Thursday, November 27th1.2°C
23286
24214

Pipelines across BC

Moderators: oneh2obabe, Jo, ferri, Triple 6

Re: Pipelines across BC

Postby twobits » Jan 7th, 2013, 3:11 pm

Virtually all Alaskan oil goes past our coast Nab. They've got some pretty big stones to complain about us exporting our oil thru Pacific waters

How much oil is produced in Alaska and where does it go?
Alaska's crude oil production peaked in 1988 at about 738 million barrels, which was equal to about 25% of total U.S. oil production. In 2011, it was about 209 million barrels, or about 10% of total U.S. production.

Since the Trans-Alaska Pipeline System from the North Slope of Alaska was finished in 1977, about 97% of total Alaskan production has come from the North Slope. The rest comes from Southern Alaska.

Most Alaskan crude oil has gone to refineries in Alaska, California, Hawaii, and Washington. Relatively small amounts were shipped to Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands, and foreign countries.

Export of crude oil transported in the Trans-Alaska Pipeline System was banned until 1996. Between 1996 and 2004, a total of about 95.49 million barrels of crude oil, equal to 2.7% of Alaskan production during that period, was exported to foreign countries. As of March 2012, no Alaskan oil has been exported since 2004.
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: 3918
Likes: 124 posts
Liked in: 655 posts
Joined: Nov 25th, 2010, 8:44 am

Re: Pipelines across BC

Postby NAB » Jan 7th, 2013, 5:01 pm

I think of greater concern to them are the straits and islands on their way out to the open Pacific.

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 Gone_Fishin » Jan 7th, 2013, 6:45 pm

NAB wrote:I think of greater concern to them are the straits and islands on their way out to the open Pacific.

Nab



They aren't concerned in the least about islands and straits. They are concerned about our cheap, friendly oil going somewhere besides the United States. Only the very gullible would believe otherwise.
User avatar
Gone_Fishin
Grand Pooh-bah
 
Posts: 2287
Likes: 566 posts
Liked in: 236 posts
Joined: Sep 6th, 2006, 6:43 am

Re: Pipelines across BC

Postby NAB » Jan 7th, 2013, 6:51 pm

You obviously aren't very well tuned in to the real world on the bigger scale are ya dude. Reminds me of the song that contains the words "my little corner of the world" LOL

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 flamingfingers » Jan 7th, 2013, 7:02 pm

NAB wrote:You obviously aren't very well tuned in to the real world on the bigger scale are ya dude. Reminds me of the song that contains the words "my little corner of the world" LOL

Nab


Considering the fact that he has never traveled outside of Canada, or even BC. Not too well informed.
Anyway, no drug, not even alcohol, causes the fundamental ills of society. If we're looking for the source of our troubles, we shouldn't test people for drugs, we should test them for stupidity, ignorance, greed and love of power.
P. J. O'Rourke
User avatar
flamingfingers
Walks on Forum Water
 
Posts: 13707
Likes: 1839 posts
Liked in: 1927 posts
Joined: Jul 9th, 2005, 7:56 am

Re: Pipelines across BC

Postby Gone_Fishin » Jan 7th, 2013, 7:55 pm

Thanks for making my point. The very gullible Nab and Maple fingers, a couple of retired union grunts that don't have the means to travel the world nor the education to understand it, gobble up BS from the Americans like it was candy. If it were Christy Clark telling the Americans that she was opposed to their Alaskan tankers passing by BC, you'd both be screaming that she was anti-business or anti-family or some other pile of bullchit. Because apparently, you two Dix minions know your little corner of the world oh so well.
User avatar
Gone_Fishin
Grand Pooh-bah
 
Posts: 2287
Likes: 566 posts
Liked in: 236 posts
Joined: Sep 6th, 2006, 6:43 am

Re: Pipelines across BC

Postby NAB » Jan 8th, 2013, 8:12 am

Image
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 Merry » Jan 8th, 2013, 9:02 am

I too have concerns about pipeline leaks and tanker accidents, but I'm also a realist. And it seems to me that, given our modern lifestyles, we have to accept a certain amount of risk in return for continued access to affordably priced oil.

Until we change our modern lifestyles, we're simply adopting a NIMBY attitude to the means of attaining that lifestyle. And I'm not just referring to personal use (such as automobiles, motorbikes, and using public transportation such as buses and planes to go on vacation), but also business use (which is essential for most of us to stay employed). Without access to affordable oil, our entire way of life would have to change. And I haven't heard a lot of discussion from those who are opposed to developing new ways to access and deliver oil about how we can acheive that massive change .

Another issue that many opponents haven't addressed is the need for our Government to achieve the revenue levels necessary to maintain the funding and services we've all come to expect, in the absence of taxation revenue from projects such as this. If the Government is unable to increase the level of funding that goes into it's coffers, we'd all better be prepared to accept much reduced levels of service. And again, I have not heard a lot about this issue from those who seem to be opposed to anything and everything that MAY pollute the environment in some way.

It seems to me that while it is impossible to GUARANTEE accidents and spills will not happen, there are ways to ensure it is very unlikey to happen. And it is incumbent upon our Government to take all necessary steps to protect both us and our environment from reckless behaviour, up to and including severe penalties for all who are found guilty. But that is a far cry from an outright ban on any and all development in what are considered to be pristine environmental areas.
User avatar
Merry
Grand Pooh-bah
 
Posts: 2995
Likes: 357 posts
Liked in: 723 posts
Joined: Nov 2nd, 2008, 11:41 am

Re: Pipelines across BC

Postby LoneWolf_53 » Jan 8th, 2013, 9:11 am

Merry wrote:I too have concerns about pipeline leaks and tanker accidents, but I'm also a realist. And it seems to me that, given our modern lifestyles, we have to accept a certain amount of risk in return for continued access to affordably priced oil.

Until we change our modern lifestyles, we're simply adopting a NIMBY attitude to the means of attaining that lifestyle.


I agree, plus I also find it somewhat hypocritical that the US, who gave us the Exxon Valdez, and most recently messed up most of the Gulf of Mexico, should be worried about what we are doing, given that compared to them, we are angels.
"Friends are the family that we choose ourselves!"
User avatar
LoneWolf_53
Walks on Forum Water
 
Posts: 10829
Likes: 417 posts
Liked in: 1042 posts
Joined: Mar 19th, 2005, 12:06 pm

Re: Pipelines across BC

Postby Glacier » Jan 8th, 2013, 8:06 pm

Has anyone mentioned that fact that the U.S. is now shipping North Dakota oil by rail (a shipping method 100s of times more dangerous than a pipeline) to the port of Tacoma, and then off through the San Juan Islands to the great beyond? Meanwhile, they want our Alberta oil going south so that they can get our oil at a reduced price while selling their oil at the highest price the market will bear.
"...a lie doesn’t become a truth and wrong doesn’t become right and evil doesn’t become good just because it becomes popular. Truth is truth." -Rick warren
User avatar
Glacier
Buddha of the Board
 
Posts: 16963
Likes: 412 posts
Liked in: 1563 posts
Joined: Jul 6th, 2008, 9:41 pm

Re: Pipelines across BC

Postby twobits » Jan 9th, 2013, 7:12 am

Glacier wrote:Has anyone mentioned that fact that the U.S. is now shipping North Dakota oil by rail (a shipping method 100s of times more dangerous than a pipeline) to the port of Tacoma, and then off through the San Juan Islands to the great beyond? Meanwhile, they want our Alberta oil going south so that they can get our oil at a reduced price while selling their oil at the highest price the market will bear.


Glacier, I've brought up the (undesirable) option of rail transport as opposed to pipelines several times now and the topic has been ignored. I can only conclude that they do not believe that rail transport is magnitudes more dangerous despite verifiable transportation stats or are in denial that the oil will be produced in increasingly larger volumes and it will move by some method......RAIL.......which always follow valley formations and watercourses because of grade. The ignorance is shocking. Vilify pipelines and ignore the only option remaining that is a far greater danger and because the network already exists, will not and cannot be subject to environmental reviews. Classic cut of your nose to spite your face.
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: 3918
Likes: 124 posts
Liked in: 655 posts
Joined: Nov 25th, 2010, 8:44 am

Re: Pipelines across BC

Postby NAB » Jan 9th, 2013, 7:22 am

Here's a repeat of the article I posted on the previous page a couple of days ago... Fortunately, it is not tarsands dilbit they are shipping that way.
Nab

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
Last edited by NAB on Jan 9th, 2013, 7:29 am, edited 1 time in total.
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 Rwede » Jan 9th, 2013, 7:28 am

Peanuts. Talk about "$55 million" in investment is so miniscule compared to the cost and scope of pipeline construction. Rail is for morons like Adrian Dix and the NDP. Maybe horse and buggy would suit Nab's agenda.
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: 8065
Likes: 3233 posts
Liked in: 1127 posts
Joined: May 6th, 2009, 9:49 am

Re: Pipelines across BC

Postby twobits » Jan 9th, 2013, 8:05 am

NAB wrote:Here's a repeat of the article I posted on the previous page a couple of days ago... Fortunately, it is not tarsands dilbit they are shipping that way.
Nab



So what's yer point nab? The article only reinforces that rail is the only option to pipeline and the fact remains that it is more expensive and more dangerous than pipelines. Rail will always have it's place in oil transport to these refineries that cannot justify the capital expense of a pipeline but to ramp up rail use as the alternative for high volume movement is just plain stupid. Can't you see that you are opposing pipelines only to have the inevitable and certain movement of large volumes of oil moved in a much more dangerous fashion and one in which you and all the first nations in the land cannot stop? Or are you so naive to believe that after you are successful in shouting down pipeline construction you will then be able to shutdown rail transport too?
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: 3918
Likes: 124 posts
Liked in: 655 posts
Joined: Nov 25th, 2010, 8:44 am

Re: Pipelines across BC

Postby NAB » Jan 9th, 2013, 8:13 am

Actually twobits, I don't so much oppose the construction of pipelines (in preference to rail) for the transport of oil (Or ships carrying oil to wherever from wherever). I oppose the use of any of those things for the transportation of raw or dilluted bitumen (dilbit).

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

PreviousNext

Return to BC Politics

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest