Home › Forums › Coking › News: DCU, Upgrader › 3.Upgrader (registered users only) › Suncor denied override Ridley Terminal refuse Petcoke w/out anitfreeze agent › RE: Suncor denied override Ridley Terminal refuse Petcoke w/out anitfreeze agent
The Ridley BS Suncor requirement for antifreeze agent for petcoke handling smelled like too much BS to me – I used buy/do logistics on raw coke from BP Toledo, Lima & barges into Venco (now Rain/CII) Moundsville Calciners and we had setup like Ridley with thaw shed & rotary dumper and didnt need antifreeze. <Too expensive & lots MSDS problems even with small amount dedust oils – trying do Antifreeze agent would be non-starter>.
So looking into what is happening with Coal thru Ridley Terminal turned up what I believe is real culprit = Ridley has committed to US coal companies using terminal ~40%Capacity move exports to Asian markets at time when expanded Canadian Coal is also trying get there. They need expansion but it wont be till +2012 so meantime they seem be pushing out smaller / probably lower value customers like Suncor with the antifreeze story.
Check out this news item where Ridley is catching it from both coal groups – see link & some excerts below:
Story link @ http://bctrialofbasi-virk.blogspot.com/ see mid to lower part of pages @ site.
The Legislature Raids
Feb 8, 2011 … After reporting regularly for more than three years through the pre-trial phase … the applicant may appeal, spend a lot of time, and spend money to be heard ….. However, according to the Ridley Terminal “profile” on the … Canada’s export coal, petroleum coke and wood pellet business”, and that …
..But let’s delve a little deeper here. Just who are the “coal shippers” that the crown corporation Ridley Terminals has signed these contracts with? It turns out that they are U.S. coal mining companies based in Wyoming and Montana. It also turns out that the contracts have allowed these U.S. companies to lock up 40% of Ridley Terminals shipping capacity