Green Party Critical of Fed Gov't Studies

[Gone_Fishin]

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.

You're really missing the point here. If we don't know what the standard is, there is no possible way to hold the companies to it. And there's no way we should have the companies tell us what the standard is! We must establish it and then hold them accountable for it, and that's exactly what the government is doing. I support that 100%.

[fluffy]

You're really missing the point here. If we don't know what the standard is, there is no possible way to hold the companies to it. And there's no way we should have the companies tell us what the standard is! We must establish it and then hold them accountable for it, and that's exactly what the government is doing. I support that 100%.

We know where the problems are, it's just that it's expensive to correct them and politicians are often convinced that giving the oil companies a break on just how high their level of responsibility goes is to their benefit becasue of the money and jobs coming in. I agree that it's government's job to set the standards and hold the industry to them but if you look at what is happening already the standards are being set artificially low to make it cheaper for the industry to operate. Regulatory resources are spread thin and the regulations themselves often toothless when it comes to actual enforcement.

[Rwede]

We know where the problems are, it's just that it's expensive to correct them and politicians are often convinced that giving the oil companies a break on just how high their level of responsibility goes is to their benefit becasue of the money and jobs coming in. I agree that it's government's job to set the standards and hold the industry to them but if you look at what is happening already the standards are being set artificially low to make it cheaper for the industry to operate. Regulatory resources are spread thin and the regulations themselves often toothless when it comes to actual enforcement.

You call them problems, I call them challenges of logistics because I want to develop the resource, and I don't think you do from your wording. Correct me if I'm wrong.

I don't think we do know where the "problems" are. What experience do we have transporting bitumen on a large scale? None. Is anyone else doing it?

We need to study the whole process and then establish a comprehensive set of standards for companies to follow as was mentioned above. If we defer to the companies to do it, how do we know they haven't chosen the bare minimum? I want assurance that we're good at what we do, and that's what we're spending money on. A good plan, in my books.

[fluffy]

You call them problems, I call them challenges of logistics because I want to develop the resource, and I don't think you do from your wording. Correct me if I'm wrong.

The labels aren't really important to me, it's just spin and we're already getting our share of that from the major players. I believe the gasfields in the northeast will be developed, and the pipelines to the coast will go through, there's just too much money at stake here. I'm not against it at all, I'm fully aware that this could be BC's ticket out of the economic doldrums we are stuck in at the moment, but I'm also fully aware that politicians will be politicians and big business will be big business. There has to be some fertile middle ground where development can proceed without leaving a toxic scar, and rather than get bogged down in endless studies. There is some real time sensitivity here, worldwide shale gas reserves are vast, and there are a number of players with a big jump on us. We have a couple of distinct advantages in the nature of our product and our geographical location but we can lose that pretty quick if we dawdle.

[twobits]

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!

While there is some merit in what you are saying here, it is a tad idealistic. It would serve as a long term goal perhaps but it is not practical in the here and now. What you and Hobby continually neglect to understand is the location of these resources, the climate, difficulty in attracting labour, and the massive amount of capital it would take to refine and upgrade even our current output in this remote and hostile environment. Imagine the logistics of building say a World Trade Center tower 200 miles north of Ft Mac. That is what we are talking about here and you would need a passel of them! This is not just milking the oil companies profit margins and making them do it. If what you are proposing, requiring refineries/upgraders to be built at site, were to be mandated as a condition of extraction, these oil resources would virtually become economically unfeasible to develop. Gone would be the jobs, investment and royalties that pay for our roads and health care. It is fine to strive towards an idealistic goal as an end game but the game is already in play, we require the income it provides and cannot at this point call a time out to virtually transform the industry overnight. Some realism is required here.

[logicalview]

Some realism is required here.

TB - great post. Good luck with the realism though. I always say - if you don't burden yourself with the responsibility of understanding all economic facets of an issue, anything, no matter how foolish, can be spun to seem feasible. That's the NDP mantra. Just propose nonsense, and expect those following you to applaud like trained seals, knowing full well they have no clue how economics and taxation policy work in the real world. I watch Angry Tom Mulcair being interviewed on CBC, and he has blathered on about this foolish idea of upgrading and refining oil in Canada, with no clue whatsoever what the hell he is talking about. He's a bonehead leftist from Quebec, of course he has no clue about how the oil and gas industry functions, or how the economics work. But that doesn't stop him from blathering nonsense, and unfortunately, it leaks out and down the leftist food chain, to be parroted by others with the same limited knowledge. The only solace I can take is that Angry Tom and his gang will be wiped out in the next election, and thank goodness for that.

[erinmore3775]

You are correct "realism" is required, but on both sides. No reasonable person is suggesting that it everything stop and the complete Canadian petroleum industry grind to a halt while a rethink is accomplished. However, what reasonable people are calling for is leadership to develop a "reasonable" long term future plan for the safe development and distribution of oil sand products that ensures fair and reasonable returns for all Canadians, Alberta, petroleum companies and investors. This resource will continue to be developed for more than the next 50 years. A plan is needed.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2013/09/04/pol-enbridge-still-cleaning-the-kalamazoo.html
Enbridge's Kalamazoo cleanup dredges up 3-year-old oil spill
Residents near massive oil spill differ on how Enbridge has dealt with the mess

This article and countless other articles in the North American press as well as research articles demonstrate that bitumen is not an easy or "nice" material to transport either by pipeline, rail, or truck. Nevertheless, the cheapest method to transport it is to mix it with a solvent and ship it by extreme pressure through old and in some cases substandard pipelines. If there is a failure the result is the creation of "instant tar sands" at the location of the spill. This has been clearly demonstrated in the Kalamazoo spill. However, the pipeline transport method has another disadvantage. It brings no added value to Canada other than the extraction royalties and the direct mining jobs.

It is time that we as Canadians looked further than the cheapest and easiest short term solution. It is not necessary to build a refinery (initial bitumen processing plant) at every tar sand mine. What is logical is to build one or even two centralized refineries and ship the bitumen via pipeline to these locations from the extraction sites. The development of the refineries creates initial construction jobs and long term employment. The by products of the refineries are easier to ship and worth more money.

The construction of an enhanced coast to coast pipeline system with its hub in Alberta has obvious advantages. The Canadian Maritimes can be sourced with Canadian petroleum products and our value added petroleum products can be more easily transported to Asian markets. This is a win win situation for all Canadians. There is also the increased possibility of providing the north-east coast of the US with cheaper petroleum products.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/industry-news/energy-and-resources/us-officials-were-probing-safety-of-bakken-oil-route-months-before-lac-megantic/article14032762/
U.S. officials were probing safety of Bakken oil months before Lac-Mégantic

There is no totally safe and environmentally friendly way to extract and ship petroleum products. However, often the cheapest way is not the safest or best environmentally friendly. What I am calling for is not a moratorium, but leadership from the federal government that will benefit Canada in the long term. We need to be more than the "guys who dig up the tar sands." This resource has the potential to make Canada even better than it is now. The Bakken field have a life expectancy of 20 years, Saudi Arabia perhaps the same, the Alberta tar sands; much greater. Planning through a public/private partnership is the way to secure that continued long term extraction of this resource benefits all Canadians.

The realism of planning is required now. Instantaneous solutions will not work, but the development of a long term plan that is supported and acted upon by industry and federal and provincial governments will work and ensure prosperity for all.

[hobbyguy]

erinmore, excellent post. I was writing this post as you were posting. Hope it supports your intention.

It is important to recognize that Syncrude's decision not to proceed with more upgrading was influenced by the prospect of being able to ship and sell dilbit. That decision, and the decision by others that it would be more profitable to ship dilbit than upgraded synthetic is based on a complex situation, but my understanding of some key points is this:

1. There was a demand in the US because of declining shipments of heavy product from Mexico and Venezuela.
2. Political decisions, heavily lobbied (bribed??), were made allowing the shipment of dilbit in pipelines that were not designed for the product.
3. Political decisions, heavily lobbied, were made allowing the shipment of crude and dilbit by rail, in tank cars that were known to be faulty.
4. Building upgrader capacity is hugely expensive, and the above 3 points pushed the return on investment into being poor, and therefore the logical business decision was not to proceed.

Adding to that: US Coast Guard studies clearly show that double wall pipelines dramatically reduce spills into the environment, and were the best alternative for environmentally sensitive areas. However, double wall pipelines are more expensive to build, more expensive to inspect, and more expensive to maintain. Political decisions, heavily lobbied, were made to ignore that research.

Politicians are also at fault for the sorry state of pipeline inspections and maintenance. They made the decisions that result in poor standards, not enough inspectors, and penalties that are meaningless.

So when you get down to it, this whole messy issue lies at the feet of politicians who were "feathering their own nests". If, for example, 2 x 3 construction was permitted under the building code minimums, then any careful business person would build houses using 2 x 3's. The end result would be rubbish, but those building 2 x 6 homes would have their profits dramatically diminished.

Syncrude was moving in the right direction, but political decisions rendered that direction uneconomic.

So the root of the problem is politicians who try to influence the outcomes for short term, and often personal advantage.

Some of the results of those decisions:

- fewer (not more) good paying (and long term) jobs in Alberta
- fewer jobs in other provinces that supply the components for upgraders
- Lac-Megantic
- Kalamazoo
- Alberta bitumen products are becoming landlocked and without markets (the Americans no longer want dilbit, the Europeans have said they don't want it)

And what do we see from our "leadership":

- take the teeth and objectivity out of the review process, and make the final decision one made by cabinet (Harper and his trained seals)
- muzzle scientific discourse with the public
- demonize dissent
- direct government scientists to do Enbridge's work for free
- lobby the Americans to accept dilbit
- lobby the Europeans to accept dilbit
- lobby the public in BC to accept dilbit
- a belated and hollow statement that all tankers will be double-hulled, when every other responsible nation has already done so
- a belated token action regarding Lac-Megantic to not allow one person crews (which was a political decision to start with)

The pattern is disturbing. A pair of ill conceived decisions that had huge commercial ramifications being "doubled down on" from every conceivable direction.

This latest one directing the government scientists to do Enbridge's work for free, and most likely produce a report that is not impartial (as I said before, if the boss says to me, give a report that says XXX is a good idea, with the implication that your job could be on the line, then I'll give the boss a report that says XXX is a good idea - rendering the report useless, because if if XXX is a good idea, the report is tainted).

So if we go back to the political decisions that created this mess, allowing the shipment of dilbit, allowing dilbit to be shipped in pipelines not designed for it, and allowing the shipment of petroleum products in tank cars that were not safe, we see a massive economic problem. The "minimum code" in this case incentivise business to produce a product that has a very narrow market and carries significant additional environmental risk.

In essence, an unintended NEP (anathema to Harper and his oilmen buddies) that has put the whole industry in a bad spot. The calculus revolved around immediate political gains instead of looking at the bigger picture and long term.

The proper development of Alberta's bitumen resource is important to all Canadians, but we have a policy from our government that works entirely against that, and against more good paying long term jobs (and short term in building the upgraders).

The Harper government has dropped the ball on this key issue, and their meddling with the science is little more than an attempt to whitewash the situation. Going further down this dead end road will not turn it into a highway to prosperity.

[Treblehook]

I don't understand how anyone could think it not prudent/necessary for the Government of Canada to understand all of the implications associated with spills of bitumen oil. If the government were to conduct the necessary research, funded by the big oil companies, I am quite sure that there would be no lack of detractors who would claim the research results were bogus as they were paid for by the oil barons. That would surely result in credible discussions in relation to whether Canada should approve pipeline transportation of this product or what [industry] resources need to be legislated into place prior to pipeline permits being approved. There is a huge economic benefit to Canada and it's citizens IF the transportation of oil from the tar sands can be accomplished with reasonable expectation of safety. That reality seems to escape many people. Canada's tax coffers will be significantly stuffed with dollars earned, n'est pas? The Green Party is out to lunch with this unqualified criticism IMHO.

[hobbyguy]

Read my post above yours. The Harper government has a pattern of behaviour clearly indicating that they want government reports to reflect their bias, not the science. Additionally, the pipeline company should be paying for the study. The problem is that even in that event, no one will be convinced by the report - truthful or not - because of past demonization of scientific reports that don't "fit" what Harper wants.

Secondly, who determines what is an acceptable risk? The risk to the residents of the BC coast. who have a whole lot more to lose than somebody sitting in an office in Calgary counting beans, should be paramount. But that's 50,000 common folk against 1 or 2 corporate CEO types? And who has our government been siding with? Who sent the investment banker Joe Oliver out here to try and act as pitch man for the oil companies? Before and during the hearings?

Government reports used to mean something. The precise reason for having government scientists is so that you can get the facts, regardless of if they "fit" your agenda and or ideology. Harper has destroyed that and is now wasting our tax dollars.

I will be very surprised if the government study is even finished before Harper tries to jam through a decision.

[fluffy]

http://www.cbc.ca/the180/popupaudio.html?clipIds=2404563081

CBC Radio 1 weekly show "The 180" kicks off a series on the Canadian energy scene called "All Roads Lead to Kitimat". Subject debated today is how much influence the oil industry have on government policy ? Coverage picks up at the 34 minute mark.

First thought was is it significant that the oil industry chose a female to represent their position ? Sexist on my part maybe, but it does effectively move the whole debate away from the stereotypical "greedy oil baron" that has traditionally come to mind when considering the oil industry. I can't help but think there is a lot more thought going into the the media presentation of this issue that many of us would think at first sight.

[erinmore3775]

Interesting interview Fluffy. It hardly ended up being a debate but both sides pointed to the same missing key factor. Both sides pointed out the lack of government leadership at the provincial, but particularly at the federal level, in setting energy policy. While it is obvious that both sides would not necessary agree on "green house gas emission policy," bitumen transport, and environmental issues surrounding the extraction of petroleum from the tar sands, nevertheless they do agree on the lack of leadership in these areas from the federal government.

It will be interesting to follow this program as it develops. So far CBC has taken pains to show both sides of the issues and allow the listeners to form their own opinions. I can only hope that our politicians will also tune in and perhaps start to make some decisions and show Canadian where they stand.

[fluffy]

It will be interesting to follow this program as it develops.

It airs locally at 1:00PM Fridays, as well you can subscribe to the podcast or stream episodes here:

http://www.cbc.ca/the180/index.html

[WTTG]

Here are links to the Green Party Press release(s) where there are follow-up links to further information.

Press Release
http://elizabethmaymp.ca/federal-spending-supporting-enbridge-tanker-plans

Video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z-BXpXVYzpI&feature=player_embedded

Further Information

http://www.greenparty.ca/sites/greenparty.ca/files/attachments/presserng.pdf, in my opinion, for instance, highlights,

The BC Liberal five conditions
. . .
2. World-leading marine oil spill response, prevention & recovery systems for
B.C.'s coastline & ocean to manage & mitigate the risks & costs of heavy oil
pipelines & shipments;
. . .

http://www.greenparty.ca/sites/greenparty.ca/files/attachments/docu_1.pdf, in my opinion, highlights some interesting jobs (don’t know if they’re up for grabs),

• 1 research scientist expert in high resolution modeling for 3 years .
• 1 modeling expert and lead (PC-4) for 3 years. This resource will ensure overall
coordination and would be at the Canadian Meteorological Centre (CMC) under National
Prediction Development.
• 1 high resolution wind modeling expert (PC-2) for years 1 and 2. This resource would be
at CMC under National Prediction Development. The third year the resource would be
transferred under Operations (National Prediction Operations) to follow-up on the
technological transfer and ensure operational delivery of the service (through the
Environmental Emergency Response Section) to ESTS (oil spill modelling).
• 1 implementation specialist (PC 2) in the operational implementation area for the third year
at CMC’s Operations (National Prediction Operations). This resource would ensure the
technological transfer of the systems providing improved surface winds.
• 1 Environmental Emergency Response specialist (PC 2) starting half-way in the three year
period at CMC’s Operations (National Prediction Operations). This resource would support
the technological transfer process and access to the improved surface parameters (wind
and water currents) to provide the oil spill modeling system.
• 1 coupled model expert (PC-3) for 3 years .
• 1 physical scientist in hydrology (PC-2) for years one and two. This resource would be at
MSC’s PYR’s science unit and would support the work in the hydrological modeling.

http://www.greenparty.ca/sites/greenparty.ca/files/attachments/docu_2.pdf, in my opinion, shows there might be some contract work come available.

Funding will be used to conduct research, professional services, including contracts and
other services, field support; students and post-doctoral fellows; travel to scientific and
interdepartmental meetings; database development, publishing and printing of
documents and peer-reviewed scientific papers; materials, scientific and laboratory
supplies, equipment and repairs; telecommunications; and costs related to the
evaluation, maintenance/calibration of oceanographic equipment, access to high
performing computing time, and contracts related to the modeling activities.

http://www.greenparty.ca/sites/greenparty.ca/files/attachments/docu_3.pdf, in my opinion, seems to lay out the internal spending projections. Wonder if there might be some fat supply and install contracts to follow.