balls could be a pipeline-free way to transport Alberta oil

#22

Post by pjc50 »

tiku wrote: post #13
Boothroid wrote: post #5

Anything that facilitates increased use of tar sands hydrocarbons is terrible news for the environment. We should ban this miserable trade.

I guess it's reusable after the oil is extracted, so it can be send back?

It is the oil. The bitumen is cracked into lighter fractions like gasoline.

(The other current method of transporting bitumen is to dilute it with naptha, which has to be sent back to the extraction site in order to be used with the next lot of bitumen)

Re: Bitumen balls could be a pipeline-free way to transport Alberta oil

#23

Post by TeMPOraL »

ldite wrote: post #17
TeMPOraL wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's called "rail". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rail_transport

So less this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cYzuXJ0E4cA And more this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MEekXRNztVI ?

Yup.

Re: Bitumen balls could be a pipeline-free way to transport Alberta oil

#24

Post by sharpercoder »

thereisnospork wrote: post #10

As a rule, it is far easier* to transport/handle liquids in large quantity than solids. Even ignoring the effort to convert/deconvert the oil at each end, I'm not seeing this as a step forward that will improve the bulk of crude-oil transport -- baring a more detailed analysis than what reads to me as 'pipelines bad.' *Cheaper, safer, more efficient, requiring less maintenance, etc...

Is bitumen a liquid or a solid? Technically, you can argue for either, but practically it seems to be very much a solid.

Re: Bitumen balls could be a pipeline-free way to transport Alberta oil

#25

Post by TeMPOraL »

sgt wrote: post #18
TeMPOraL wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> As a rule, it is far easier to transport/handle liquids in large quantity than solids.* Is it? For liquids, at all times you need a sealed container that doesn't leak. For solids, it's enough for the holes to be no larger than the individual solid object. This makes containers cheaper and requiring much less maintenance. As for this specific case, the article makes at least two points: - transporting solids can reu…

They wouldn't build pipelines in the first place if it didn't make business sense to do so. These pipes will be in place for a very long time (relatively speaking). I would also think that railroad or road for transporting a solid liquid is also less environmentally friendly than sending via pipelines. Of course, if you are assuming that the pipeline will burst, then it may not be, but one has to ensure that the pipe…

I understand the argument from the article is about flexibility - a pipeline will be in place for a very long time, but it's not easy to move it around as the economical landscape changes. Meanwhile, rail will let you move the stuff to wherever it's currently better to have it.

Re: Bitumen balls could be a pipeline-free way to transport Alberta oil

#26

Post by codecamper »

Boothroid wrote: post #5

Anything that facilitates increased use of tar sands hydrocarbons is terrible news for the environment. We should ban this miserable trade.

How is this post the lowest on the ranking? "technological" programmers are some of the most non-science understanding people around. A real shame! Read some science beyond your programming documentation please.

Re: Bitumen balls could be a pipeline-free way to transport Alberta oil

#27

Post by devdoomari »

TeMPOraL wrote: post #14
thereisnospork wrote: post #10

As a rule, it is far easier* to transport/handle liquids in large quantity than solids. Even ignoring the effort to convert/deconvert the oil at each end, I'm not seeing this as a step forward that will improve the bulk of crude-oil transport -- baring a more detailed analysis than what reads to me as 'pipelines bad.' *Cheaper, safer, more efficient, requiring less maintenance, etc...

> As a rule, it is far easier to transport/handle liquids in large quantity than solids.* Is it? For liquids, at all times you need a sealed container that doesn't leak. For solids, it's enough for the holes to be no larger than the individual solid object. This makes containers cheaper and requiring much less maintenance. As for this specific case, the article makes at least two points: - transporting solids can reu…

-> "they can make each pellet buoyant, and it seems they also don't dissolve easily"

damn that would definitely help on spill cleanings!

Re: Bitumen balls could be a pipeline-free way to transport Alberta oil

#28

Post by jacquesm »

sharpercoder wrote: post #24
thereisnospork wrote: post #10

As a rule, it is far easier* to transport/handle liquids in large quantity than solids. Even ignoring the effort to convert/deconvert the oil at each end, I'm not seeing this as a step forward that will improve the bulk of crude-oil transport -- baring a more detailed analysis than what reads to me as 'pipelines bad.' *Cheaper, safer, more efficient, requiring less maintenance, etc...

Is bitumen a liquid or a solid? Technically, you can argue for either, but practically it seems to be very much a solid.

Is water a liquid or a solid?

It's a pretty simple question to answer if you know all of the parameters of the environment.

Re: Bitumen balls could be a pipeline-free way to transport Alberta oil

#29

Post by userbinator »

TeMPOraL wrote: post #16

Two questions I'm wondering about: - How solid are those pebbles? I assume they're not like soft blobs that can easily split and merge together? But then how much abuse they can take? E.g. if they crack easily, you can't really stack them together very high. - The obvious one - are the pebbles flammable?

- The obvious one - are the pebbles flammable?

As much as coal, if not more.

Re: Bitumen balls could be a pipeline-free way to transport Alberta oil

#30

Post by jacquesm »

andriesm wrote: post #19
Boothroid wrote: post #5

Anything that facilitates increased use of tar sands hydrocarbons is terrible news for the environment. We should ban this miserable trade.

This misreable trade is all that stands between many people and poverty. Green energy alternatives have years to decades before completely making hydrocaebons irrelevant. Electric cars certainly a big step, but only in beginning stages of market penetration.

> This misreable trade is all that stands between many people and poverty.

Nah, that's exaggeration. Tar sands are extremely polluting and the 'many people' are those that are employed in an industry that didn't even exist a decade ago, it's mostly boom towns specifically constructed around getting this oil out of the ground.

I find it quite interesting that we would impose environmental constraints on the third world - where people really need to fight to make ends meet - and yet allow something as bad as this because 'many people might land in poverty', when in fact they have alternatives, just not as lucrative.

Post reply on HN