Logo: folc.ca: For our Lamont County

Industrial and Community Development for Our Lamont County

| Home | In The News | Contact Us | Our Blog | Search this Website | Share

 

ISSUES OF CONCERN:

Industrial Heartland Expansion

Visible Air Pollution
IHE Main Page

Maxim's Deerland Peaking Station

Maxim Index
News on Maxim
Proposed Power Station at Deerland (North of Bruderheim)

NAOSC Upgrader
News on NAOSC
Proposed Bitumen-Upgrader Facility near Bruderheim

HAZCO

News on HAZCO
Proposed Waste-Sulphur-Storage and -Handling Facility
Environmental Impact of Sulphur
Health-Impact of Sulphur
Sulphur Poisoning
Sulphur Fires
   

Shell CCS Project
News and information on Shell's CCS Project

GENERAL

Table of Contents for Website of folc.ca
Site Map
Post comments on any items or issues on this web page or at folc.ca that concern you to the LCE Blog, the blog for folc.ca
Mail to FOLC or to folc.ca
Air Quality, Flaring and Monitoring
Glossary of Sulphur-related Terms used in the Petroleum Industry
Links
References - Bibliography
folc.ca Site Stats

You are visitor

at the website of folc.ca
since July 16, 2005



Click to get your own widget
 

 
 
 
 

Sulphur Blocks — Index and Introduction


The sulphur block on the right measures 271m by 350m, and its height (assuming that all of it is above ground) is about 30m.  The volume of that second sulphur block is therefore about 1.8 million cubic meters or about 3.9 million tonnes of sulphur. 

Of the two sulphur blocks shown in the photo above, the one on the left is about 175m wide and 386m long.  It is not possible to tell with any certainty how high that sulphur block is, as a good portion of it is buried in the ground. 

The next photo is of the one to the right of the two sulphur blocks shown in the first photo above.

The next image indicates the size of the footprint of the two sulphur blocks shown in the Journal photo above.  Note that as of now at least two more sulphur blocks (to the right of the two blocks identified above) exist at that location.


Sulphur Blocks at Syncrude, Fort McMurray


Index to background material used in the 20-minute PowerPoint presentation presented to the Municipal Planning Commission, Lamont County

Sulphur-storage and -handling issues

Sulphur Poisoning

Related issues that were touched upon only in passing during the presentation to the Municipal Planning Commision:

Presentations made to the Municipal Planning Commission, Lamont County, Mar. 22 & 23, 2006

Introduction

HAZCO persistently points to Shell's Shantz sulphur facility, west of Didsbury, Alberta, and indicates that the Shantz facility is the model for the sulphur facility proposed for Lamont County.

Nevertheless, there are substantial differences between the design of HAZCO's sulphur storage and handling facility proposed for the County of Lamont and the design of Shell's Shantz facility.  One of those differences is that a large sulphur block is an integral and vital part of the logistics of the operations at Shantz.  Another one is that the Shantz sulphur facility is located more than 40km down-stream from the Caroline Gas Processing Plant, in an isolated location and far from any concentration of residences.  Moreover, the waste sulphur produced by the Caroline Gas Processing Plant is being transported to the Shantz sulphur facility is being transported via a buried and heated pipeline.

The remote location of the sulphur facility and the method of transport of the sulphur from its source to the storage and processing facility were conditions that had to be met before the gas processing facility could receive a building permit.

Reg Lambert of Shell's Shantz sulphur facility stated in February 2006 that the Shantz facility would not be viable without its sulphur block. 

Yet, although the initial designs for HAZCO's proposals provided for long-term, sub-surface storage (and subsequently for storage in above-ground sulphur blocks) of massive quantities of sulphur (many millions of tonnes), more recently HAZCO repeatedly stated that sulphur blocks will not be part of the design of the sulphur storage and handling facility proposed for Lamont County.  The question is how HAZCO would be able to operate its facility in Lamont County without long-term sulphur storage in blocks, while the facility it alleges is the model for its Lamont County proposal cannot do so. 
   During the question-and-answer period at the Municipal Planning Commission's meeting in Lamont, Don Friesen, COE  for HAZCO, was asked whether HAZCO had any intentions of ever operating a sulphur-block at its proposed site.  Don Friesen answered that at this time HAZCO has no such intention. (Emphasis by Don Friesen, as he emphasized "at this time" in a follow-up and clarification of his response to the question.)

That answer is not a commitment by HAZCO to never have a sulphur block at their proposed site.  HAZCO originally had that intention, then removed it from their current application to Alberta Environment.  However, as it is a virtual certainty that the arrival of sulphur cannot be stopped when excess production of sulphur prills cannot be shipped out, the need to incorporate a sulphur block into the logistics of the site design is a virtual certainty as well.
   Once the site is in operation, a sulphur block will certainly follow in the not-too-distant future.


Satellite Photo of Shell's Shantz Sulphur Facility
(Larger map showing the location of the facility - 92kB JPG file)

Shell's Shantz facility is located on a quarter section (½ mile by ½ mile) of land. (The area covered in the satellite photo is about ¾ mile by ¾ mile.)

Another sulphur facility, the one at the Pine River Gas Plant in North-Eastern B.C., one that its owner, Westcoast Energy, reports is fashioned after the Shantz model, does make use of a sulphur block, for good reasons.  If anything happens to stop the flow of sulphur from the Pine River Gas Plant to Westcoast's sulphur pelletizing facility about 3 miles away, without its sulphur block taking up the slack in the process of sulphur disposal, the Pine River Gas Plant would have to shut down, just as surely as a body would whose rectum refuses to pass anything anymore would shut down, unless an alternative route for waste disposal is created.

The purpose of the rectum is to facilitate the elimination of waste from the body.  In the Annual Report 2003, Canadian Oil Sands Trust,  (p. 73) the sulphur produced by Syncrude and handed over for an annual disposal fee to Marsulex Inc. for forming into pellets or prills is called "the waste stream from the Flue Gas Desulphurization Unit" (my emphasis --ed.). 
   As of now, more than two years after its construction was completed, the Marsulex Inc. sulphur forming facility in Fort McMurray has not yet shipped a single train-load of formed sulphur.  Shipping formed sulphur from Fort McMurray is a losing proposition. Fort McMurray is simply too far removed from the Vancouver harbour.
   The discharge end of any desulphurization unit is the equivalent of a rectum.  Sulphur is eliminated waste.  Lamont County residents, as established through the rejection of the application a few years ago for the Edmonton Municipal waste disposal site (that was later eagerly accepted by the Enoch Reserve, west of Edmonton), do not wish to have their county become the dumping ground for any other municipality's waste.  None of the sulphur intended to be dumped in Lamont County is produced in Lamont County. 

The Pine River Gas Plant experienced a good number of incidents that halted the elimination of sulphur, amongst them ten fires in the interval from Dec. 14, 1996 to Mar. 14, 2001, of whom eight happened in the year 2000, most of those in September of that year.  That series of incidents caused the National Energy Board to become involved and to hold a hearing.  At that hearing it was determined that a number of concerns needed to be addressed before Westcoast Energy would receive permission to keep operating its pipeline.  That was due to the National Energy Board's concern for the safety of the residents in the sparsely settled vicinity of the gas plant. 

The sulphur fire that happened September 9, 2000 at the Pine River Gas Plant, destroyed a pipeline building.  It burned an estimated 107 kg of sulphur, creating sulphur dioxide in quantities and concentrations that affected a few people, causing them to require medical attention.  A young child needed to have oxygen administered.  The vegetation downwind from that fire was severely damaged up to a distance of 30 m, with the severity of the damage to the vegetation gradually decreasing to minor levels 300 m away. (A somewhat larger fire in 1984 at the Shell Ram River gas plant's sulphur block caused 22 ha of forest to become totally destroyed through SO2 emissions produced by that fire.)

   From the perspective of Westcoast Energy, as they stated to the National Energy Board, considering that the sulphur pipeline had been used to transport millions of tonnes of sulphur, the few kilograms of spilled and burned sulphur represent a trivial concern and a testament to how well and secure their pipeline operations is. 
   In the eyes of the National Energy Board, Westcoast Energy was ill prepared for safe operation of its sulphur pipeline, i.e. the fact that Westcoast's emergency response plan was very poorly executed, with no warnings to residents in the vicinity, no fire-fighting equipment at locations where the fires happened (the workers who fought the September 9, 2000 fire had to use buckets to get water from a nearby creek), and with emergency response personnel from the gas plant arriving after the fires had been put out.

   From the perspective of the people affected by them, the fires were life-threatening events that instilled in them the justified fear that the Pine River sulphur operations are a serious and permanent threat to their security and lives.  All the more so because about a year after the fact Westcoast Energy had not lived up to the promise to deliver a better training program for more effective emergency responses.

It appears that money counts, and people's justified fears don't.  As of now, that is also the appearance that the elected representatives in the County of Lamont create in the minds of their constituents.

Next page: Block storage, processing and loading of sulphur at Shell's Shantz Sulphur Facility

Back to index page for HAZCO sulphur storage site pages

Back to Bruderheim Main Page

Posted March 12, 2006
Updates:
2006 03 17 (reformated this page to make it more printer-friendly, added information on environmental impact and other hazards posed by sulphur blocks, sulphur spills, sulphur processing sites, etc., and made various minor edits)
2006 03 21 (page broken up into five pages, to reduce loading time)
2006 03 23 (added more details to subject index)
2006 03 24 (added Don Friesen's answer as to HAZCO's intention to ever have a sulphur block at their proposed site for Lamont County)
2006 03 27 (added links to presentations made Mar. 22 & 23, 2006 to MPC Lamont County)
2006 10 16 (reformated)
2007 06 19 (added photos of sulphur blocks at the top of this page)