B.C. pipeline

[Homeownertoo]

A little snippit from Alberta's past and it's previous Conservative premier..... seems not only are Alberta's standard royalties considered too low, the five year royalty break worth over one Billion$ weakened them even further, even as Alberta moved from a position of major fiscal surpluses and no debt under Ralph Klein into accumulating debt and fiscal deficits under his more Liberal like successors.

"Though Stelmach pledged not to do anything to curb the development of the oilsands, he did promise to review royalty rates—the rates paid by oil companies for the privilege of extracting Alberta's oil. He also committed to reducing the proportion of bitumen that left Alberta to be upgraded out of province, likening the export of bitumen to "scraping off the top soil" from farmland.[43] Soon after becoming Premier, he commissioned the Alberta Royalty Review panel to make recommendations on the province's royalty regime; opposition politicians had accused the government of undercharging substantially. Stelmach rejected many of the panel's recommendations, but did increase royalty rates by approximately 20% (25% less than recommended by the panel).[50] Just after the 2008 election, Stelmach's government announced a five year royalty break worth $237 million per year to encourage development that it feared would have become uneconomical under the new plan.[51] He was less decisive in increasing in-province bitumen upgrading; in 2008 he conceded that Alberta would continue upgrading between sixty and sixty-five percent of the bitumen it produced for the foreseeable future, rather than the seventy-two percent target he had previously announced for 2016.[52] This admission came in the wake of his government's approval of three new pipelines designed to export bitumen.[52]"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ed_Stelmach

And for a bit of technical reference try:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pipeline_transport

This was taken entirely out of context. Stelmach was severely criticized at the time for his unrealistic royalty revisions (done to finance a massive fiscal splurge) and the province subsequently paid dearly for his foolishness, and in the end he had to backtrack.

[NAB]

Yup. Well said Homeowner (with reference to your much earlier post). Still, I am not yet convinced that the Northern Gateway line is dead though because Christy will find some way to back peddle from her foolishness if she is still in the Premier's office after the election.

In terms of pipeline technology (which I am trying to gain a better understanding of from someone in oil patch engineering who actually worked many years in the field worldwide) and its impact on BC as a gateway for export, I am rapidly developing the idea that the Northern Gateway might be a better, safer, faster, and more beneficial route as a priority than either trying (or continuing if that is the case which I still don't think it is) to push bitumen or even heavy oil through the existing TMP to Burnaby and beyond.

I am of course assuming that if twinning the TMP to Burnaby becomes a go, that the new line would be built to modern pipeline standards in a right of way that already exists, and far safer than the existing old line. But should we really be pursuing both, or just the more sensible and environmentally favourable of the two? If the latter, my vote would definitely go to the twinning of the TMP to Burnaby, with more time and consideration given to the Northern Gateway for a project somewhere much further down the road.

Nab

[XT225]

The Pipeline to the West Coast is never gonna happen. Won't be the NDP or Fiberals that will kill it, either. It will be the First Nations bands. Get over it; its not gonna happen here; we value our land far more than money to make the rich even richer. Those that think it will be built, still likely believe that the Liberals are going to win the next election or even form the opposition. It's not rocket science.

[NAB]

It's not rocket science either to recognize that First Nations, or even the BC government for that matter, really have no say as to whether a new pipeline will be built from Alberta to the west coast or not. The best they will be able to muster is to have some influence over where it will be built and how costly it will be to accomplish it. A fully legal pipeline right of way from Alberta to the west coast already exists, and has for many decades.

Nab

[Rwede]

The Indians are the same as Christy Clark. Essentially, both want their slice of the Enbridge profit pie.

[hobbyguy]

The problem that I have with the pipelines is that the operators don't seem to have very good records.

Enbridge's most recent spill in Madison isn't huge, and they seem to have responded more rapidly and efficiently (so far).

However, in the background this is a fairly new line (1998) - so one has to question the construction standards. This is appropos given the the promise by Enbridge to "upgrade" to heavier wall pipe where the line crosses waterways - why on earth wouldn't that be part of the original design proposal???

Also in the background is the fact that this line has only been inspected twice in the last 5 years. Even a garden variety forklift is required to be inspected more often than that.

Kinder Morgan, doing a quick internet search, doesn't seem to have a great record either. That's a bit subjective though, as given the size of the company, it is hard to judge the frequency of failures.

What I do think is relevant is the impression I get that these companies seem to accept failure as a cost of doing business. It reminds me very much of the bad old days regarding worker safety. "Accidents will happen". "The engineers will have a safety factor in that." "That's what WCB insurance is for." "We've done it before and it was ok." "This is how you turn the machine on - now get to work." As long as those attitudes are part of the corporate culture there will be problems. It's just an impression, but given what the BP and Enbridge investigations revealed in the US, it's pretty hard to accept that any pipeline projects should be permitted without a preceding review of the laws/regulations to update them to state of the art.

The tanker traffic issue is another tough spot. I note that folks in Seattle are concerned. The tanker industry also hasn't shown a great deal of corporate ethic. Just consider that the Exxon Valdez was fixed and renamed, and was only recently scrapped. Roughly 90% of tankers are "convenience flagged" in places like Liberia and Panama. This is done to avoid proper regulation and to hide the identity of the owner (many convenience flagging countries treat the ownershiop information as we would think of Swiss bank accounts) to avoid prosecutions. Lovely. And we want these guys operating at higher levels in our waters??

I have no doubt that pipelines could be built that would achieve an acceptable level of risk. I have no doubt that tankers can be built and crews trained to operate at acceptable levels of risk. But, I sincerely doubt that these goals can be reached given the demostrated culture of the industries involved.

[The Green Barbarian]

Which brings me to a theme I've been warming too -- the growing belief in magic (I think that's the term for it) as 'our' source of wealth. Here, 'our' could refer to much of North America and Europe but I am specifically using it for at least a plurality of British Columbians, which is enough to elect the next government.

I can hear the naysayers denying that they believe in magic. But of course that just because they associate 'magic' with their magic sets of childhood, and not the adult kind that politicians like Dix and Clark practice. So here we need to be reminded that the prosperity of this province (meaning the wealth that all of us have grown accustomed to and so very much want to continue) was by and large the product of Socred politicians working with businesses and industries that understood the sources of wealth.

Socred is a dirty word today, largely because it developed the province. Alas, that era is over. Succeeding governments of both Liberal (at least its current form) and NDP labels want no connection with the wealth-generating activities of the past, and have determined that this is a time of redistribution, meaning in effect living off the fat of the past and 'redistributing' it to the bondholders who now own our indebted home and native (oops, First Nations) land.

I agree completely Homeowner. We are enjoying the benefits of a previous generation that wasn't scared of its own shadow. They boldly dared to build infrastructure and power dams and pipelines and highways, and didn't even think "WE CAN'T DO IT!!", they just thought "WE HAVE TO DO IT!!" and they did it. So we've grown fat living off of their courage, determination and vision, and lost the drive to push forward. Like the spoiled son of the self-made man, the son becomes a wastrel due to never knowing hunger or never needing to worry about the future, it's already all paid for. Except that it isn't all paid for. There's only so long you can live on a trust fund or a fat bank account before it needs to be replenished. It's easy to say "WE CAN'T DO IT!" so of course, that's the road taken by the NDP and their yellow jello leader. So instead we sit, and do nothing, while our infrastructure crumbles, foreign markets there for the taking fade away as they find other suppliers, and we sit here, happy and content sucking down on the teat of our generous social safety net, while the cowards and whiners continue to bleat and cry about doomsday scenarios they dream up to fear monger and continue cowardice. The bank has run dry, we can't just sit by and be contented by what our grandparents built for us. Our parents did that. And now they want their pensions, their health care and their well being. We have to provide that somehow. If the cowards and whiners won't let us sell our resources - then we have to find another way. What way will it be? "Taxing the rich and big business" is a nice sound-bite, but that only appeals to mush-heads, who don't understand economics. What will it be - all ye criers and whiners?

[George+]

Yes.

We al know where big development economics
got the US of A.

RIGHT.

[hobbyguy]

The perspective on the economics has to take in all sides. Yes, the pipeline revenue would be dandy. But at the expense of our tourism, fisheries and our decendants future?

As I pointed out above, the concern is not with selling some of our resources, it is doing so in a responsible fashion. The oil industry, as represented by the players active in BC pipelines and the tanker industry, are not demonstrating that they take other concerns seriously.

When our major infrastructure projects have been built, it was in a different era. We weren't dealing with the multi-nationals that are part of the "race to the bottom".

I say "race to the bottom" and look at the tanker industry. They flag in places like Liberia to: avoid taxes, avoid environmental regulations, avoid requirements for properly trained crews, avoid paying crews decent wages, avoid safety regulations, avoid liabilty prosecutions...etc. etc. The pipeline companies don't spend millions and millions on lobbying to do a better job, they do it to: avoid due process, avoid public scutiny, avoid regulation by weakening them, avoid public accountability, etc. etc.

And then these companies wonder why we don't trust them?

To my knowledge, neither of these companies has even mentioned the possibility of double-wall pipelines. These have been shown to last longer, and substantially reduce the possibilty of environmental damage.

The only way that I can see for this type of project to be done responsibly is to tighten up the laws, require a huge bond to be posted in the event of a problem, and place proper rules/regulations on tankers operating in our waters. Unfortunately, there doesn't seem to be any will to go down those paths.

Without those proper risk reductions, the cost benefit equation just doesn't make sense.

[Homeownertoo]

It's not rocket science either to recognize that First Nations, or even the BC government for that matter, really have no say as to whether a new pipeline will be built from Alberta to the west coast or not. The best they will be able to muster is to have some influence over where it will be built and how costly it will be to accomplish it. A fully legal pipeline right of way from Alberta to the west coast already exists, and has for many decades.

Nab

A legal right of way is just a scrap of paper. If the natives don't get their slice, they can stop it, as anyone familiar with Ontario is aware.

[Homeownertoo]

Yes.

We al know where big development economics
got the US of A.

RIGHT.

Speaking of mush heads who don't understand economics.

[George+]

Weedy/GB???

Believe David Anderson was right when he said,
Enbridge should be the last company to build this pipeline.

http://www.ottawacitizen.com/business/E ... story.html

Any others out there with a much better corporate image??

[hobbyguy]

I see that the US government has blocked Enbridge from restarting their Wisconsin pipeline pending proper planning, an independent assessment, and completes any remedial maintenance work.

Seems the US government has also decided these guys are a bunch of "cowboys" (although I hesitate to use that term as most cowboys are smarter and more responsible than these guys).

Is it just coincidence that both Enbridge and Kinder Morgan are based in Houston, Texas?

Do we want either of them building more pipelines in BC???

[SassySasquatch]

Those Europeans? Like their opinion on "wastefulness" is something we need to hear? Sorry - once they actually get their crap together over there, then they can start lecturing us on wastefulness. I honestly could care less what the Europeans think about anything.

I take it you are either African, Asian, Indian continent, or of Indigenous decent? You have a reserve here in Canada?


...cause if not...

[The Green Barbarian]

I take it you are either African, Asian, Indian continent, or of Indigenous decent? You have a reserve here in Canada?


...cause if not...

oh barf - I am a Canadian, not a Euro-trash idiot wanting to spend well beyond his/her means in some uber-socialist "utopia" and then go hat in hand to the rest of the world crying about how I'm now broke. Keep your liberal-guilt reverse-racism crap far away from me.