Posted on 12/19/2005 10:14:48 PM PST by HAL9000
Well, there was also concern about capturing the natural gas that was created in the pipeline. LNG is going to be a big business and CONOCO will find use for their carriers whether in the Alaskan trade or elsewhere. I am just sure that BP had it's own financial motives in mind with the Canadian pipeline. They knew before they ever started on it that the Valdez route was preferred by the state.
I'm bumping this article because I'm so sick and tired of the BP bully tactics. The full page ad in the WSJ, supporting global warming restrictions, should be enough of a warning about this company, but when you add in the fact that they have also publicly opposed opening the ANWR, you get a much more clear picture. BP does not have the best interests of the US at heart.
Before the Exxon Valdez spill, BP also took a position of resistance to spending any money for oil spill preparedness in Alaska.
bump
Did you see the full page ad in the WSJ that BP ran on global warmining? They have stopped making public statements opposing the drilling in the ANWR, but they are still talking about global warming, although they didn't mention Kyoto specificly in this particular ad.
No, I do not subscribe to WSJ.
By the way, I think that the LNG tankers were built at Northrop Grumman Ship Systems-Avondale Operations, only because I know that the ship yard is in Avondale. The tankers are being used elsewhere, now.
Also, BP has made a deal with the enviro freaks to give up the main shipping route that supplies the Puget Sound in return for dropping the law suit against them for not complying with environmental requirements before building their new dock. BP, of course doesn't own any shipping companies, so this is really not theirs to give up. It would mean using much longer and more hazardous routes and cost shipping companies a lot of time, aggravation, and money. The pilots association also opposes the move, but of course BP doesn't care.
I would expect if the LNG tankers were built by Northrop Grumman, they would be listed on the web site
http://www.ss.northropgrumman.com/portfolio/shipclasses1805.html
They list every ship including overhauls. LNG is not even listed as a catagory.
If you have a link for the information that BP is going to use a longer and more hazardous route than other shippers, I would like to read it.
For your information:
Only eight shipyards in the world currently build LNG tankers: three in Japan; three in Korea; and two in Europe. However, India, China, and Poland are planning to develop LNG tanker construction capabilities in their shipyards.
http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/analysispaper/global/worldlng.html
All I know is that ARCO had contracted for a certain number of double hulled tankers, Phillips made the move to go through the build, and when CONOCO took over they decided to not build all the tankers, but instead convert the remaining tankers to LNG. Whether or not the LNG part was done at Avondale, I have no idea. It's possible that the hulls were built there. CONOCO got rid of all the old ARCO people that were working on the build, transferred them to other, paper pushing positions.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.