Green Party Critical of Fed Gov't Studies

[Treblehook]

Elizabeth May and the Green Party now criticize the Federal Government for completing a study relating directly to the issue of cleaning up spills of bitumen oil? Their second bit of criticism relates to studies related to coastal weather forecasting studies in the areas where shipment of oil will be occurring. They call these activities greasing the way for the pipeline, etc. This would be comical if it weren't for the fact that it insults the intelligence of Canadians. Tell me that they wouldn't be ripping into the government if they were sitting on their hands and doing nothing in terms of studying issues in relation to marine spills of bitumen, etc. To me it is [somewhat] comforting to know that our government is taking steps to understand the consequences of a marine bituman spill - can it be cleaned up - how to best cleanup - what would the costs be for cleanup. Better to know ahead of time than to play catchup.

[grammafreddy]

Here's the missing link ... http://www.castanet.net/news/Canada/977 ... peline-bid

[Treblehook]

I guess I should qualify my remarks by saying that, although in this instance it is the Green Party offering the "politics inspired" albeit mindless criticism, all politicians engage in this ridiculous behavior constantly. Their belief that we are all morons seems universal and perhaps they are right - it must work or else they wouldn't spend so much time and effort doing it.

[maryjane48]

mabey go to prince william sound and see if oil can be cleaned up :)

[hobbyguy]

I do not think that our scarce tax dollars should be used to perform functions that private corporations should pay for.

I agree with a radio caller today who figured that the best way to approach these issues for government scientists to do the work, but bill Enbridge for the entire cost.

This whole thing stinks. Harper is busy practicing "crony capitalism" with his buddies in Calgary.

The answer on cleaning up dilbit spills in water? Just google Kalamazoo spill, and it is quite clear that it can't be done. We don't need to spend millions and millions to find that answer. Enbridge are still there and that onshore spill has now cost over $1 billion in attempted clean up. http://desmog.ca/2013/08/26/official-price-enbridge-kalamazoo-spill-whopping-1-039-000-000

And if you read this http://www.mlive.com/news/kalamazoo/index.ssf/2013/08/enbridge_asks_for_river_cleanu.html you will note that Enbridge are behind in their efforts because they failed to apply for proper permits. That doesn't speak to much competency does it.

What does Harper think? That one could dredge Hecate Straight or Douglas Channel?

[twobits]

I do not think that our scarce tax dollars should be used to perform functions that private corporations should pay for.

I agree with a radio caller today who figured that the best way to approach these issues for government scientists to do the work, but bill Enbridge for the entire cost.

This whole thing stinks. Harper is busy practicing "crony capitalism" with his buddies in Calgary.

The answer on cleaning up dilbit spills in water? Just google Kalamazoo spill, and it is quite clear that it can't be done. We don't need to spend millions and millions to find that answer. Enbridge are still there and that onshore spill has now cost over $1 billion in attempted clean up. http://desmog.ca/2013/08/26/official-price-enbridge-kalamazoo-spill-whopping-1-039-000-000

And if you read this http://www.mlive.com/news/kalamazoo/index.ssf/2013/08/enbridge_asks_for_river_cleanu.html you will note that Enbridge are behind in their efforts because they failed to apply for proper permits. That doesn't speak to much competency does it.

What does Harper think? That one could dredge Hecate Straight or Douglas Channel?

So you think we just have to take the Kalamazoo example and we can extrapolate those results to be the outcome of any bitumen incident? No one will ever accuse you of thorough analysis and study.
Do the study and bill Enbridge for it? Ah, reality check. Bitumen is a huge Canadian resource that WILL be utilized. It also has many owners and players beyond Enbridge. If this stuff is going to be moved in Canada, east or west, our Federal Govt has the responsibility to do these studies for the benefit of all citizens interests. You slam them for cutting environmental funding and then slam them for spending money on studies that are targeted and required. Hell, why don't we just shut down all of Environment Canada. We don't need them. Kalamazoo proves that oil is dirty and should stay in the ground forever. End of story, no study required. We can use the saved funds to lift the wages of Walmart Employee's

[maryjane48]

its waste of money when everyone knows the environmental risks already, there have been few oil spills in the past

[Rwede]

So you think we just have to take the Kalamazoo example and we can extrapolate those results to be the outcome of any bitumen incident? No one will ever accuse you of thorough analysis and study.
Do the study and bill Enbridge for it? Ah, reality check. Bitumen is a huge Canadian resource that WILL be utilized. It also has many owners and players beyond Enbridge. If this stuff is going to be moved in Canada, east or west, our Federal Govt has the responsibility to do these studies for the benefit of all citizens interests. You slam them for cutting environmental funding and then slam them for spending money on studies that are targeted and required. Hell, why don't we just shut down all of Environment Canada. We don't need them. Kalamazoo proves that oil is dirty and should stay in the ground forever. End of story, no study required. We can use the saved funds to lift the wages of Walmart Employee's

Well said 2bits.

It's baffling how the leftist loonies don't understand the huge benefit to ALL Canadians of developing our resources.

Spending money on developing safe methods is the right way to get empirical data that sets standards to which we can hold developers.

The left with its "WE CAN'T DO IT!" cries are the reason that they are shut out of Canadian politics and will continue to be so in the future. I wonder how many of these People yelled that phrase at Sir John A when the CPR was built? None, I would expect.

It's anti-Canadian to be such defeatists, IMO.

[hobbyguy]

twobits, by now you should be able to fathom that the correct approach to bitumen extraction is to upgrade it in Alberta. That reduces the risk for everyone downstream. The synthetic crude produced is not without risks, but the risks are reduced.

The point of the Kalamazoo information is precisely that. It has cost Enbridge at least 10 times as much per unit volume to attempt to clean it up, and the final solution is to dredge the river. Under normal circumstances would dredging the river be considered anything but an ecological disaster? I think not. What would happen to northern salmon stocks (already in some trouble) if we had to dredge the river(s)??

The companies involved do not want to commit the capital required for the upgraders. That would lower, but not eliminate (Syncrude is profitable) their return on investment. However, in that equation they are trying to socialize the risks of not upgrading the product. Risk = cost. In other words, socialism for them, not "personal responsibility", except for the extra profits which go in their pockets almost exclusively.

The concern here is that the obvious dereliction of duty by the Harper government (their duty is to the citizenry, not corporations) is being extended to attempt to produce a "whitewash" of those extra socialized costs and risks.

Guess what, those costs and risks will wind up in the laps of BC taxpayers. Are you ready to donate your money to these companies? If a tanker runs aground in Douglas Channel, do you think the Alberta heritage fund is going cough up $12 billion for us? If the Skeena salmon runs are decimated, will the Alberta Heritage fund cough up the billions required to look after all the folks who's incomes have been destroyed? I think not.

Harper has clearly indicated that under his leadership the dilbit pipelines are going to be built come "heck or high water". That is not conducive to objective study, and his "streamlining" of approval processes (read gutting) means that there will be no confidence in the results anyway. The "boss" wants a report that says "blah blah blah is the case", so if you want to keep your job, you produce a report that says exactly that. Harper's attacks on the government scientists (well documented) mean that we know what the intention is.

In that context, the reports will be useless. There will be no confidence in the results. Utter waste of taxpayer dollars.

[logicalview]

Well said 2bits.

It's baffling how the leftist loonies don't understand the huge benefit to ALL Canadians of developing our resources.

Spending money on developing safe methods is the right way to get empirical data that sets standards to which we can hold developers.

The left with its "WE CAN'T DO IT!" cries are the reason that they are shut out of Canadian politics and will continue to be so in the future. I wonder how many of these People yelled that phrase at Sir John A when the CPR was built? None, I would expect.

It's anti-Canadian to be such defeatists, IMO.

I think back in the days you are referring to - the CPR days - people still understood the basic concepts that what comes in (tax revenue) has to equal what goes out (government spending). People always understood this concept, right up until the Trudeau years. Now, with the advent of radical leftist teachings entering our public school system with the unionization of teachers, two generations now have been brought up to believe that somehow you can have your cake (killing all economic development because HORRORS! they might be some "risks" that have to be incurred) and eat it too (dramatic increases in expenditures on vast nonsensical socialist programs that end up achieving a nanny-state mentality, and killing any and all personal drive and ambition to succeed).

You see it from posters on this board every day. You see it from the NDP and the Green Party. Somehow, these charlatans want everyone to believe that government spending can be radically increased, and these expenditure increases can be achieved despite counter policies that demand that all economic activity be discontinued, owing to either "risks", or even worse, to the idiotic fairy tale that mankind is somehow affecting earth's climate due to emissions of a harmless gas that all plant life needs to survive. If people from John A's day were alive today, they'd look at all the Green party and NDP adherents and either laugh, or get extremely angry, at the sheer entitlement and stupidity being exhibited.

[hobbyguy]

You guys go right of the deep end...I never said that tar sands should be shut down, just done properly, and that does not include transporting dilbit.

If you choose to be suckered by the slick sales pitch of the likes of Enbridge, then... well I'm sure there are some gas provider salesmen and siding salesmen that would like to meet you.

Risk is a very important factor, it is what risk/cost/benefit analysis is all about.

Now if you are talking about a lottery ticket, the odds are pretty astronomical that you won't win. But there's no downside beyond your initial outlay, so folks take a chance.

I don't have a mortgage. The odds of my house burning down are 1/16,000. But I still buy insurance - why? - because the downside risk is not something I could recover from. But just because I have insurance doesn't mean I do things like store propane cylinders and gasoline cans in my house.

Now we get to the odds of a tanker accident on the north coast, figures vary, but all of them indicate the odds are more likely that there will be tanker accident than my house burning down. http://www.mining.com/likelihood-of-tanker-spill-from-enbridge-gateway-as-high-as-14-percent-27246/ This source says as likely as 14%. This source says rough once in 16 years: http://www.slross.com/outgoing/Canadian%20Coast%20Guard%20Tanker%20Spill%20Risk%20Study.pdf

Once in 16 years, well that could happen right away, and not again for 15 years, or not for 30 years and consecutively for 2 years.

When that happens thousands of people will lose their livelihoods, billions will be spent on failed clean up costs, the GDP of BC will drop like a stone (tourism, hotels, restaraunts, fishing guides, commercial fishermen, fish packing plants) and thousands of folks who rely on the waterways for food will have to get public assistance. The estimate I heard for the total economic cost? Over 90 billion, and it doesn't go away. Who will pay? Not the tanker guys. Not Enbridge. And certainly not the Alberta Heritage fund. It will be you and me, the BC taxpayer.

Allowing this transport of dilbit, especially from the north coast, is akin to storing propane cylinders and gasoline in your house, oh and by the way, not having insurance either.

[erinmore3775]

I think that forum readers need to take a deep breath and carefully re-read the last two posts of Hobbyguy. He is advocating what is really needed: an Allberta first energy policy. This would mean traditional and tar sands production of oil along with refining of these resource products in Alberta.

The production and refining of petroleum based products in Alberta along with an upgraded cross Canada pipeline system, all developed within a National Energy Policy is what is really needed. Past and current research and examples of bitumen spills have clearly demonstrated that bitumen spill can be devastating on the environment and very long term. However, the same research and spill examples have shown that refined petroleum products are not only easier to transport but much easier on the environment to cleanup if there is a spill.

It is time for the federal government to take a leadership role in the development of a new National Energy Policy. Through cooperation between federal and provincial governments and industry the necessary refineries can be built and so too can the pipelines that would carry Alberta oil products to all Canadians. This policy is necessary if we are to develop new petroleum markets as our US petroleum markets shrink. The costs of this program can be borne by each party equally or nearly equally. Those who say this can not be done only need tomlook back at the federal government leadership used to develop the Trans Canada Pipeline (loan guarantees, public and private money, provincial cooperation). It is important to note that this occured under a Progressive Conservative government.

Unfortunately the WE CAN'T DO IT vocalizers are not limited to some "environmentalists," but the WE WON'T DO IT group is almost exclusively identified with the current government leadership in Ottawa. It is time to change that!

[hobbyguy]

Well put.

It is important to note that the key reason Syncrude did not proceed with building additional upgrading capacity was that the door opened to shipping dilbit. http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/syncrude-to-boost-oil-sands-production-upgrader-plan-ends/article4312000/

Since that decision time-frame the "spread" for dilbit to conventional crude has once again widened, and US customers are dwindling as Bakken production ramps up.

Quite a pickle, especially as there seems to be no hurry to approve Keystone XL.

[maryjane48]

It's baffling how the leftist loonies don't understand the huge benefit to ALL Canadians of developing our resources.

Spending money on developing safe methods is the right way to get empirical data that sets standards to which we can hold developers.

The left with its "WE CAN'T DO IT!" cries are the reason that they are shut out of Canadian politics and will continue to be so in the future. I wonder how many of these People yelled that phrase at Sir John A when the CPR was built? None, I would expect.

It's anti-Canadian to be such defeatists, IMO

its uncanadian to waste money, our money ,the taxpayers ,the companies involved know how to transport oil safely , they just need to be forced to do it, or let someone who will take over.

[fluffy]

All too often these decisions come down to money. The government wants to smooth the road for the oil companies becasue it means jobs and taxes and all that, but the oil companies for the most part want to make as much money as possible and are not going to spend any more than they have to. We've watched this happen in the US over the past couple of decades with the shale gas boom and it always seems to be the environment and local residents that suffer. There's money in shale gas, and as a "transitional" fuel in the path towards getting us off fossil altogether methane has some attraction, but getting it out of the ground is a real dirty business. With Premier Clark actively courting this industry into our province's northeast we owe it to ourselves to do a little homework as to just what the real issues are.