Northern Gateway pipeline

[fluffy]

Those are good points driveangry. I read recently that the current stats show that rail accidents are more plentiful that pipeline accidents, but pipeline accidents spill more oil.

[fluffy]

I also think that all flavours of environmentalists are well-meaning, it's just that a lot of them haven't thought the issues through to the point of recognizing the overall cost of what they seek.

[Bsuds]

Those are good points driveangry. I read recently that the current stats show that rail accidents are more plentiful that pipeline accidents, but pipeline accidents spill more oil.

I have not heard of a pipeline exploding and destroying half a town and killing hundreds of people though.

[logicalview]

I also think that all flavours of environmentalists are well-meaning,

We'll just have to agree to disagree on that point...I do think that there are watermelons out there that have malevolent intentions. Really malevolent.

it's just that a lot of them haven't thought the issues through to the point of recognizing the overall cost of what they seek.

Yup and yup. It's mostly emotional based protesting vs thought-based protests. And that's why we need to cut through the hyperbole on both sides and look at the real issues - risk of spills and any clean-up plus ensuring our First Nations are treated fairly and equitably. Norway gets all of its oil off-shore, and there is no reason why we can't as well. I think we should adopt Norweigan standards for our pipelines and exploitation. I haven't met a radical leftist yet who isn't in love with Norway. So they'd have to eat a massive load of crow if we copied them, including their taxation models, and began exploiting our off-shore oil reserves.

Also - the comment that Norway keeps 70% of their oil revenues via taxation is complete nonsense. It's an idiotic soundbite cooked up by leftists who lack the brain power to comprehend how Norway's taxation policy regarding oil and gas actually operates. It's on par with other idiotic leftist soundbites like "97% of climate scientists believe man-made climate change is real". Just nonsense, manufactured nonsense.

[logicalview]

I have not heard of a pipeline exploding and destroying half a town and killing hundreds of people though.

Not in the western world, in the past 40 years anyway. But that won't stop the cowardly fear-mongers from pulling old irrelevant examples out of their butt. Just like pulling oil tanker spills from 1989 out of their yellow cringing butts.

[fluffy]

I have not heard of a pipeline exploding and destroying half a town and killing hundreds of people though.

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

[SmokeOnTheWater]

How much oil can a train tanker carry if it were to spill ??? And I understand that there would be more than one on a train.

How much oil will spill if a pipeline leaks before it is noticed and shut off ????

Northern Gateway pipeline is not exactly the same as all the other pipelines. The controversy is also about the tankers.
And it would transport bitumen not the same as conventional oil.

I googled and that's what I could find ..

http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.com/articles/bitumen

http://www.watershedsentinel.ca/content/enbridge-spills

http://grist.org/news/crude-on-the-tracks-oil-spills-from-trains-skyrocket/


Great video. If you go to the 30 minute mark you will see the tankers they are proposing to use for the transportation of bitumen to China. Ten times the size of Exxon Valdez. 2,000,000 barrels.

[underscore]

Have any of the groups that are against the pipeline and the rail cars stopped to think that the oil is gonna move one way or another? It would be in their best interests to instead try to work with the oil companies to ensure that whatever method does get used is properly designed/implemented and is as safe as possible.

[steven lloyd]

*stay on topic please!*/ferri

[hobbyguy]

It's just the wrong project in the wrong place.

I doubt you would find nearly the opposition to moving the product east. That's the sweet spot win-win for Canadians.

[Atomoa]

Speaking of propaganda. I got a fancy pamphlet in the mail today.

It was wrapped in pictures of trees, telling me how I should be ok with flash selling Canada's oil to our enemies (China) in exchange for 540 full time jobs. Of course, ignoring the environmental risks and dirty politics of the whole situation.

I think there are more than 540 fisherman that rely on their jobs that I need to consider before I think about employing pipleine turn-keys that are paid by a foreign company.

[logicalview]

It was wrapped in pictures of trees, telling me how I should be ok with flash selling Canada's oil to our enemies (China) in exchange for 540 full time jobs.

Sounds like a great trade, given China isn't our enemy. This is just silly to say, and xenophobic as well. And what the hell is "flash selling" anyway? Is that the same as flash buying? That phrase makes no sense.

Of course, ignoring the environmental risks and dirty politics of the whole situation.

There are no "dirty politics" at work here, and who exactly is ignoring the environmental risks? That just makes no sense.

I think there are more than 540 fisherman that rely on their jobs that I need to consider before I think about employing pipleine turn-keys that are paid by a foreign company.

There may be more fishermen, but why would their jobs be in jeopardy because we sell oil to the Chinese? That makes no sense.

[fluffy]

Of course, ignoring the environmental risks and dirty politics of the whole situation.

It has occurred to me that international marketing of our oil reserves is making a significant contribution to global pollution, but then I saw something in the paper this morning that suggested any success we have in selling LNG to replace coal or oil being used currently is going to lead to a better bottom line.

[Rwede]

It was wrapped in pictures of trees, telling me how I should be ok with flash selling Canada's oil to our enemies (China) in exchange for 540 full time jobs.

Are you racist towards Asian people or something? Chinese people are not Canada's enemies.

[hobbyguy]

Yup, natural gas and LNG will in fact reduce global carbon emissions. That's why you are seeing the proposal to ship Wyoming thermal coal out of BC. Their coal market is already declining as US utilities switch to natural gas..

It is also a driver behind the mess that Alberta finds itself in. US oil markets are actually declining as more efficient cars (record high efficiency average) become the norm, heating oil is replaced by natural gas, some commercial vehicles switch to natural gas, and power utilities convert to natural gas. http://www.eia.gov/countries/country-data.cfm?fips=US

US crude oil production is also way up. The combination means a much weaker market, and that combined with the facts that pipeline capacity is maxed out, and many refineries can't process the bitumen, results in a rapidly declining market for dilbit, and at reduced prices.

The US EPA is moving on CO2 being a pollutant. That makes dilbit very unattractive. Why? Because of petcoke - the leftovers from upgrading prior to actual refining. MORE CO2 than coal. Interestingly, the largest exporter/trader of petcoke in the world is owned by? Yup, the Koch brothers - which explains why they spend so much money promoting anti-science.

http://priceofoil.org/content/uploads/2013/01/OCI.Petcoke.FINALSCREEN.pdf

If you look at the US coal consumption, you will see it is way down. Coal fired electrical generation (the biggest users of petcoke) is being phased out by natural gas (largely because of price drivers, but also with an eye toward CO2 and the EPA). That trend means that petcoke markets are wobbly in the US. So what to do with the petcoke??

China have been big importers of petcoke. They also are in the process of securing natural gas supplies and switching coal/petcoke electrical generation to natural gas (and LNG).

http://www.greenparty.ca/blogs/7/2013-06-06/it-just-keeps-getting-worse-under-estimating-ghg-impacts-bitumen

Of course the information on petcoke is not easy to find, and the two sources I quote are definitely environmental movement oriented. It does, however, seem that the petcoke issue is the hidden aspect that the industry doesn't want the public to latch onto, and so folks like the Green Party seem to be the only sources of easily accessible information.

Assuming that these sources of information are correct, the Alberta bitumen industry faces some severe challenges. Declining markets for their product and its byproducts. Certainly so in North America, and very likely in the world. Bitumen is, after all, just one step up from coal - and coal markets are trending into a serious decline (coal consumption in the US is down 10%+).

The point of this "ramble" is that our government faces the challenge of a developing "bind". Alberta's economic growth and the revenues from it have masked a host of problems. The push to ram dilbit pipelines down the throats of BC residents makes sense in that context. It is a stopgap, and I emphasize stopgap, to avoid dealing with the structural problems in our economy created by the policies of Mulroney and his acolyte Harper. Just "kicking the can down the road" by doubling down on failed policies (I mean really? Expanded free trade with Chile is going to help us how??).