 |
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)
|