So here is a recent discussion on many forums and blogs. In the trucking world it is a pretty widely discussed topic also. Lets hear what folks around here think.

The issue:
ConocoPhillips has purchased equipment for their refinery in Billings, MT and then need to transport it via HWY from the Port of Lewiston, ID. They also have another 200 loads scheduled for oversized shipments bound for the Kearl Oil Sands project in Alberta. The locals have filed a law suit against ConocoPhillips for danger, risk and impact being caused by these massive loads through Lolo Pass.

The chatter: Here are some websites discussing this matter.
http://missoulian.com/news/local/article_e0ad9326-aa36-11df-91b4-001cc4c002e0.html
http://www.clarkfork.org/take-action/big-rigs.html
http://www.americanwhitewater.org/content/Article/view/articleid/30887/display/full/
Perhaps the most indepth writeup:
http://www.newwest.net/topic/article/standing_in_the_way_how_one_idaho_couple_plans_to_stop_the_big_rigs_part_1/C618/L618/

A part of me wants to say come on folks. We have to realize that we can't fight every single movement that comes near a river under the "threat to our environment" but at the same time I can see a locals issue with the way this has come about and the impact it would have on their lives, homes and communities.

So what is the answer? Increase the fees for this corridor and traffic ? Impose a payment to those who are impacted? How do you even determine that?

I personally don't like the idea of calling this an impact to the river. Does it in-convenience river goers:yes, does it impact residents: yes, does it impact the hwy physically: yes, but does this temporary project really impact the river "killing local species and irreversibly damaging wildlife"?


Edited by James - 29 Nov 2010 at 11:01am

I think in the long run the river could be affected by repairs, widening, traffic from these slow moving trucks which in turn could kill species, etc...  I think it's a bad idea and Conoco is only out to save a buck when it's going to cause long term problems.

Well if the people working to get rid of those dams on the lower Snake have their way, they'll be screwed with no way to run their barges...

Which concerns me more than the roads. What we've done to the Snake/Columbia watershed is already a nightmare without barging oil and heavy industrial machinery on it.

Can we do a wine and cheese night soon... I think my problem is that I am hankerin for some good discussion even at the cost of over discussing into disruption...

Again to be the devils advocate...

That tanker has nothing to do with the imperial oil project. It was mentioned several times in the other articles and what I am getting at is this. If the State wants to Ban Heavy Hauls on this hwy, GREAT, BUT don't you think it is a double standard if Non Heavy Hauls of Fuel tankers are causing the biggest enviornmental damage and disruption but are allowed to continue?

My point is this, if you want the hwy to be safe from damage and strain don't allow commercial traffic on it.  I agree that there is strain from heavy hauls but it is not more than commercial tankers and wide load flatbeds. These mega loads in fact are safer although they cause more disruption in hwy traffic and I know this from statistics in transportation. The reason they pay more for permits is due to that disruption and increase in cost for state involvement not potential damage to citizens and the environment.

NOW I am not for Imperial Oil and the process that has taken place. I am 100% against it in fact I think Imperial Oil should pay exponentially more for usage on the highway for one simple fact. They are using it as a throughfare... Are they supporting the local economy ... sure but not in a big way because they are not bring in materials for a new plant or local jobs. They are just passing through so stick it to them and now that they have drop shipped all these goods into the port of lewiston they have no choice. They abused the system and our politicians but got caught so don't just penalize them for using the hwys in passing make them pay for the abuse they made to the citizens of Idaho and the state process.

I posted all this because it is about time that folks in the US stop these environmental nonsense arguments and realize that our government is operating for big business which cares nothing for environments. Calling this an environmental issue is a disgrace to the problem that has crippled our economy and quite honestly mocks the face of the True environmental problems we have.

confirmation 4 james. i just drove hwy 12 from lewiston to lowell and they were doing small local improvements...i was expecting big scale changes...doesnt make sense to waste money on re-sealing the hwy if a whole new road is coming soon. very cool that big oil companies are starting to see "green"...

was just trying to say that i was on hwy 12 recently and what i saw seemed to match what the article said...sorry for the extra propaganda folks :)

I will just chime in to say that was not a trolling action. I honestly care about our environment and wildlife but I also care about balances. I chime in on this article because I work in this industry and have a pretty solid knowledge and experience of heavy hauling and the process of permitting for the operation.

First the 600,000 lbs figure is a max permitted request. We usually put that figure in when they are asking for a ceiling that is pretty much unattainable. the 300,000 lbs figure is accurate with a range up to 400,000 depending on power units. Next the actual wear and tear on the road is much much different then standard driving and the impact to the enviornment is much different too. I write all this because you can have a great opinion from reading the paper but if you don't actually know the back ground a paper can give you all the mis information you need to be spouting off.

First n8r78 is right and wrong. 80,000lbs is not the normal weight of rigs going over that pass, although that might occur. 80,000 is a pretty heavy I would guess the average weight to be somewhere between 50,000-60,000. Thats a guess based on my drivers weight tickets when they run that pass. Other companies do different loads sure but that is based on my experience. Now as far as weight distribution. That is not really how heavy hauling damages the roadway, so much at least. Compression Braking patters, weight shifting and power load increases are where your majority of road wear come from. You know those bumps down in Tacoma where your whole cab shakes or how the far right hand lane of a freeway always feels more bumpy then the left. That is caused by loads that under go braking or acceleration in a common pattern. Here is why that is so important. When your talking about  200 + loads all the same going over the pass that is going to create a big wear pattern because they will all be hitting the same power and brake points. Here is what folks don't get though, these loads move around 10 -20mph. That means you have Much much much less impact on braking force and power increases. Yes the weight is distributed so the impact is similar to a heavy haul 90,000lb flat bed load but the difference is that those heavy hauls are going to do 30- 50 mph with alot of power modulation and braking over the pass.

I would argue that the actual damage to the roadway will be slightly greater with these heavy hauls but the difference is that they did have compensation in the plan for road maint. and repair not to mention a whole lot of money for road improvements prior to the project. Now consider that your normal heavy haulers over lolo pay for the permit but a measly fee in comp. that does not even start to cover road repair costs.

Now lets talk about damages to the river or woods. The likely hood of one of these extreme heavy haul units going over is like 0-2%. They are going so slow that in most cases they could not possibly begin to have a problem without fixing it quickly. They have spot vehicles on all sides front and back, they have video recording equipment on board to give a constant flow of images to trail vehicles. All this while normal heavy haulers are doing 30-50 with little to no support in comparison. Then factor in the value of what is being hauled which does affect the amount of safety and well fare in transit. There is no possible way - MARK my words that this program would have affected the enviornment more than the current heavy haul programs outside of the immediate roadway cooridor. I understand that the trimming and road way changes would be an effect to the enviornment but expanding a road 10-20 feet in some places is hardly a massive threat to the woods. Certainly not enough of one to warrant everyone in an uproar.

People now are happy to fight these little fights under the guise that they are helping out ole mother nature when they are actually just stopping a program they might have made enough $$ on to help stop real threats like new dams.

A.) They did not exceed the spec of the road. there is no technical spec of any given road, there are extrapolations based on the engineers beliefs however legislation provides for permitting above gross vehicle weight max caps. There is no record that states this road can not handle XXX weight before damage occurs. There are studies that suggest these limits but in this case there were over 10 different studies that gave a range back that this permit process was well within.
B.) River access being closed during times of the year? How do you think that road got there so you could just drive right up and boat? Demand for access and I hate to say it but these roads don't get built or maintained because paddlers demand that access. It is because commerce does.
C.) You are correct, the State Stood to make significant money from the permits, and Imperial was even willing to fund programs that do work in the valley and with the local economy.
D.) I have nothing for this one, but pruning is not such a bad thing, after all without pruning our fruit trees would yield no tasty fruit, the entire agriculture industry would fail and there would be a world wide shortage of super tasty washington apples. Do you really want to be responsible for that B? lol

I agree with most of that except that I think a national program like AW should get funded from regional sources and individuals should fund regionally. Mainly because there is much more incentive to then fight for regional areas that are doing the funding. IE lets say if the community in lolo pass could have nailed down 10mil they could then fund AW on future projects that affect their community. I know many will not agree with this method, some are more for a shared and balanced system at national levels I am not.

As for the money, check it out. 10,000,000 dollar bond had to be issued, of which there is always a non refundable premium

The rest is stuff you have to piece together. IE in this article the cost of diss assembly and re assembly alone is estimated at $500,000 per shipment there are 306 total shipments that is 153 million alone in disassembly / assembly costs. These have to be disassembled now to travel on the new route. So that cost is not encountered with the LOLO pass route. Lets add this up just for fun.

1.5 - 1.6 million estimated in storage, security, and bond costs just waiting for 7 months.
153 million estimate in disassembly / reassembly.
9-10 million in additional fuel and transportation related costs due to additional lanes and permits required.
160 - 180 million estimate in loss of stock value due to publicity and delay in project time frames. A project that takes twice as long means it yields half the interest unless the project costs decrease. So time is money baby

0 dollar increase in estimated project costs. That means this project is bid at around 6 billion dollars, a few hundred million was factored in for variance in the project already, the delay was the biggest concern to this company. This delay has added around 1-1.5 years. They are currently on target to meet the latest project deadlines.

So your total fudge factor to negotiate with would have been around 300 million. Obviously it would be hard to back into that number ahead of time, but I promise the project managers and/or project analyst knew these numbers as soon as the first complaint was filed. So even a fraction of that amount would have been cause for settlement on Imperials part. I mean cmon I play businessman too and I ain't gonna get strongarmed over a 1% increase. But 10-15% and were talking, 50% and were serious 60-80% and its a no brainer.

300 million is the low figure 350 might still be close. Legal fees not counted although that was probably just a mil. So what is 40 million out of 300? oh around a 87% savings.

I think the issue I have with this situation is it's really not doing much for the environment as a whole. If anything this is a lot worse because it's going to require more trips, more fuel burned, and much more resources in teardown and assembly of the equipment. Take the money spent on this case and buy up more land that is at risk, or fund alt energy research, or hell just about anything.