Thursday, December 18th0.2°C
24295

Pipelines across BC

DO NOT ENTER unless you're ready for a squabble. This is a free-for-all political area where almost anything goes. Be aware of that before entering. Read the rules upon entering.

Moderators: oneh2obabe, Jo, ferri, Triple 6

Re: Pipelines across BC

Postby Rwede » Dec 19th, 2012, 7:48 am

Smurf, Alex, and this guy have a lot in common.



You are not stupid, I just think you have bad luck when thinking.

George+ says: "Makes no sense to me.
But that is not unusual."
User avatar
Rwede
Guru
 
Posts: 8158
Likes: 3392 posts
Liked in: 1178 posts
Joined: May 6th, 2009, 9:49 am

Re: Pipelines across BC

Postby Smurf » Dec 19th, 2012, 8:04 am

They are both a mile ahead of Ezra. Just ask the courts, Sun Media/News who has to keep appologizing and retracting or
The Law Society of Alberta.
Consider how hard it is to change yourself and you'll understand what little chance you have of changing others.

The happiest of people don't necessarily have the best of everything, they just make the most of everything that comes their way.
User avatar
Smurf
Guru
 
Posts: 5576
Likes: 1153 posts
Liked in: 616 posts
Joined: Aug 12th, 2006, 7:55 am
Location: Okanagan BC

Re: Pipelines across BC

Postby Rwede » Dec 19th, 2012, 8:16 am

That goes hand-in-hand with your apologizing for Dix. "Hey, he only broke a few Criminal Code of Canada laws, so we should make him Premier."
You are not stupid, I just think you have bad luck when thinking.

George+ says: "Makes no sense to me.
But that is not unusual."
User avatar
Rwede
Guru
 
Posts: 8158
Likes: 3392 posts
Liked in: 1178 posts
Joined: May 6th, 2009, 9:49 am

Re: Pipelines across BC

Postby Smurf » Dec 19th, 2012, 10:59 am

I'm comparing him to The Liberals. Campbell re-elected after his criminal CONVICTION for drunk driving. Christy's fun at university. Government lawyers admitting to submitting false documents in court. How many illegaly broken union contracts that we had to pay a fortune for them to fight and loose in court. Refusing to give information to the auditor general and forcing it into court also at our cost. And that is only a start of the last decade.

Yes I am definately sure I will try Dix for at least a term.
Consider how hard it is to change yourself and you'll understand what little chance you have of changing others.

The happiest of people don't necessarily have the best of everything, they just make the most of everything that comes their way.
User avatar
Smurf
Guru
 
Posts: 5576
Likes: 1153 posts
Liked in: 616 posts
Joined: Aug 12th, 2006, 7:55 am
Location: Okanagan BC

Re: Pipelines across BC

Postby hobbyguy » Dec 19th, 2012, 11:58 am

And all this distracted stuff is what both sides count on when they want to jam something through. Ya but he/she is a so-and-so does not justify any of the nonsense going on about pipelines across BC.

The key to this issue is careful study and finding a consensus solution that works for all parties.

There is a solution, but not for the Enbridge proposal, which makes no sense to anyone who knows port from starboard.

The Kinder-Morgan route has potential, but I seriously doubt that the proposal will cover the key points of not shipping dilbit and using double wall pipeline construction. They would rather drop a few well placed envelopes of cash (it won't actually be direct envelopes of cash - only Muroney thought he could get away with that) than pay the bucks to do it properly. But, I'm speculating - maybe Kinder-Morgan will surprise me?
We can have democracy in this country, or we can have great wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can't have both. - Louis D. Brandeis
hobbyguy
Grand Pooh-bah
 
Posts: 2642
Likes: 298 posts
Liked in: 777 posts
Joined: Jan 20th, 2011, 8:10 pm

Re: Pipelines across BC

Postby Gone_Fishin » Dec 19th, 2012, 12:30 pm

hobbyguy wrote: They would rather drop a few well placed envelopes of cash (it won't actually be direct envelopes of cash - only Muroney thought he could get away with that) than pay the bucks to do it properly.



Hang on! Bill VanderScalm liked envelopes full of cash too! And he "saved" you from the HST! What a great guy! :127:
User avatar
Gone_Fishin
Grand Pooh-bah
 
Posts: 2291
Likes: 577 posts
Liked in: 240 posts
Joined: Sep 6th, 2006, 6:43 am

Re: Pipelines across BC

Postby hobbyguy » Dec 24th, 2012, 12:28 pm

The Zalm never did appeal to me as a true leader.

This is a digression:

That said, for those of us who are opposed to consumption VAT type taxes, his anti-HST got us nowhere. The question should not have been GST or HST, but VAT at all.

My concern in all of this discussion of pipelines is that we are talking about selling of Canadian resources with adequate compensation, and locking our grandchildren into an environmental mess if it not done properly. I still haven't seen a proposal that even attempts to address the whole chain in a state of the art fashion.

The discussion has been diverted to two choices: no pipelines, or pipelines/transportation systems that are done in the cheapest way possible to benefit the big boys with the minimum benefits to Canadian citizens at large.

The correct choices, upgrading, double wall pipelines, no "flag of convenience tankers", and state of the art emergency response facilities are not even being discussed.

This tells me the politicians are not doing what they are elected to do, which is represent the interests of Canadians at large, not a few back room boys with big wallets.
We can have democracy in this country, or we can have great wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can't have both. - Louis D. Brandeis
hobbyguy
Grand Pooh-bah
 
Posts: 2642
Likes: 298 posts
Liked in: 777 posts
Joined: Jan 20th, 2011, 8:10 pm

Re: Pipelines across BC

Postby Smurf » Dec 25th, 2012, 7:05 am

The biggest problem is those big wallets are only there to get bigger not for the good of anyone but themselves. if they suddenly see more crooked dollars elsewhere they will be gone like a flash.
Consider how hard it is to change yourself and you'll understand what little chance you have of changing others.

The happiest of people don't necessarily have the best of everything, they just make the most of everything that comes their way.
User avatar
Smurf
Guru
 
Posts: 5576
Likes: 1153 posts
Liked in: 616 posts
Joined: Aug 12th, 2006, 7:55 am
Location: Okanagan BC

Re: Pipelines across BC

Postby hobbyguy » Jan 6th, 2013, 1:42 pm

Interesting to read that the US Coast Guard has been mandated to study both the safety of the potential southern route tanker traffic, and the problems with dilbit in the environment.

The USCG has less of a vested interest, so it will be of interest to see the report.

Meanwhile, the Enbridge hearings carry on with their sham performance. Pick and choose speakers and keep the general public away...just so when Harper does the "it's approved whether you like it or not", he can add "after much public consultation".

Betcha Uncle Sam is going to get listened to. Dilbit ain't too popular outside of Texas, and even there it has many detractors.

Nobody in the feds system is saying the magic words "upgrade to synthetic crude first".
We can have democracy in this country, or we can have great wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can't have both. - Louis D. Brandeis
hobbyguy
Grand Pooh-bah
 
Posts: 2642
Likes: 298 posts
Liked in: 777 posts
Joined: Jan 20th, 2011, 8:10 pm

Re: Pipelines across BC

Postby Gone_Fishin » Jan 6th, 2013, 2:17 pm

^^^ Suckered by the US's lobbying to keep our oil domestic, thus keeping supply here higher, thus keeping the cost down for the US. It's all about their control over the price of our exports to them, and nothing to do with the "environment."

Why do so many miss the big picture on these things? :137:
User avatar
Gone_Fishin
Grand Pooh-bah
 
Posts: 2291
Likes: 577 posts
Liked in: 240 posts
Joined: Sep 6th, 2006, 6:43 am

Re: Pipelines across BC

Postby twobits » Jan 6th, 2013, 6:10 pm

Funny they don't have a problem tankering Alaska crude down our coast to refineries in Washinton and California.
Do not argue with an idiot. He will drag you down to his level and beat you with experience.

The problem with the gene pool is that there is no lifeguard.
twobits
Lord of the Board
 
Posts: 3958
Likes: 130 posts
Liked in: 678 posts
Joined: Nov 25th, 2010, 8:44 am

Re: Pipelines across BC

Postby NAB » Jan 6th, 2013, 6:26 pm

Aren't those routes far offshore?

Nab
NAB
Buddha of the Board
 
Posts: 22985
Likes: 38 posts
Liked in: 206 posts
Joined: Apr 19th, 2006, 12:33 pm

Re: Pipelines across BC

Postby LoneWolf_53 » Jan 6th, 2013, 7:20 pm

Fisher-Dude wrote:^^^ Suckered by the US's lobbying to keep our oil domestic, thus keeping supply here higher, thus keeping the cost down for the US. It's all about their control over the price of our exports to them, and nothing to do with the "environment."

Why do so many miss the big picture on these things? :137:


The Americans don't do a dang thing for altruistic reasons, and anyone who thinks so is naive.

They always have a self serving agenda.
"Friends are the family that we choose ourselves!"
User avatar
LoneWolf_53
Walks on Forum Water
 
Posts: 10868
Likes: 437 posts
Liked in: 1061 posts
Joined: Mar 19th, 2005, 12:06 pm

Re: Pipelines across BC

Postby twobits » Jan 7th, 2013, 7:07 am

NAB wrote:Aren't those routes far offshore?

Nab


Do you know where these Wash State locations are Nab and how and where they get their crude from? With the exception of Blaine, I believe it all comes via tanker. If a Harley Davidson can make it from Japan, does it matter how far offshore these tankers ply?

Tesoro Anacortes Refinery (Tesoro), Anacortes 108,000 bbl/d (17,200 m3/d)
Shell Anacortes Refinery (Shell Oil Company), Anacortes 145,000 bbl/d (23,100 m3/d)
Cherry Point Refinery (BP), Blaine 225,000 bbl/d (35,800 m3/d)
ConocoPhillips Ferndale Refinery (Phillips 66), Ferndale 105,000 bbl/d (16,700 m3/d)
Tacoma Refinery (U.S. Oil and Refining), Tacoma 35,000 bbl/d (5,600 m3/d)
Imperium Grays Harbor (Imperium Renewables), Anacortes 4,580 bbl/d (728 m3/d)
Do not argue with an idiot. He will drag you down to his level and beat you with experience.

The problem with the gene pool is that there is no lifeguard.
twobits
Lord of the Board
 
Posts: 3958
Likes: 130 posts
Liked in: 678 posts
Joined: Nov 25th, 2010, 8:44 am

Re: Pipelines across BC

Postby NAB » Jan 7th, 2013, 10:14 am

I seem to recall the pipeline that runs from Edmonton area to the lower mainland via Kamloops crosses the line nto Washington State and supplies oil to those refineries. Don't know what percentage that might represent though, or even if they use oil from Alaska.

Nab

Edit to add: I just found this article which helps clarify the current situation in Washington State....


November 26, 2012 12:28 pm • Associated Press

TACOMA, Wash. — The oil boom in the Great Plains states is affecting refineries, ports and other businesses in Washington.

Oil trains are delivering crude to refineries in the state as Alaska's production falls. And there are proposals to export oil from the Port of Grays Harbor to West Coast refineries and possibly Asia.

A 103-car oil train that arrived from North Dakota last week was the first of what's expected to be weekly trains at a new $8 million rail yard at the U.S. Oil refinery in Tacoma.

Trains also are delivering oil from North Dakota and Montana to the Tesoro refinery near Anacortes, which recently completed a $55 million rail yard. BP has applied for permits for a $60 million rail yard at its Cherry Point refinery north of Bellingham.

The refineries still process crude oil from Alaska and other sources. The Tesoro refinery has the capacity to receive 50,000 barrels of crude oil a day by rail, but its total capacity is 120,000 barrels a day.

The BP refinery would receive about 20,000 barrels a day by rail, less than a tenth of its 234,000 barrel capacity.

"So North Slope and other crudes shipped by tanker will remain its primary source of oil," BP said in a statement.

U.S. Oil spokeswoman Marcia Nielsen said it's shifting some of its feedstock procurement to the Great Plains because of better availability and price.

Shipping oil on a 1,200-mile "pipeline with steel wheels" adds to the cost, but it would take years to build new pipelines and pumping stations.

Meanwhile, The Daily World in Aberdeen reported Monday that two companies want to export crude oil from the Port of Grays Harbor on the Washington coast.

Westway Terminals plans to build two more tanks at the port where it already exports methanol. Its permit application to the city of Hoquiam said it could handle near 10 million barrels a year, or about 128 trains a year.

Another company, US Development, is looking at the port's Terminal 3 to load oil from trains onto ships.

Both proposals have drawn opposition from citizen groups that were formed to oppose a coal export terminal.

Friends of Grays Harbor and Citizens for a Clean Harbor are concerned about the risk of spills and the impact of train traffic.

The Port of Tacoma also has received proposals for a bulk liquids handling facility on the former Kaiser aluminum smelter site on Blair Waterway.

Port spokeswoman Tara Mattina said she could not discuss proposals because of ongoing negotiations.

The new oil fields are affecting the Northwest in other ways.

The biggest beneficiary is Burlington Northern Santa Fe, which owns most of the rail lines across the northern United States between Puget Sound and Chicago.

The Port of Olympia has found new business importing oil field supplies, including special sand used in the hydraulic fracturing drilling process. The Bradken foundry in Tacoma is expanding to make large metal castings used in the energy industry.
NAB
Buddha of the Board
 
Posts: 22985
Likes: 38 posts
Liked in: 206 posts
Joined: Apr 19th, 2006, 12:33 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Bickering Room

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests