Football Field Sized Trucks Head to Canadian Tar Sands with Superloads
People in Montana have been noticing some big rigs on their highways, really big rigs.
Special trucks the size of a football field are carrying equipment cargo in “superloads” to the Canadian Tar Sands for oil extraction.
The Billings Gazette reports on the massive size of the trucks:
How big? One load that is coming up from the port of Houston and began its passage through Montana on Wednesday is 20 feet wide, slightly more than 20 feet tall and 290 feet long. It has 90 tires on 24 axles and weighs 917,000 pounds – so heavy that two trucks are attached to the rear to help push it along.
>> Interested in solar power? See if group discounts are available in your city
>> Don’t forget to: Sign up for our electric car interest list.
One truck’s cargo, weighing over a million pounds, contains a steam condenser unit headed for the tar sands in Saskatchewan. Heading in the opposite direction, giant trucks will be bringing natural gas equipment in from Canada to Wyoming. Not all of the heavy equipment is for detrimental energy projects such as the Canadian tar sands, but some trucks will be carrying giant generator blades to a wind farm in Alberta. Each load costs about $15,000 a day to ship.
Trucks transporting superloads are becoming an industry standard. Superloads are under strict restrictions, such as daytime travel only. These superload trucks often traverse two lane highways because their cargo is too large to fit under interstate overpasses.
All trucks have to pay gross vehicle weight fees and overweight permit fees, and the state tries to weigh each one somewhere on its passage through the state, to make sure it is meeting the gross-weight and per-axle weight limits.
One oil sands company has already notified the state of Montana they plan to bring up to 300 superloads through Montana in 2010 or 2011.
Image: DAVID GRUBBS/Gazette Staff
You Might Also Like
New South Dakota Oil Refinery One Step Closer to Reality
Study Shows Camelina-Derived Renewable Jet Fuel Reduces Carbon Emissions 84%
February 2nd, 2009 at 4:06 pm
You, and all of us, won’t think tar sands are “detrimental energy projects” when oil goes back over $140/bbl and we are desperately seeking new sources to keep the price from going even much higher.
February 3rd, 2009 at 1:32 am
Indeed. Little by little the wheels are falling off the anthropogenic global warming bandwagon, it’s good to see they’re finding a place in something more useful.
February 3rd, 2009 at 1:39 am
go ahead and turn down Canada’s “dirty oil”, I’m sure China and India will be happy to pay for it – then try getting your hands on it.
February 3rd, 2009 at 1:40 am
A fascinating article ruined by one word, “detrimental.” I’m not sure what anti-scientific philosophy the author clings to but any project that expands the world’s energy options is beneficial.
February 3rd, 2009 at 1:53 am
Now that, by god sir, (ptui) is Truck Drivin’.
What will you tell your kid you did at work today?
February 3rd, 2009 at 1:58 am
Last time I checked, a football field is 360 feet by 160 ft, or 57,600 square feet. These trucks are 290 ft by 20 ft, or 5,800 square feet. So, these trucks are actually 1/10-football-field-sized. I guess that doesn’t sound as dramatic.
(Even if you exclude the end zones, the remaining amount of the field is 300 by 160, or 48,000 square feet…)
February 3rd, 2009 at 1:59 am
“One load that is coming up from the port of Houston”
Too bad it couldn’t be made in USA.
February 3rd, 2009 at 2:21 am
Do you know anything about the technologies being employed–do you have any idea what this steam condenser is for–before you start spouting off about “detrimental” projects you should get your sorry ass to an knowledge source and figure it out. If you want to write about dirty oil and detrimental energy projects go have a look at California.
February 3rd, 2009 at 4:06 am
Only in the mind if an environmentalist is economic expansion and domestic energy production “detrimental.”
February 3rd, 2009 at 4:13 am
Hi! little Jennifer! Just thought you might want to know. ooooh! ‘blogging*’ can sure be hard sometimes – like Math!! Stick to the weaving and photography – you’re kinda soft on spacial concepts and your background on technology, especially energy is kinda, shall we say, politely, spotty. If you want income for your writing forget it. McDonald’s is hiring – at least until your buddies impose ‘card check’, or wreak the economy some other way.
*Who are you kidding?
February 3rd, 2009 at 4:25 am
very interest in all types of energy.
If we are survide in the USA in the future,
new energy system will be need.
Mike
February 3rd, 2009 at 4:29 am
Let me join the bandwagon: drop the “detrimental” and add “faster, please”, in my view.
February 3rd, 2009 at 4:39 am
Oil is a dirty business – no two ways about it. The oil sands projects are creating big toxic lakes in Alberta.
February 3rd, 2009 at 4:42 am
So heating up oil sands and extracting the oil before returning clean sand to the environment is a “detrimental technology”?
Maybe in wacko land, but in the rest of the world petroleum products are useful for energy and chemical production. Dirty sand not so much.
February 3rd, 2009 at 4:48 am
“returning clean sand to it’s environment” heh – thats the rosiest defence of oil sands I’ve ever come across.
You realize they have to fire cannon blasts over the lakes to scare the birds away. It’s because the birds that land in the lakes die. … not a good sign
February 3rd, 2009 at 5:58 am
A project like this is only ‘detrimental’ to flaming socialist idiots who still wet their panties over so called ‘global warming’ because it prevents them from engineering a triumphant return to the 18th century
February 3rd, 2009 at 6:31 am
Then obviously the producers need to find a way to convert the toxic oil sands/polluted waters to something less poisonous, or find a good way to sequester it until a way can be found to extract the remaining resources. Turn the scientists and engineers loose on it. Humans need the energy, people need the jobs. We mustn’t limit ourselves unnecessarily.
March 7th, 2009 at 7:09 am
its sad to think that Canadian oil gets labeled detrimental, especially when none of it was used to fund terrorist activities. If Canadian oil is so “detrimental” and bad what do you call oil from the middle east?
April 25th, 2009 at 7:17 pm
the canadian tar sand projects are simply this: the single most harmful industrial endeavor in history. further, the EROEI (look it up, kids…) is the lowest of any petroleum source in the world. it takes 2/3rds of a barrel of oil worth of energy to extract one barrel of oil out of this tar/bitumen/dirt mess. if we were efficient, rather than ignorant, fuel prices would be lower, markets more stable, and these disastrous mega projects would not be necessary.
July 28th, 2009 at 9:46 pm
Some of you should actually do a bit of research into the area. You will find that the area was not pristine wilderness at all. The tar sands was discovered because of the oil leaking into the Athabasca river.
The claim that this is the worlds largest polluting endeavor is also nonsense. This is not one project but many. The tailing ponds are not all that big, they amount to a few square miles in area in total,
There are areas in the USA and China that make this look like a kids playground.