The Enbridge Pipeline is Wrong for British Columbia and Should Be Stopped: It’s Bad Business for the Environment
Imagine, if you will, that it’s the spring of 2020.
Splashed across every newspaper in the province is the following story:
Enbridge Pipeline accident claims millions of salmon including Chinook and Coho. Bullhead trout also threatened, with clean-up estimated in the billions: Communities of Burns Lake, Smithers and Prince Rupert devastated. Managing Directors Kim Haakstad, Rebecca Scott were unavailable for comment. President Pamela Martin’s office advises that she is away on vacation in Maui.
Or how ’bout this:
Enbridge Senior Vice-President of Communications and former premier Christy Clark confirms the spill that has destroyed several sensitive eco-systems off the Queen Charlotte Sandspit will take at least five years to clean-up. Containment is presently hampered by rising tides and high winds. Ms. Clark assures, “Everything’s going our way, right? We’ve contained the, uh, spill, and gosh, ya know, we’re gonna do everything we can to get those salmon fry their jobs back, right? I had this thing waiting on my desk when I got here, eh? So, it’s not easy. We’re doing the best we can with what we’ve got to work with. No one could have anticipated this when we agreed to it in 2012. It was like something from a movie, right? We’re gonna get the people responsible and put cameras in the courtrooms so that everyone knows who they are, right?”
Wrong. It’s a bad deal.
The proposed Enbridge pipeline represents a bad deal for British Columbia and shouldn’t be signed. The federal government should be told, in as polite a way possible, that BC’s pristine forests and rivers are not Alberta’s lab rats. Notwithstanding the fact that the Albertans have already reckoned that the notion of a 730 mile, cross-province pipeline that spans Northern British Columbia–and benefits mostly Alberta, won’t fly in a province that just told its government to pack sand when it comes to a relatively “measly” consumption tax. Therefore, and quite logically I might add, they’re advocating what I’d like to endorse now: that we refine the Oil Sands bitumen (sludge) here in BC (and Alberta), come into a profit sharing agreement with our neighbor and the federal government and find another way of sending the end product to China and the United States. I know that double hulled tankers didn’t exist in the day of the Exxon Valdez and pipeline safety has come a long way too. But the risk is too high and the cost too great if that sludge ends up in valley floors, watersheds and fish escapements.
Firstly, two words about China and the Oil Sands. I respect my friend Ezra Levant’s use of the word ‘Ethical Oil’. It well represents the fact that we should be doing business with our larger trading partners (including the oft and appropriately condemned, shamefully anti-Tibetan Chinese) instead of pumping the pockets of the Arab world that seeks to destroy humanity by having them half ignite Islamofascism with direct support and indirectly by turning the other cheek. I get all that. It makes sense to reduce adding to their bottom line. Young girls shouldn’t be mutilated. Women deserve the right to vote, drive and be seen–not covered up, but as the beautiful creatures they are and homosexuals should be able to live free and with pride. Adultery (because you’ve been married to your misogynistic 94 year old uncle for ten years) shouldn’t be cause for a firing squad. I appreciate all this, very much. Not funding such lunacy, or at least, reducing it where and when we can, makes perfect sense.
Secondly, I also understand and appreciate that the Oil Sands represent too significant a portion of our GDP to be ignored. As much as the enviro-alarmists want to bellyache (have they ever done anything else?), the world is still driven (pun intended) by oil. Like it or not, we drive cars and will not ever turn into a cycling country. Our weather is inclement and at least in this province (with Vancouver as prime example) we live in cities with peaks and valleys. We drive our children to school. We deliver our parents to hospitals, hairdressers and hockey games–cars are here to stay. You can whine all you like, it won’t change a damn thing.
But this doesn’t mean we risk virgin forest and unspoiled land. If an accident happens, the impact is absolutely devastating. It’ll never get cleaned up.
The proposed pipeline is actually two pipelines, with bitumen in one and condensate–used to push through the sludge, in the other–and it will almost certainly be compromised at some point. Enbridge actually admits to this in several of their latest efforts at rhetorical spin and I find that most disconcerting.
It’s not just that the pipeline itself crosses 1,176 kms (730 miles), it’s that it straddles, crosses or barely bypasses almost 800 streams, 600 of them fish bearing. Nevermind that mule deer, moose, elk, white tails, mountain goats and bears inhabit several of the regions the pipeline crosses. Forget that several northern BC towns would be shut down. The impact to the environment, in the most beautiful province in the country, would be perfectly calamitous.
The Enbridge pipeline would have to cross wetlands, flood plains, bird sanctuaries, valuable watersheds and productive fish escapements.
You want to run 525,000 barrels a day of bitumen past all that? And 193,000 barrels per day of condensate?
If you answered ‘Yes!’ to that, you must have rocks for brains. In which case you should be more sensitive to protecting your earth brothers.
Any of Chinook, Pink and Coho salmon could have their stocks ransacked for decades. Bull head trout, plentiful in the area just to the west of and below Burns Lake, as far as to the south of Prince Rupert, could be wiped out completely.
Steelhead, which have only really come back there in the last ten years, could be finished from the region. The diluted bitumen combined with debris and sediment would likely accrue in spawning fields causing the kind of environmental ruin that would rank somewhere near the top of world disaster standards.
I’m supposed to support such lunacy?
I’ve hunted and fished in the region in the past and I can tell you from traveling that terrain both on ATV (where you can!) on foot, and above it by helicopter, it’s the most beautiful in all British Columbia. And damn well challenging. You’ve never fished, until you’ve fished sockeye in the Bulkley. And if you think a pack and rifle are tough to slog in such remote areas, try getting in there with thousands of tons of necessary remediation infrastructure and finding a leak or spill and then fixing it. The whole pipeline idea–in that part of the province, makes zero sense.
And I’m not listening to the alarmists that are idiotically telling the country to shut down the Tar Sands. That’s the other extreme.
I’ve gone to authorities on the likely problems.
From the ‘Independent Report for the Northwest Institute for Bioregional Research’ written by Mike Miles, M.Sc. (P. Geo), and David Bustard, M.Sc. (R.P. Bio):
“There do not appear to be any proven techniques for effectively mitigating these (potential) impacts.”
Critical spawning and rearing habitats, like those for the rare mountain white fish, might be subject to an inability to assuage the risk for such catastrophic circumstances.
Why take the bloody chance?
And then there’s the business case against it: Alberta gets the majority of the benefit, and we eat all the risk. No rider from the Alberta government, nothing. No assurances from the feds, zilch. Although, I must state, that Premier Redford is doing a superb job in getting the proponents–like former premier Loughheed, out there and their voices heard. In fact, out of anything I’ve read, Peter Loughheed’s suggestion of refining the bitumen in Canada, resonates. Again, the extremists who believe in climate change alarmist hooey will whine, but that makes as much sense as the pipeline proposal.
If you consider that the spill toxicity and dispersal reach of the Exxon Valdez impacted various regions up the BC and Alaskan coasts to the point that, even today, the habitats affected remain largely degraded, then you understand the potential tragedy.
That was March of 1989–TWENTY TWO YEARS AGO.
A pipeline to the coast, through Burns Lake, past Houston, near Smithers and Hazelton that dips below Prince Rupert out to the Queen Charlotte sandspit, where tankers would be required to navigate often treacherous waters, is as asinine as anything I’ve ever heard.
Selling the Tar Sands is important, but a cross-province pipeline like the one proposed is too dangerous and represents a bad deal for BC–and most importantly our environment.
Please write Premier Christy Clark and Prime Minister Stephen Harper and tell them so.
Harper isnt listening hes already sending ministers out to push for the projects approval as Natural Resouces minister Joe oliver calls any dissenters radical environmentalist who are trying to hobble the economy
this is the link
http://www.theprovince.com/business/Minister+takes+radical+environmentalists+over+pipeline/5966267/story.html
Anyone who expected Conservatives to respect BCs land should have known better they have a majority and are now using influence to pressure the NEB and id go as far as to say they may do far more to ensure they get the pipeline built.
I agree in needing a growing economy also agree we should process the tar sands oil and create far more wealth jobs and taxable incomes in Canada .
This project is not of huge benefit to BC long term and makes very little good common sense .
[Translate]
Well, Minister Oliver is underwhelming at best.
I’m a philosophical conservative, a climate change alarmism skeptic and endorsed his party in the last election.
I guess he thinks I’m a quack too…LOL!
[Translate]
resources from Alberta will be delivered via BC for export to China…BC would reap service fees and increase traffic flow for ships to carry the resource…yes, there is a history at times of spillage via unprofessional conduct of pilots of ships….however….this is a golden opportunity for both AB and BC to obtain royalties, funds for having a pipeline to service the needs of the world economies
[Translate]
great column once again,
many readers will discuss the enviromental issues, i am going to give some thoughts on the economic issues.
2009 we imported about 1.2 million barrels of oil a day
the proposed budget for the pipeline is 6 – 7 billion , dollars
we should be refining the products in canada.
6 – 7 billion dollars will build 5 – 7 refineries.
each refinery will create 3000 construction jobs, 500 to 700 full time jobs per year. and produce about a 135,barrel^s of oil a day.
the economic spinoff^s are incredibile
once we build a pipeline we are giving away our jobs taking a gamble on ruining our enviroment .
harper has a chance to engage and unite canada
as it stands he will divide canada.
just think 6 months ago our biggest problem was campbell and clark
[Translate]
What an interesting analysis! Thank you for this.
Yes, I think we need to rethink the whole thing. The impact, in the case of a spill or leak, could be catastrophic.
[Translate]
What a great analysis and an idea that should be promoted widely.
Screw the China market. Keep the jobs in Canada and control our energy future.
BCers will fight the Harper & Oliver on this issue. We defeated the HST and we can defeat the GateWay project.
[Translate]
with all of the economic spin off we could afford to fund health care, and the socal networks that we need.
for each year that we send to off shore for production we lose at least 10, 000 full time tme energy related jobs plus the spin off jobs
this is a no brainer
[Translate]
Harry Lawson. Please elaborate on “135,barrel’s of oil a day.” Do you mean 135 THOUSAND barrels of Product a day? That would mean 675,000 to 945,000 bbls of product per day? That would ALMOST equal the amount we imported (1.2 million bbls) in 2009? Are bbls of crude and bbls product similar in volume?
I used to be a fence sitter wrt to the pipeline, but Alex’s article has convinced me to get off the fence.
But there are a host of questions to be answered before we commit shovels to the ground.
Would shipping refined product obviate the neccessity of a condensate line?
If we can use the product domestically do we still need to export bitumen or refined product?
Would a fuel subsidy to the logging industry make logging more competetive or would that contravene the Softwood Lumber Deal?
Why? Why can’t we sell fuel at cost as the other major producers do?
To be continued…..
[Translate]
Your figures about refineries are puzzling. $4 billion is building one refinery with a capacity of 50,000 bpd and creating permanent employment for 230 people in Redwater. Where did you get those numbers?
[Translate]
I would like better job data based on what you post but if we account for service industries trucking and such it will add to that by a fair number and i would rather see that money and taxable incomes stay within our country over shipped off as many others are, and we can give good environmental impact arguments about why shipping may be less safe both with regards to piplelines and tanker ships , and it still appears our fed gov is setting the stage to approve and working our provinces leadership to stand aside .
I had concerns a majority for Harper would take us this route i hope enough voices stand up and make sure he knows it will end his political career if he pushes this down our throats.
[Translate]
I’m afraid that’s the case.
[Translate]
This is what NAFTA and the WTO brought us. Isn’t it wonderful.
[Translate]
Okay, that’s just not true. NAFTA was a very good thing that created and MAINTAINS millions of Canadian jobs. THE WTO has been similarly enriching.
I support both. Let’s not straddle a soapbox here. With respect…
[Translate]
oh my goodness this is so very wrong; NAFTA has gutted the manufacturing sector of North America and shipped jobs overseas where there are no health/safety standards, labour laws, minimum wage laws or environmental protections. They have turned the ‘developing’ world into a slave labour plantation/ open sewer. Read Confessions of an Economic Hitman: globalization is a corporate game plan of debt slavery/ exploitation/pillage of the peoples and resources of the planet. I wonder who you work for AGT, ‘with respect’…
[Translate]
If you had respect for me, you wouldn’t come to my house, lie, and then ask for whom I work. What a load of bullshit. Because I agree with NAFTA, that has procured MILLIONS of Canadian jobs and saved millions more Canadian families from the bread line, I have to be collecting from somewhere to say it.
Flock off.
[Translate]
Dear sir, i am sorry for trespassing in your house, and that you took offense to my question. In general i agree with many of your other comments, which is why i found your statements about NAFTA so shocking. But i did NOT lie: i say again read Confessions of an Economic Hitman; or watch any video by John Perkins; or read this preamble from the Canadian Centre on Policy Alternatives on Nafta; i have included the link for the entire report.
Lessons From NAFTA
The High Cost of “Free Trade”
The corporate and political advocates of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) continue to defend this trade deal and even to claim that its effects on the workers and consumers of all three countries–Canada, the United States, and Mexico–have been
enormously beneficial.
In fact, the impact of NAFTA on most of the people in all three countries has been devastating. The agreement has destroyed more jobs than it has created, depressed wages, worsened poverty and inequality, eroded social programs, undermined democracy, enfeebled governments, and greatly increased the rights and power of corporations, investors, and property holders.
NAFTA has also been used to weaken Canada’s sovereignty and promote its economic assimilation by the United States. It has led to greater pressure on Canada and Mexico to conform to U.S. foreign policy objectives. Most alarmingly, the three governments are bent
on extending this failed model to other countries in Central and South America and the Caribbean in the proposed Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA). Before leaping into that abyss, citizens and policy-makers throughout the hemisphere should stop and look at the
concrete results of this trilateral trade agreement.
On NAFTA’s 10th anniversary, researchers based in all three countries have assessed the agreement’s consequences and found them to be overwhelmingly negative. Their findings are presented in the following summary of their longer studies. http://www.policyalternatives.ca/sites/default/files/uploads/publications/National_Office_Pubs/lessons_from_nafta.pdf
peace, dude
E
[Translate]
That’s just one man opinion and a good portion has been discredited.
I never trust anyone that has one book or one thesis.
[Translate]
Alex
Sorry,with respect, you are way off base here, did Suzuki kidnap you and replace you with an alien?
If pipelines are dangerous, I suggest the following:
Turn off your taps, do not flush the toilet, and cancel your nat gas service. All are delivered (amongst other things, like power and communications) via PIPELINES. And its just so dangerous.
For those that don’t know, the largest of our pipelines supply your drinking water, under high pressure. If one of those blew out, it would wash away the better part of a city block. But they don’t. They are the best engineered and built pipelines we have going, and those methods will be used to construct the Enbridge pipleline. Our nation, province, and, right down to our local neighbourhoods are crisscrossed by more pipelines than you can believe. Most of the public has no idea, but its my business, and has been for 30 years.
The truly sad part about this whole matter is the -predictable- reactionary leftardism going on in regards to this. Little fact, little critical thinking for the opponents, but lots of hyperbole and scare tactics. Thank you Alinsky.
What would you prefer, the oil shipped by endless traincars, or B-trains on our highways? Bank on one thing, the oil will be shipped, and the pipeline is a sure bet to be built.
[Translate]
No, it’s not.
1) My position is one based on principle. I don’t believe we can mitigate the potential disaster scenario to the extent that is necessary to save the environment and entire towns–not just city blocks.
2) The comparison you make between water pipelines and bitumen is incongruent (my charity is on display). Toxic sludge is different from water. The devastation could be permanent. Not all pipelines are the same. That’s absurd.
3) David Suzuki is a phony and a fraud. Please do not compare me with him.
Thanks.
[Translate]
I’ll weigh in (as a municipal engineer). Water pipelines, in fact, do rupture, including large diameter lines. The small diameter ones burst more frequently, but generally go unnoticed. As one would recall about 2 years ago, a large oil pipeline in Burnaby was ruptured, not necessarily as a result of poor design, but because of negligent construction practice on an unrelated project. But nonetheless a significant spill was the result. To say that a spill will not occur is disingenuous at best.
On the other hand, I am not clear as to what alternative exists to transport bitumen to offshore markets – one must cross two mountain ranges or go east, young man. If we refine it here, who is to put up the capital investment to build said refiner(ies)? If it made sense to do so, would someone not have already? The refineries in Burrard Inlet have been decomissioning processing capacity for years to the point where all but Chevron and Suncor are basically glorified storage facilities. Then once the bitumen has been processed, how do you transport the refined products? I don’t have answers, but these are questions that need consideration.
[Translate]
I have the same questions, although the refineries were slowly shut down as the competition from Alberta was killing us. However, they now have spillover, so to speak, why not take advantage of that.
At the very least, they should be looking at this option, instead of demanding we adhere to a pipeline.
Thank you for your thoughtful comment. Much appreciated.
[Translate]
good rebuttal .
Dan is so wrong in is analogy. We are not talking about PIIPELINES. We are talking OIL SPILLS whether from Bags, Pipes, or Tankers. jeez.
[Translate]
“For those that don’t know, the largest of our pipelines supply your drinking water, under high pressure. If one of those blew out, it would wash away the better part of a city block. But they don’t.”
Oh yes they do, Dan! A watermain burst 2 blocks from my place in 2010 and flooded the whole area, causing untold thousands in damage to basements in the 2 block area downstream of where the water flowed, mine included. It took nearly 6 months of restoration and numerous hassles with insurance claims and dealing with COV. This was clean water. I can’t imagine what a disaster a sludgy oil spill would be.
Furthermore, in my research into this, I found out that there are approximately 1 watermain bursts PER WEEK in the city of Vancouver (about 50 per year).
And Dan claims to be an “expert” with 30 years experience.
I would suggest that the Enbridge/Government “experts” who are claiming this pipeline across BC is safe should be treated with a healthy dose of skepticism.
[Translate]
NOTE TO READERS: REQUIRED READING–SUPERB COMMENT.
[Translate]
Enbridge has had over 800 spills in 10 years …. the envirnment has to be protected … here is what will happen, we process our own bitman, gas will go up to $5 per litre and we drive less, use our bikes or buy electric cars … cause if we don’t make the change …. we are fucked, the planet will bounce back, we won’t
[Translate]
You’re not feeling well. You don’t understand a stitch of economics. You need to have your head thoroughly examined.
I choose ‘D’–all of the above.
[Translate]
I’m not sure what to think.
On one hand, I believe that it is critical, strategically, for Canada to get it’s oil to market. If not by the Keystone pipeline, then by some other means. The bleating by enviro-wankers about “dirty tar sands” makes me sick.
On the other hand, it seems unlikely that the risks to the pipeline and shipping can be adequately mitigated. And as you said, we eat the risk while Alberta gets most of the benefit.
Politically, I can’t see the feds turning this down. It is so important economically to the Dominion, and the riding is currently represented by the NDP, so the Tories may feel that they have nothing to lose. Mind you, I was pleasantly surprised when they turned down the “Prosperity” mine in the Chilcotin. But I don’t think “Prosperity” was as economically important to the Dominion as this pipeline will be.
I think what will stop this is if painfully ordinary British Columbians (or, even better, Tories) let the PM and their Tory MPs know that they find this project totally objectionable and will vote accordingly should this project be bulled through. If the PM can paint ALL opposition to this project as the work of “foreign-backed radicals”, then this pipeline will go through.
[Translate]
Very well put. You raise pertinent issues that makes sense. I have some of the very same fears.
[Translate]
I too disagree with a pipeline and tankers in that area of the province. I also disagree with Canada’s ( especially the BC Liberals ) penchant for giving away our natural resources. Why can we not build refineries in Alberta and process the gunk at home, and then sell the finished product abroad ? The same goes for our trees, why ship all of our jobs to China, etc. The day will come when we are out of resources to sell and the pittance we got for them will be no where to be found. What will our short sighted leaders do then ?
[Translate]
They’ll be busy having dim sum….
[Translate]
WE have lots of natural resources and there is no problem with sharing it but we need to add value to it. Lumber or bitumen we should be selling finished products not the raw material. As far as job creation goes, all the pipe line jobs are only temporary, when it’s finished so are the jobs. I believe also that alot of the expertise would have to be brought in, so how many jobs will actually go to locals? Refineries would actually benefit the economies with good permanent canadian jobs. Its seems that we get all the risk and everyone else gets all the money.
Bob
[Translate]
Some excellent points.
[Translate]
So far the Federal Tories, fronted by Joe Oliver, have run off the PR cliff by making it very clear that the outcome is predetermined. Anyone opposed is branded and labelled radical. We may as well have been called traitors.
Make no mistake. This strategy is every bit as suicidal as Trudeau’s National Energy Plan. It’s serious business, and there is a significant mass of BC’ers who will go to great lengths to protect this land we’re talking about.
In addition to Harper and Clark, I suggest mail to every Tory MP that values his seat.
[Translate]
It’s most certainly not like the NEP which bankrupted hundreds of thousands of Albertans alone.
But there is no question, this is a bad proposal.
[Translate]
I think it is as politically toxic, and feel strongly that it is…That was my point…Let’s talk in a couple of years and see
– Cheers
[Translate]
But in that scenario you must assume that, all other things being equal, the Tories don;t do anything to mitigate the proposal or anything else to bolster their support here. Those are huge leaps in logic, however…
[Translate]
Enbridge’s record for the record:
804 spills from Enbridge pipelines in 10 years, or 80 spills a year on average.
As someone or more like many have already said: It’s not a matter of if — it’s a matter of when the first environmental disaster occurs.
[Translate]
Yes, I agree. It’s a problem. I don’t like the pipeline across the province idea–I like it even less because Enbridge is the proposed builder.
[Translate]
Enbridge has been running pipelines for just over sixty years – can you cite an “environmental disaster”? I’m not talking about small spills, but the big ‘wipe out a town’ scenario that Alex is anticipating. The alternative to a pipeline is railcar transport, because one way or another, that bitumen is going to get to market. Rail transport is far, far riskier than a pipeline – I would be very careful what you wish for.
[Translate]
I can site over 800 spills or leaks in 10 years. That’s not a good record at all.
It’s not just the pipeline, it’s the area and remoteness of it. The combination of factors work against it. And does it need to be a ‘wipe-out-the-town’ scenario for you to feel better about the degradation? You’re not making any sense.
On the issue of railcars, the record is significantly better. Do some research.
[Translate]
Alex – on railcar transport safety have a look at Wikipedia’s entry on CN, under “Recent Controversies” – it is not very reassuring. The topography in the North is no better, the incentive to run long trains will be at least as high – and the outcomes will be just as damaging. I specify a wipe-out-the-town incident because we (well… you) are talking about a “catastrophe” – we haven’t seen one in an Enbridge pipeline: we are seeing ‘nuisance’ spills. I am far more worried about oil-carrying “unit trains” through that part of the world than a pipeline.
[Translate]
I’m not so sure about that.
A pipeline leak in that kind of remote area might go unnoticed for some time. A train issue can be managed immediately with precautions.
I don’t know what the answer is but neither seems a great idea.
[Translate]
Sorry Alex, but I can not be with you in this one.
[Translate]
Not a problem my friend. We can’t agree on everything. Be well.
[Translate]
I’m with Brian here, if we don’t take chances nothing will get done. It’s not just luck, but luck and pluck. If these people want to freeze in the dark, let them, because if we don’t sell our product, “they” will eventually come and take it. Let’s not let this be scuppered by political expediency, and the usual suspects – vegans, would be beatniks and has-been-hippies, global warmists and alarmists and unilateral disarmists, pantheists, and etc.. This country would never have been developed if the early explorers were too timid to set a trap or damn a river or cut down a tree or dig a mine or build a bridge or shoot the rapids. Time to put our man-pants on gentlemen!
[Translate]
Your examples make no sense whatsoever.
You’re comparing half a million pressurized barrels a day traveling over the most pristine environment in the province, with Metis and Indians arguing over a few beaver pelts.
[Translate]
Yes Alex, but the Peace River Block was once pristine too, as was the Cariboo and the Chilcotin, where parts of this pipeline will pass through. Now the Peace Block produces wheat and oats and barley and canola and all kinds of product to feed the world, and some of the best beef comes out of the others,along with lumber and pulp and etc.. The Bennett Dam (no relation) that flooded huge areas of “pristine” wilderness now lights up half the Lower Mainland and the north western states and even parts of California. We have to be careful, because we can never repristinate something polluted, but nature can; I mean’ when you think about it, the oil (not tar) sands are in fact “polluted” areas that we are cleaning up also.
[Translate]
Congratulations, you win tr award for most convoluted comment.
The absurdity of comparing anything else to the mammoth–and dangerous without parallel, enterprise currently proposed is beyond finding the words to articulate my disgust.
[Translate]
Well, not to beat a dead horse, Alex, but It is the Mayor’s friends over at the Tides foundation who are paying for a lot of this foolishness. What the hell do we care what Kevin Bacon and Robert Redford and the other little twit whose name now escapes me, think about our oil and what we do with it? And neither do I care what a bunch of chiefs that I had no right to cast a vote for, and who pay no taxes and who get free education and medical and dental and monthly cheques, on my dollar – think about it?
As they say over at SunMedia, the rest of the media is more interested in the trials of a couple of lesbians and their divorcement proceedings. I agree that there must be studies done and strict enforcement of pollution standards, but I think I too, have a say in the matter, before the aforementioned. They will tie up the procedure an estimated 2 years if these hearings go ahead.
[Translate]
No argument from me on any of those counts.
[Translate]
Refining in BC & Alberta only makes sense for economic and safety reasons. BUT, in order to “refine” that stuff in BC would mean a pipeline to a refinery, then what the hell do we do with the waste? I don’t know, maybe some petrol-engineer can tell us. It also makes sense to develop customers in Asia, we have been held hostage by the U.S. version of “free-trade” and their self-inflicted death-spiral economy for long enough.
BUT how do we transport the final products to sea ports? Rail? OK, but isn’t that as inherently treacherous as a pipeline? Although the rail route would be approximately the same as a pipeline, I would imagine that a “spill” would be limited to only a few tank cars, instead of miles of pipeline volume. But, would we have a total river kill anyway?
Towns like Burns Lake, Houston, the Hazeltons are already dying from an almost total lack of economic activity and every damn time some outfit wants to extract resources(because that’s all the assets they have) and create some economic activity, some urban-based group or other sets their hair on fire (unless they’re busy setting up their entitlement tents somewhere) and tries to dictate what folks in the boondocks should be doing. The whole interior of BC needs economic activity in order to support a population that is to hell away from the Fraser Valley and lower mainland. It also needs a healthy economy to maintain the economic support activity in Greater Vancouver.
No, a huge twin oil pipeline across the NW of BC is a BAD idea, no question. Unfortunately, I can’t envision any practical, locally-based, economic activity that would sustain and invigorate that area and at the same time not generate the ire of the sanctimonious concrete jungle dwellers.
[Translate]
My concern isn’t the pipeline as much as the length and size of the proposed pipeline and the safeguards that are apparently absent.
I know it’s pretty black up north in terms of economic activity, but a spill or leak could further erode anything happening for years. So I ask again: is this a risk we should be taking?
I say no!
Sensible points you’ve made, though.
[Translate]
A short pipeline to refineries in Alberta or Northern BC near gas fields would make sense , the energy needed to refine is available and we can apply proper environmental safeguards , still needs proper safe shipping but refined products do carry less environmental clean up issues overall .
[Translate]
I agree and for the last week have been looking at a strategy precisely like that. Agreed!
[Translate]
This should definitely be halted, for every single reason you listed. Our industrial ‘manufacturing’ should also be done on home soil, as all the value add dollars come from refining the product, not shipping it off raw then buying it back later. The same can be said for mass logging exports, or our metallic ores being firesaled, etc.
People who politically hate each other are standing together against this, that itself speaks volumes as to this being BAD. I wish our federal government would stop being so pig-headed over this issue. They’re playing the alarmist card as a guise to distract people, trying to sway this into an us (Canada) vs them (US lobbyist) issue, when it’s an environmental issue, plain and simple.
Excellent write up Alex.
[Translate]
Thank you. I tried to balance this out with none of the alarmist hooey about the Tar Sands being the end of the earth and associated drivel. It’s just not true. It’s more scaremongering by global warming demi-gods. Read: liars!
I could have written more but I think my point was made. Either we significantly tighten this proposal (which is unlikely if not impossible) or find another way.
Much appreciation for your thoughts.
[Translate]
The only good thing that can come from the pipeline is creating jobs, but, yeah, that’s about it.
Much as the employment situation right now, well, sucks, the risk of that pipeline isn’t worth creating jobs for.
[Translate]
Good points. Lucky you being up there. I’ve only passed through the area once, and it is great country.
But the pipeline isn’t a done deal. There aren’t any hydraulic shovels in the ground. At least not yet.
Don’t know the science of bitumen based piping, does it require more pressuresure than petroleum (I would gather so, since this would have a higher mass than petrol which is a thin syrup).
Hate to see the economic loss (BC could benifit economically on taxation of the pipeline,
But agree, this requires alot more intrigue and study.
and if you’re wondering, a pox on the eco-nuts. They have their cause, but they had ruined quite a bit of what could have been sustainable forest activity, namely their antics ended up closing the Kennedy Lake Camp for M and B near Ucluelet, therefore costing quite a few good paying jobs, that could have continued if there was sustainability in forest management.
There’s never been a pipeline burst on the Trans-Mountain line from Kamloops to the Coast (it’s buried under the Fraser Valley and the Coquihalla), nor on the section through The ‘Boo from Prince George to Kamloops.
But it only has to happen once. The Central Coast is pristine and wouldn’t want the chance of tankers being in the area, despite their having top of the technology navigation equipment.
Sailed the Central Coast and it is magificient there. If you’re out on deck, you can imagine The Spirit of The Rainforest.
He would be none too happy about tankers being there. Eagle and Raven and Bear would not be happy either.
[Translate]
No they wouldn’t. I don’t.
This needs more thought put into it. The land and what’s up there is just too beautiful and perfect to do this. It’s wrong, plain and simple.
[Translate]
I won’t go into details, however I support you 100 %. And thanks for speaking your mind as opposed to politicians who sit on the fence. Cowards each & every one of them.
Guy in Victoria
[Translate]
Thanks pal. I agree.
[Translate]
“Again, the extremists who believe in climate change alarmist hooey”. Would you care to explain this statement? Are you suggesting that climate change is not occurring, or that it is not a problem?
[Translate]
Sure, happy to explain. The notion that climate change is being driven solely by anthropogenic causes is pure, unadulterated horse manure.
It is a problem, but not to the extent claimed. The entire green industry is fraud. Not one bit of it will change a thing. Count me a skeptic. I think most of what we’re seeing is cyclical. There is ample evidence to prove this out.
I’m still waiting for how “acclaimed” climate scientists faked data and subverted proof contrary to their hypotheses. That wasn’t a problem for you?
[Translate]
Well, it’s either a pipeline or they’re going to ship it by rail. It will get there one way or the other and the pipeline is one hell of a lot safer than rail.
Maybe a bad choice but a choice it must be.
[Translate]
I don’t disagree in principle. But neither the feds nor Enbridge have been able to mitigate circumstances to make sense of the proposal. If they had, my opinion would be different.
Just because someone has a majority, doesn’t mean that they can ram anything they like through. It has to still be legitimized.
[Translate]
you are about the feds and Enbridge being able to mitigate circumstances to make sense of the proposal… but a little off base with the prime minister ,,, with the federal opposition parties being in the condition that they are now PM Harper can and probably will do whatever he wants and if his friends in Alberta and Enbridge want a pipeline a pipeline they will have ( the feds don’t need BC seats just pick up the slack in ONT and QUE ,,, Albertans will stay wiyj them … and as an aside what are your thoughts of the feds awarding an $88,000 a day cobtract worth millions to an accounting group despite the fact that all govt. ministries were told to reduce spending by 5-10 %
[Translate]
Your ‘Hate Harper’ propaganda is boeing. Do you not have another playbook? Your assumptions are ridiculous particularly considering the Feds continue to prove you wrong.
I’m looking into the contract you cite. Unsurprisingly, it’s not as simple as you claim.
In the mean time, please stay on topic.
[Translate]
Alex,
Are you asking people to write to Clark and Harper (1) opposing the pipeline only, or (2) opposing the pipeline and advocating the refining the bitumen in Canada?
Just saying “no” and leaving the bitumen unextracted, serves no economic benefit to Canada. On the otherhand, “value adding” increases investment and permanent payrolls, and probably lessens (or does not increase) the risk of environmental damage.
Clark and Harper are today’s leaders. In B.C., we must also pin down Dix and Cummins, since their parties may control the legislature in 17 months. Are they simply say “no to the pipeline” or “yes to the pipeline” resprectively, or are they committed to the “value added” approach.
We know they monitor your blog, so let’s also challenge them to take a
stand.
[Translate]
Sure, I’ll buy that.
What I’m advocating it for the sludge to be refined here in BC and Alberta and the jobs and benefits remain fully Canadian. That’s what I’d like to see happen. The Prime Minister is way over the top in his support of this and the Premier playing coy is ridiculous. She’s our chief governor. She has a responsibility to take a stand instead of sitting back and waiting for someone to read the tea leaves or stick a wet finger in the air. Christy is a coward.
Thanks for helping me clarify.
[Translate]
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/british-columbia/bc-finance-minister-breaks-ranks-to-bash-pipeline-critics/article2299617/comments/
Falcon sides with Harper. We still have the recall option, anyone in his area willing to tackle this. The man is another scumbag looking to get what Campbell got from Harper. It is to bad that the people do not have the option to call an election, one more year of these scumbag Liberals will just about destroy what is left of our province. ( I can not think of a word LOW enough to describe these people)
[Translate]
Kevin’s position on this is pure pandering, that much is obvious. Sad, but true.
[Translate]
Kevin sides with Harper, simply because he’s cemented at the hip to the Tories.
Kevin’s not a scumbag, but he does have a bit more learnin’ to do.
The Liberals will just about destroy what’s left of our province? Hardly.
Think back to the NDP govenrment. They were told that a forest area north of Tweedsmuir Park was infested with Pine Beetles and the area infested should be cut down. The local foresters and a forest company said they would work together to take the trees out because they were still merchantable. The NDP insisted the trees stay where they are and did.
Guess what happend next?
[Translate]
Fair enough. But one is exclusive of the other.
Kevin’s carrying himself horribly. Not ready for prime time. Very disappointing.
[Translate]
Falcon sides with Harper ’cause he is looking for a new job.
What a sleaze he is for selling out BC interests.
[Translate]
I’m not going to bet on where this is going, but money talks – louder than anything else.
Let’s consider the history of Canada. First it was furs – by canoe, river and lakes. Then it was logs – also by water. Then we had railways, shipping every raw resource that money would buy. Then pipelines.
Always thousands of miles. Infrastrucure built with major foreign investment. Raw resource extraction and export is the history of Canada. We don’t invest in complex industrial systems or in the people needed to run them.
What you are proposing is just not the way this country has ever operated. And that’s a very great shame. Harper promised to change the way this country has been run. I’m betting he won’t.
[Translate]
“No, a huge twin oil pipeline across the NW of BC is a BAD idea, no question. Unfortunately, I can’t envision any practical, locally-based, economic activity that would sustain and invigorate that area and at the same time not generate the ire of the sanctimonious concrete jungle dwellers.”
True. But has any alternatives been looked at and proposed? Will alternate ideas be put forth? Are experts working on providing another solution?
We ned a much wider examination of the various issues.
[Translate]
COMPLETE AGREEMENT.
To present something so potentially devastating as a fait accompli is ridiculous. They haven’t looked at all the options, for if they had, we wouldn’t be feeling like a pipeline is getting jammed down our throats…or up anywhere else…
GREAT comment, Frothy.
[Translate]
It is a shame that, in the runnup to the NEB – JRP hearings, that so much rhetoric and spin came from all sides of this debate (foreign money in NGO’s & Oil Companies, Enbridge and Government ministers and “radical” environmentals). Enbridge and the Petroleum Industry have not clearly communicated why they want to ship diluted bitumen to Asia (and possibly the US west coast refineries) rather than refine it in Canada. When Canada imports oil for consumption in Quebec and the Atlantic Provinces (and to some extend for Ontario), why are we looking to sell oil 1/2 way around the world? The lack of a national energy strategy needs to be addressed.
At present, the Federal Government, through their attacks on “all” who oppose the Enbridge pipeline, are acting as a very divisive agent, causing disent amoungst Canadians, when they should state their evidence, like all the other presentors at the JRP hearings and respect the process.
Alberta’s Royalty system allows for Oil Sands producers to recover all costs involved in developing operations with minimal cost (1% of revenues) until all costs are recovered. If this extends to capitol costs for refining facilities, surely there would be a strong business case for building those facilities in Alberta.
Also, the Federal Government seems to be asleep at the switch when it comes to foreign ownership of, in this case, Alberta resources. We may have alreay passed a tipping point with China having so much invested now in the Oil Sands resource. They, and others, will be pushing to ramp up production, especially if the Northern Gateway is approved and built and we, Canada, will loose control over our resource.
[Translate]
Quite right…
[Translate]
Alex – great article
Out of curiosity, doesn’t our current system of pipelines run the same environmental risks, running across equally vast amounts of territory? ie – and their safety record is pretty good?
Or is this one on a different scale entirely?
I don’t know -
[Translate]
Thank you.
Yes, it’s on a completely different scale and it is proposed to carry exceedingly toxic bitumen.
[Translate]
Alex, I wonder how many people remember we had a refinery here in Kamloops. But it was shutdown, dismantled and shipped to China. Why, because our production costs were to high. Similarly let us count the thousands of wealth creating jobs have been shipped overseas for the same reason. Now I’m not advocating shipping our raw materials over seas (read China) so they can get rich. Let us build refineries, but I’m afraid in a few short years the production costs will again be to high. Why, labour costs, taxes, hiring on quota not merit, etc. In my case if not for the Union I would be in deep doodoo, but I believe everyone, Unions, Gov, Oil Companies have gotten very greedy. If this continues we will have no jobs in Canada. Then What?
[Translate]
NOTE TO READERS: SUPERB COMMENT REQUIRED READING.
Absolutely correct.
[Translate]
Seymore, I remember the Harcourt NDP well, It was Carrier Lumber that made many, many small mills, He had a contract with old Bil VZ’s government to take out the then bug killed trees, he had many indian tribes set up to do the work with these small portable mills. Harcourt came into power and just to show the social credit who was now boss he reneged on the contract with Carrier and so the bugs as we see them today. We tax payers paid for Harcourts blunder because along with the loss of all these trees, 300 million we paid to Carrier’s daughter for the broken contract which about distroyed Carrier. Falcon or anyone else that would do damage to our province for personal gain is in my humble opinion a scumbag.
Also Crristy sits on the fence as she has been doing since she came along, doing absolutely nothing. What a total waste she has turned out to be. Disgraceful to say the least.
[Translate]
She’s not on the fence anymore, she’s in a conflict of interest.
Her new Chief of Staff is a former senior lobbyist for Enbridge!!!!!!!
Coincidence, right?
[Translate]
Alex, I agree with your suggestion of refining the oil in Canada. Certainly worthy of consideration. I disagree with you on the pipeline and the Tankers, however.
Consider that the TRANS Mountain line has been in use since 1953! Almost 60 years. And to be sure that line crossed through lots of ‘environmentally sensitive’ areas. If the same protest movement had been around back then and had the pipeline been stopped, where would we on the coast be for oil and gas? Can you imagine how many trains or trucks would be required to move 300,000 barrels per day?
Consider also that the tanker owners do not want the liability of a spill, so safety is In their best interest too.
There are more than 3500 deep sea ships visiting Vancouver every year. That is about 7000 trips through the narrow confines of Haro Strait. Plus hundreds of tankers running down Juan de Fuca heading for Anacortes and Ferndale. Should all those ships be stopped too? Is Douglas Channel more precious than the Gulf Islands?
[Translate]
No, of course it’s not, but the waters up to the sandspit often get deck-level tides and oil tankers are VERY unstable in that kind of weather.
The more efficient TRANS Mountain is a different kettle of fish than jamming bitumen into a cross-province proposition and demanding that no leak happen. The TRANS Mountain is also configured differently.
The example is not like. In fact, there is no example you can cite that is at all like to the proposed Enbridge line.
[Translate]
I have it disagree with you Alex on this one,
we need the line, as far as Alberta getting most of the benefits,
its their product and all Canadians will benefit.thru takes
and spin offs.
[Translate]
But does the danger not resonate with you? I understand what you’re saying and don;t disagree that we could use more profit centers to bolster our economy, but honestly, that is just really, really pristine land. It’s majesty is breathtaking. Any spill or accident would put me in tears.
When we talk about really protecting the environment, instead of supporting Al Gore’s lies, this is the kind of project that we should reject without delay.
[Translate]
Do we know if there are any leases payable to BC for the pipeline?
[Translate]
None
[Translate]
This is Harpers albatross . Stephen Harper is destroying the Conservative Party and dragging Canada down into the sewer he cralwed out of . I truly thought it would have taken a couple of years before his idiotic bravado and convoluted reality would sink any credibility this government has , i was wrong . It’s sad really I am drifting slowly into the dark side (ie: right wing politics ) . I will admit that some policies make a lot of sense and do seem to have merit , even from my some times fog-bank lefty views . Alex this article is why BC has and should have a tremendous respect for you . I must retract the ” soft on your own comment ” ….cheers
[Translate]
Thank you but I must caution you not to use such inflammatory language against the Prime Minister. I despised Trudeau, but while Prime Minister, I never would have suggested he crawled out of the gutter, although I would suggest there is more evidence that he dwelled there than the current PM.
Very kind words. Thanks again.
[Translate]
Thank you for such a strong argument in opposition to the Enbridge proposal.
I’ve been sitting on the fence.
I too support Ezra Levant’s argument that it is “ethical oil” as opposed to what we can get from Nigeria, Venezuela and the Arab world.
Although I prefer the term “oil sands” over the one you used, I strongly support your argument.
[Translate]
Thanks Sean. I’m an old timer–to me it’s Tar Sands….
[Translate]
Before I start I should disclose that I am the father of a Kinder Morgan employee , a grandfather in law of a pipe line construction worker and the owner of an RV park that hosted pipe line employees during the recent pipe line doubling extension by Kinder Morgan through Jasper and Mt Robson Parks.
When twinning the line they proceeded through the parks under constant monitoring by parks staff who ensured that every bit of flora and fauna were protected or restored after the pipeline was in place. (The Robson Park manager is a member of our golf club who kept us well informed about the protection of our park. ) There are still many specially maintained areas growing along the right away that one can observe as one drives through the parks. KM has pumping stations every 100 k or so and indentured trades staff living within an hour for each of these stations who are on call and who are backed up with a second on call 24/7. Never mind the extreme amount of monitoring and maintenance of the pumping stations, even the right of way is patrolled on a regular basis to be sure downfall is removed so access would not be impeded should it be required. No pipeline is completely safe but the maintenance schedule and staffing involved with the KM pipeline certainly gives a level of security for our environment that in no way exists when thinking about the Enbridge pipeline project. The obvious safest answer for moving petroleum products to the coast is to support the KM doubling of their line.
We were on the Alaska cruise last fall and experienced first hand some of the rough seas on the inside passage. On two occasions the Captain took an outside route, missing stops, to avoid danger. Waves were as high as the top decks. It was an unusually severe storm according to the crew but not an unusual happening. It is not hard to imagine how difficult it will be to navigate a huge tanker with thousands of square feet of surface for the winds to blow towards shore or onto the many shallow areas on the inside passage. Huge tankers in there will be a disaster just waiting to happen.
Not that long ago that part of Ripple Rock was blasted off and it is still an “exciting” trip past it.
[Translate]
Super comment! Very well expressed.
[Translate]
Thanks for this post Alex …
After hearing the announcement of Ken Boessenkool to Christy’s staff I did a curiosity search.
I remember Mr. Boessenkool was lobbying for the Arizona Taser Company after the death of Robert Dziekanski at Vancouver Airport…
His lobbying resume was rather interesting, so I thought I’d share with fellow readers… interesting connections.
https://ocl-cal.gc.ca/app/secure/orl/lrrs/do/publicBasicSearch;jsessionid=0001WAAkGdhFqR0nxOg5SkmJv-2:-10GAGE6?V_SEARCH.command=navigate&V_TOKEN=1326408939292&V_SEARCH.docsStart=51
[Translate]
As reported here last week. Both McDonald and Pantazopoulos shuffled, replaced by a career lobbyist–who among many high profile clients, counted ENBRIDGE!
Absurd.
She’s just put her entire office in a conflict of interest. Tomorrow, I’ll tell you why.
[Translate]
My understanding is that CN and CP are preparing a rail car answer to transporting the oil to the coast in the event the pipeline gets blown away.
From what I hear they could start transporting by rail tomorrow if they wanted to start just not the oil industry’s first choice.
[Translate]
Correct on all counts.
[Translate]
this comment..
“My understanding is that CN and CP are preparing a rail car answer to transporting the oil to the coast in the event the pipeline gets blown away.”
Doesn’t this make the sale of BC Rail an even bigger insult to the citizens of British Columbia?
[Translate]
Sure. No pipeline, the McLeans benefit greatly.
[Translate]
I live in what used to be a resource town on the Coast of B.C….2 saw mills and a pulp mill ,10 years ago till now they are all gone,yet I see log tow after log tow going by and most of them are being shipped out as raw logs.This is complete B.S….I totally agree our natural resources should be value added right here….oh yea there used to be comercial fishing here also…
[Translate]
Shameful, if you ask me. I agree with you!!!
[Translate]
No argument here. We should be refining in Canada to ensure a stable domestic supply first. No contrived shortages for easy to manipulate markets and the usual long weekend gouging. Kamloops and Taylor both lost refineries. Taylor ironically was dumped by Petro Canada (weren’t they here to ensure domestic supply)to the UAE. Strange that such high volume producers could see value in a small refinery and we couldn’t.
Most of the reason for our refineries being viewed as inefficient is that product standards are much lower in some developing countries. Costs are considerably higher to make the gasoline and ultra low sulphur diesel we use here. Factor that into any argument on non competitive Canadian refineries and clean fuel for export. Processed products going to the coast via rail for furtherance by tanker are far less risky due to their higher flash point than crude oil. Although still a mess a few rail car loads of product do not amount to anywhere near the volume released by miles of oil pipeline operating at hundreds of PSI.
The best option is still to ship LNG produced in BC, both from a BC jobs and environmental perspective as it is a safer fuel to ship and cleaner when burned. The condensate/ NGLs produced with the gas can be shipped to Alberta for diluent as is being done now with the exception of what is shipped out on the Alliance pipeline to the US.
None of this will be considered in this deal I am afraid as Harper’s allegiance lies clearly in Calgary and BC will once again get a slap from the east. Except for Falcon.
[Translate]
Mainstream media companies are probably rubbing their hands together knowing that the PR blitz is about to begin. Advertising dollars from Big oil and our government(s) will be a winfall. The money coming will make the HST PR battle look like pocket change.
[Translate]
Very interesting perspective.
[Translate]
I originate from the BC Peace River area. Fracking is causing a toxic mess. Crude oil is bad enough, but bitumen is downright nasty stuff. It makes sense to process the stuff here in Canada and enjoy the economic spinoffs. Unfortunately, with so much foreign ownership/investment it is akin to telling the customer who buys his bag of groceries at Safeway that he must pay to have the food prepared for him before he is able to take it home (and I don’t mean the deli!). Besides, the processing, etc, in China would serve to further inflate their already exaggerated GDP numbers.
I remind people of the KM oil spill some 5 years ago in Burnaby, on Burrard Inlet. This was oil, and response time was rapid resulting in a “minimal” spill (if there ever could be such a thing). The effects of the spill are still being felt. Now envision a bitumen spill in a rugged wilderness area of BC. Enbridge has a history of poor response and responsibility with respect to their spills. Why would this pipeline be any different? Compound that with difficulty accessing the spill area because of rugged terrain, inclement weather, and a host of other factors, and it could be a ticking time bomb. I suppose it would give them time and opportunity to sprinkle some kitty litter on the spill, cover it all with dirt and say “Oops, sure hope nobody saw that…”
This pipeline must not happen!
[Translate]
Very well put.
[Translate]
Are you aware that there is an oil pipeline bringing oil from Alberta to Vancouver? And that it’s been there for 58 years? I know because I live within a mile of it. It actually had a spill a couple of years ago when a backhoe operator working for the city of Burnaby cut through it. It made the news; several houses were damaged by crude oil and their residents had to leave while the site was cleaned up and new houses built for them. Lasting environmental damage? None I’m aware of.
There also a gas pipeline on the other side of my house in Coquitlam, but it’s not a mile away — it’s a block away. Nobody in the neighborhood seems to be losing any sleep over it.
So if this is okay for the Lower Mainland, why not the north? Don’t we already have gas and oil pipelines from northern B.C. to Alberta? Greens are against everything. They lie like they breathe.
Here’s an alternate scenario to get around the fanatic greens and the hand-out-for-the-handout natives: ship the oil by rail to Prince Rupert. Big windfall for CN, absolutely, but at least it’s not on the very BC Rail tracks. Prince Rupert makes more sense as an oil port than Kitimat anyways.
Alternate scenario B: a larger pipe or a second line on the existing pipeline to Vancouver. Oh, excuse me, that one’s already being done and Gregor Robertson’s already had a tantrum about it.
[Translate]
The pipelines you refer to do not cross the province through 800 streams and the most sensitive regions in the province.
[Translate]
Hmmm. For sure there is no way to guarantee 100% no leaks. However, how many leaks were discovered by a party that wasn’t the company running the pipeline? And, really, what damage from the leaks have you heard about that are more than a week or two on a backhoe to fix? Who fixed them by law?
One kinda alarm last year in NA. How many kms of pipelines in NA?
http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=pipelines+north+america
How many products can you get from refining?
HINT: Gas isn’t the only product.
QUESTION: Wouldn’t you need a separate pipeline for each product?
BTW: Queen of the North – what ever happened to the 220,000 liters of diesel she was carrying?
[Translate]
It’s absorbed by the habitat. Marvelously damaging.
[Translate]
For once i agree with something youve written.
This pipeline is certain pre-meditated Eco-Homocide and should be fought till the bitter end.
[Translate]
Oh, how I’ll sleep better tonight knowing that an ass like you agrees with me. You’ve written me anonymously a few times and I’m wondering how come you haven’t followed through with any of your threats? I’m still here waiting for you and your pals to show up. What’s the matter tough guy, no guts?
Nice email you use too: cunt@mac.com
The only reason I’m publishing your insignificant note ot me is to illustrate to all other REASONABLE and SANE readers what I go through in bringing truth to light. Heavy partisan dimwits like you are the reason this country has so many problems.
Now, go away.
[Translate]
Threats ? me and my pals ? like i would need anyone to handle myself against you, bitch please ,outside of calling you the spoiled trust funder that you are and pointing out that you had a silver spoon in your mouth from mommy and daddy all your life i’ve never threatened you.
hardly a threat unless you dont want everyone to know that your a rich kid from Kerrisdale that pretends to be a tough guy.
[Translate]
So why are you hiding? If I’m such a push over, come out and tell me in person!!!
Name it. I have all your emails still, you made the threats, now you’re denying them. Come out and meet me and repeat the lies you just wrote. My family wasn’t wealthy until I was well out of university. My father struggled to pay for my tuition to Saints. Yes, we lived in comfortable surroundings, but you have no clue what went on in our house, the sacrifices we made and you continue to insult my immigrant parents be making outlandish claims which are untrue. Should my parents apologize for doing well? I’d like to talk to you about this in person, so you either stop being a coward and contact me now, or I’ll find you.
Besides, what do my almost eighty year old parents have to do with me??? OTher than visiting or speaking on the phone, their life belongs to them as mine does to me.
Are you at all well?!
I’ve decided to deal with some of your type this year. Let’s see how much I just “think” I’m tough. You made the threats, at least follow through on them. you’re obviously a far left eco-nut.
I will not be publishing any of your comments again until you either apologize or meet me in person and repeat your threats and insults against my family. I’m really tired of the coward routine people like you play.
Put up or shut up, sweetie. agtsakumis@gmail.com
[Translate]
Alex,
Heaven knows that, while many times I have questioned your take on certain subjects, I have never questioned your integrity. That is to be expected given our political viewpoints. However, where you have tons of “street cred” with people like me is that you are willing to look beyond your partisan tendencies and examine what is right and what is wrong. If all of us were willing to be more open minded like that, we’d all be a lot better off.
I have one question to pose to those who support the pipeline for the argument of jobs and money: How much money would I have to pay you to play Russian Roulette, once an hour, for the rest of your life, with a 100 chambered revolver? A million? 100 million? 50 Billion? The caveat is, that by taking the money, once you die, by bullet or by old age, you are committing your children, grandchildren, and offspring down the line to pick up the revolver and continue on playing the game whether they want to or not.
That’s what the Enbridge pipeline is. Plain and simple.
[Translate]
NOTE TO READERS: SUPERB COMMENT–REQUIRED READING.
NB–I didn’t write that because of your kind words. I am balanced and more than fair. That’s why I get the readership of over 200,000 per month and am lauded even by some of my critics in the rest of the media. Contrary to popular belief, I DON’T play favorites. The pipeline is wrong and the Tories are wrong to act as if it’s a fait accompli. Thanks again for your kind words. Your roulette analogy is perfect! Kudos!
[Translate]
But no aspect of life is risk free. Every day you get out of bed and risk an accidental death. If you live long enough it is almost 100% likely to happen. But if you mitigate the risks life is worth it. I believe so anyway.
[Translate]
Even Enbridge admits there is no guarantee there won’t be spills with this pipeline. Here is an example of how they deal with spills, and this one is in a relatively accessible area, not in the wilderness the proposed line will traverse.
http://northerninsights.blogspot.com/2012/01/enbridges-empty-promises.html
And unfortunately spills are neither infrequent, nor minor:
http://www.thestar.com/business/article/1114987–keystone-northern-gateway-pipelines-raise-questions-that-need-answers-before-approval
[Translate]
Yeah, I completely agree with you.
Empty promises indeed.
[Translate]
Roulette indeed!
“Enbridge affiliates have had 175 leaks, spills over 10 years in U.S.”
Read more: http://www.ottawacitizen.com/technology/Enbridge+affiliates+have+leaks+spills+over+years/5987092/story.html#ixzz1jMvXbK1Z?
But you can never win!
[Translate]
I read this piece. Terry is a friend and I respect him very much, but what the Prime Minister inappropriately referred to and what the Chinese are doing are two very different things–although the result is the same.
The radical left American foundations investing in the eco-freak war is offside. But not any less than the Chinese playing coy at climate conferences while they buy up significant interests in tar sands companies.
Terry’s revelations don’t make the former any less significant because the latter is equally abhorrent. But I agree, none of us win in this process.
[Translate]
http://youtu.be/XlXWIUsWP48
You can skip ahead to 3:15
[Translate]
I have a friend who has had similar experiences with Enbridge. This is why I’m against the pipeline–one spill or disaster and the potential for millions of lives being upturned is just too great a risk. It’s not responsible govt to be supporting this project. It’s just wrong.
There must be another way.
Thanks for sharing this. It puts a fine point on the possible devastation.
[Translate]
Could the folks who say ‘we’ should build refineries please define what ‘we’ means? I hope it doesn’t mean Canada as in government owned refineries. I hope it doesn’t mean companies will be forced to upgrade and refine when the market says the best return is in crude. It isn’t going to mean you and I (voluntarily) under the present price structure because at $100/bbl oil and current refining margins I believe the investment and labor is more effectively put into more oil production than refined products. So what does ‘we’ mean?
Although I wouldn’t want to invest in refining please do so if you are so inclined. I don’t think crude producers care too much who they sell to. But I have a few more questions-when you refine and have several products will you then build multiple pipelines for export? Will this really be safer? When will you have these refineries built and where will they be? I don’t think the Alberta labor market can accommodate refinery expansion in addition to planned crude production expansion.
[Translate]
Go read Peter Loughheed’s column.
You’ll see what we means to Alberta, who are the owners of the oilsands sludge that everyone is concerned about.
For me, we means BC too! We should find creative ways of partnering with Shell and Chevron who had/have refining facilities and holding bays in BC. I don’t know what that will look like since we don’t know from the regulatory board(s) if this project is even recommended yet.
In a sense, you’re asking for an answer to a question that hasn’t been completely formulated yet.
Is it a crime for people, like me, who are concerned with environmental catastrophe to be offering general options or opinions? I think not.
[Translate]
This whole discussion is generally being conducted with respect and for that I thank you.
However. Peter Lougheed doesn’t speak for anyone but himself since he bailed out in ’86 after establishing a high cost regime that wasn’t sustainable with $12-18 oil.
If BC wants to establish refineries instead, wonderful. If you want to put them just on the Alberta border to avoid pipelines that’s OK too. How you move the products after might be a challenge but I’m sure you’re up to it. The process and getting it profitable with competition from established refiners is out of my league. For what it’s worth: north of Calgary at Balzac in about ’82 Turbo built a refinery. When I did a contract for them in ’86 or so oil was worth $10-12 and a foreman there that with low oil prices it was more profitable to refine. The place went broke anyway and it had been built in modules so the components were shipped out and sold to the Ukraine. Refining isn’t the money making, job creating industry it’s thought by some to be. And at $100/bbl a new refinery is gonna have a tough go.
[Translate]
Perhaps. That’s why Im saying I’d like to see the full text of an agreement, in fact, the entire layout of how such a deal could be mapped out and only then decide how to split the pie. I agree it will be challenging, but I’m looking for answers to getting the bitumen to market and not dwelling on the obviousness of the fact we cannot afford the risk of catastrophic environmental degradation.
Thanks for your input. I’m enjoying and learning from your learned comments. Very useful background and knowledge you have there, Sir!
[Translate]
I appreciate that you don’t have the question completely formulated yet. But general options and opinions aren’t what is needed now. We’re beyond that point. We’ve had the discussion about the relative profitability of those various options and the answer has been that the volume involved can’t reasonably be refined/upgraded profitably here compared to using those resources to produce crude and considering crude prices vs refining spreads. That’s why the term ‘we’ makes me nervous. If it was a optimum way to allocate resources don’t you figure a company would be doing it now?
[Translate]
So the billions in clean up costs for any moderate spill don’t warrant a refinery option where the profits aren’t as great as a pipeline, but likely safer since you’d be using less of the product at a time to truck or train to port?
According to my calculator…
[Translate]
I hadn’t considered that aspect. I shall ruminate on that. It seems the conflict here is that as in any decision making process different people put different values on the varous outcomes, intended or otherwise.
How about double walled rail cars to the coast? Either for crude or ref’d product? I was pricing those a while back. About $150 thousand vs $100 thousand for a single wall. 525000 bbls/day= about 8 unit trains. CN claims it can rail at a lower carbon foot print than pipe. I presume this equates to lower fuel cost because of zero pressure to maintain. If bitumin was railed no condensate would be required.
BTW as a TransCanada and Enbridge shareholder I’m partial to pipelines. And ‘all things being equal’ I’d prefer the oil to go on the scenic route around the world at least three times before retiring to a refinery. I’m sure each bbl has a bucket list it would like to see before…well…uknow.
[Translate]
Very good! LOL!
I think the railcar idea has great merit and should be looked at.
Thanks for your pithy comments.
[Translate]
Since nobody else has asked this question, I’m going to. Absolutely no snark intended, I appreciate the serious discussion. The question is this — if greens are powerful enough to stop this pipeline, why would they allow refineries?
[Translate]
They wouldn’t. And they’re not powerful enough to do jack squat. If Elizabeth May were running against a decent Tory candidate instead of Lunn, or if she ran in any other riding, she’d still be serving us drinks in the bar at the Motel 6.
[Translate]
Have a listen to this interview with Ezra Levant from July 2011. Surprisingly Elizabeth May seems to support the idea of new refineries. Skip to 8:00 to get to the meat. This isn’t related to the Enbridge pipeline, but a good interview none the less.
http://en.video.canoe.tv/video/news/across_canada/1896809958/may-we-chat/1071366859001/page/8
[Translate]
Yes, I remember it well. It doesn’t surprise me. Politicians in this country will say ANYTHING to get elected.
The bottom line is that while I respect Ezra very much and believe that Alberta oil is indeed ‘ethical’ in comparison to Saudi or Venezuelan oil, the Enbridge pipeline is dangerous oil. There has to be another way.
Thanks for this. Much appreciation.
[Translate]
Pipelines transport multiple petroleum products. Diesel, crude, gasolene are transported with the lines being flushed between products. Staff can even upload the oil in the bearing cooling sumps to the line while transporting crude, thus not even wasting the drips of product from the bearings on the pumps.
[Translate]
Thanks for the info – I’m wallowing in a little less ignorance than yesterday.
[Translate]
I would like to come at this whole situation from another angle.
What is the big rush to extract as much bitumin,as quickly as possible, from the oil/tar sands? We have been told for years that the traditional sources of petroleum are nearing their end while the demand for it is increasing. By all accounts we are also being told that Alberta, and I assume Canada’s bottom line, are doing quite well as things are today. Is it not prudent to think that as petroleum products become more scarce and demands greater that the value of this resource will only increase?
What happens when the oil/tar sands are depleted, which is inevitible? Does the country go bankrupt?
Maybe it’s time that we quit buying the spiel, that we are constantly being bombarded with, that we hire/elect the best and brightest to look after our best interests when all they can come up with is nothing more than plucking the low hanging fruit with little regard for the impact on the future and future generations. There is always a tomorrow.
[Translate]
Some logical points in there, Cranky…
[Translate]
Sorry Alex, can’t agree on this one. We all know that Tides is involved in funding those environmental groups and the Tories are absolutely right to call those groups out for their interference. Any organization that helped bring us Mayor Moonbeam is not to be believed.
[Translate]
Sure, I don’t disagree, but can you tell me why it should be any less shameful that Enbridge financially supports Ethical Oil?
[Translate]
Great post! Another point that makes this really bad for BC is that the whole point of these pipelines is to increase the price that Alberta gets for its oil. That means that prices could go up 10% or more. The people of BC would be essentially buying oil on the world open market which will likely be subject to huge spikes over the coming years. One blogger estimated that this will cost BC $700 million a year. I think he made the mistake of assuming the whole cost of gas is the crude price but at any rate, the cost could be in the $100 of millions per year.
Now I personally don’t have a problem with higher oil prices and support carbon taxes and the like. The difference is that unlike the carbon tax revenue, which stays in the BC economy, the revenue from crude price increases will flow to Alberta and the foreign companies that are investing in the oil sands.
The Carbon Tax, on the other hand, by reducing oil use, likely has resulted in less money flowing out of the BC economy to Alberta and the foreign companies involved in the oil sands.
So, essentially, Northern Gateway will result in a massive flow of wealth from BC to Alberta in return for maybe a 100 long-term jobs and a huge potential environmental downside. It is just a really bad deal for BC.
[Translate]
I’d entirely agree with you, IF, the Carbon Tax was halved and put strictly towards transit. OTherwise, it’s a tax grab that has had NOTHING to do for the environment.
Thanks for the kind words.
[Translate]
Agreed. It should be used on transit or other projects that enable people to reduce fuel usage.
[Translate]
That I can agree with. Look, I don’t believe in alarmism. But if we can do something that will help the environment, I’m all for it.
[Translate]