Northern Gateway a must?

[Guest Peeves]

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/northern-gateway-hearings-start-kitimat-b-c-5-090007413.html

I certainly think it's necessary so long as our energy sources continue to demand an oil supply.

I think the 'disaster claims are hyperbole and pretty much nonsense. If there is a threat it will come from domestic ecoterrorists.

"a major target of Canadian and international environmental groups that are gearing up for a public relations battle that pits environmental protection against economic development.

Truncated, balance at link.

VICTORIA - It's being called a nation-builder, nation-divider and non-starter.

Depending on who's talking, the proposed Northern Gateway oil pipeline project has the potential to make Canada rich, while risking an environmental disaster on the scale of the Exxon Valdez oil spill.

Federal regulatory hearings for Enbridge Inc.'s (TSX:ENB) controversial and anticipated $5.5 billion twin pipeline proposal to carry Alberta crude oil to the West Coast for export to Asia start Tuesday in northwest B.C. in Kitimat, the proposed oil tanker port.

More than 4,300 individuals and groups have registered to speak at the hearings conducted by two federal environmental bodies over the next 18 months or more across British Columbia and Alberta.

Northern Gateway is being billed as the largest private infrastructure project in B.C. history.

But it's also a major target of Canadian and international environmental groups that are gearing up for a public relations battle that pits environmental protection against economic development.

The recent U.S. government decision to delay by at least one year the $7-billion proposed Keystone XL pipeline expansion project, connecting Alberta oil to Texas, has put the Enbridge proposal in the sights of international environmental groups.

First Nations are also joining the process, with at least 60 B.C. aboriginal groups vowing to fight the project at every step, but others signing deals with Enbridge, or seriously considering company offers of a 10 per cent stake in the enterprise.

"Single-handedly, (Northern Gateway) would add about $270 billion to the Canadian gross domestic product," said Paul Stanway, Enbridge's communications spokesman.

"You can buy a lot of hospitals and schools with that kind of money."

He said the project will create about 1,150 full-time jobs in Alberta and B.C. He said suggestions by environmental groups that earlier Enbridge estimates of as few as 45 full-time jobs were "nonsense."

[eyeball]

First Nations are also joining the process, with at least 60 B.C. aboriginal groups vowing to fight the project at every step, but others signing deals with Enbridge, or seriously considering company offers of a 10 per cent stake in the enterprise.

Those nations who are signing deals with Enbridge will ultimately determine whether this pipeline goes through or not. There is little else that really seems to matter in terms of land and marine use planning in British Columbia anymore. I think once a First Nation supports something industrial, like a fish farm for example, the rest of the approval process is mere paperwork.

I certainly don't think it's a must but it won't matter one bit what me or the rest of British Columbians or Canadians thinks if Enbridge gets a string of deals that correlate to the pipeline's route...the paperwork on on the rest of the process will fly like greased shit through a goose.

[dpwozney]

Griffiths urges capital-region mayors to promote Gateway pipeline

By Elise Stolte, edmontonjournal.com December 8, 2011

[trimmed]

Companies pipe raw bitumen because that’s more cost effective, said Nathan Lemphers, senior analyst at the Pembina Institute.

When a company upgrades the bitumen here, they have to ship each different product - aviation fuel, gasoline, diesel - as a separate batch or in a different pipeline. If companies upgrade it close to where they sell those final products, those costs are reduced.

“It’s more profitable for oil companies to build upgraders elsewhere,” Lemphers said.

Alberta will only get more upgraders if the provincial government makes local upgrading of a portion of the bitumen a requirement in the permitting process, he said. “It’s quite presumptuous to think that by building more pipelines, you’ll have more upgraders.”

[ complete article is at this link ]

[dpwozney]

When a company upgrades the bitumen here, they have to ship each different product - aviation fuel, gasoline, diesel - as a separate batch or in a different pipeline.

There is a difference between upgrading bitumen and refining oil.

An upgrader is a facility that upgrades bitumen into synthetic crude oil.

An oil refinery refines crude oil into petroleum products such as gasoline, diesel fuel, asphalt base, heating oil, kerosene, and liquefied petroleum gas.

When a company upgrades bitumen in Canada, the company can still export the upgraded synthetic crude oil without having to refine the synthetic crude oil in Canada.

So when a company upgrades bitumen in Canada, the company can still export the upgraded synthetic crude oil without having “to ship each different product - aviation fuel, gasoline, diesel - as a separate batch or in a different pipeline”.

[The_Squid]

Of course it is not a "must".

If the environmental costs are too high, the idea should be scrapped.

[Guest Peeves]

Of course it is not a "must".

If the environmental costs are too high, the idea should be scrapped.

Environmental costs as compared to getting oil from where?

[The_Squid]

Environmental costs as compared to getting oil from where?

You are going to have to be a bit more clear about what you are asking...

[fellowtraveller]

I am having some diffucluty understanding the selective oppositon to the Gateway Pipeline.

Are the same opponents also lining up to shut down the massive, daily tanker traffic that has existed for decades on the East Coast, feeding oil from the Middle East/Venezuela refineries in Montreal and Saint JOnh New Brunswick? Are they opposing the pipelines that exist between Quebec and Ontario that supply crude to Central Canada and the nmassive gas pipelines that bring natural gas to Toronto from Alberta?

Are they boycotting and blockading the existing enormous tanker trafffic through the iNland Paasge from Valdez Alaska to the West Coast?

How is the East Coast of Canada now entirely different environmentally from the West Coast?

[The_Squid]

How is the East Coast of Canada now entirely different environmentally from the West Coast?

It may not be any different. THen again, one may have nothing to do with the other.... Maybe east coasters are willing to accept more risk to their environment than those on the west coast? Who knows....

[eyeball]

I am having some diffucluty understanding the selective oppositon to the Gateway Pipeline.

How is the East Coast of Canada now entirely different environmentally from the West Coast?

On the face of it I'd say moving oil down the east coast of North America probably makes more ecological sense because the weather systems of the planet move from west to east. When oil spills off the East Coast it'll blow away from North America out into the Atlantic and break up before hitting the other side. When it spills into the Pacific off the West Coast the oil will have little if any chance to break up before it makes landfall.

Of course Europe might take a dim view to that so the ethical thing from a North American perspective is to move North American oil, especially if it's from western NA, through the Pacific so we in North America are responsible when we lose control of it.

Of course I live right on the west coast and depend on the ocean for my livelihood so I obviously would like to see less oil being moved through my region, not more.

Wouldn't it be more efficient to move energy intensive manufacturing industries and raw materials to where the energy is, rather than the other way around? Perhaps we'd do better economically and environmentally if we offered really cheap energy to industries in exchange for locating here.

Edited January 10, 2012 by eyeball

[fellowtraveller]

Of course I live right on the west coast and depend on the ocean for my livelihood so I obviously would like to see less oil being moved through my region, not more.

I see, so you were not aware of the massive tankers that have been moving oil down your very own coast for decades, from a place called Alaska?

On the face of it I'd say moving oil down the east coast of North America probably makes more ecological sense

So a supertanker that runs aground near Montreal in the St Lawrence River would only foul Ireland coasts? I did not know that.

Wouldn't it be more efficient to move energy intensive manufacturing industries and raw materials to where the energy is, rather than the other way around?

It is so hard to convince places like Chicago to shut down and move everybody to , say, Red Deer. The most energy efficienet and safest way to move hydrocarbons like oil around is, surprisingly, in pipelines. Who would have guessed?

[dpwozney]

There is a difference between upgrading bitumen and refining oil.

An upgrader is a facility that upgrades bitumen into synthetic crude oil.

An oil refinery refines crude oil into petroleum products such as gasoline, diesel fuel, asphalt base, heating oil, kerosene, and liquefied petroleum gas.

When a company upgrades bitumen in Canada, the company can still export the upgraded synthetic crude oil without having to refine the synthetic crude oil in Canada.

So when a company upgrades bitumen in Canada, the company can still export the upgraded synthetic crude oil without having “to ship each different product - aviation fuel, gasoline, diesel - as a separate batch or in a different pipeline”.

It is not a “must” that “when a company upgrades the bitumen here, they have to ship each different product - aviation fuel, gasoline, diesel - as a separate batch or in a different pipeline”, as is claimed in this Edmonton Journal article.

So, in answer to the question “Northern Gateway a must?” in the thread title, it is not a “must” to export bitumen, as the proposed Northern Gateway pipeline would do.

Not only is it not a “must” to export bitumen, it should make more sense and should be more cost effective and profitable to export upgraded synthetic crude oil.

One problem with the proposed Northern Gateway pipeline project is that the cost of pipelining non-upgraded high-viscosity bitumen, or heavy oil, from Alberta is much higher than the cost of pipelining upgraded low-viscosity light oil.

For the proposed Northern Gateway project, a westbound pipeline would transport both high-viscosity heavy oil or bitumen and diluent, and an eastbound pipeline would transport diluent.

Compared to the alternative of instead just pumping upgraded low-viscosity light oil on a westbound pipeline, power costs would be higher and more pipeline space would be required because:

(1) more fluid volume, a combination of diluent and heavy oil or bitumen, will be pumped; and,

(2) on the extra eastbound pipeline, diluent will be pumped uphill from sea level elevation to a higher elevation near Edmonton.

Power costs are the biggest part of Enbridge’s operating costs.

Despite the fact that the proposed Northern Gateway pipeline project is not a “must”, Alison Redford claims that it “is of national importance and is critical to Canada's future economic strength”, according to this CTV article.

Edited January 10, 2012 by dpwozney

[Guest Peeves]

It is not a “must” that “when a company upgrades the bitumen here, they have to ship each different product - aviation fuel, gasoline, diesel - as a separate batch or in a different pipeline”, as is claimed in this Edmonton Journal article.

So, in answer to the question “Northern Gateway a must?” in the thread title, it is not a “must” to export bitumen, as the proposed Northern Gateway pipeline would do.

Not only is it not a “must” to export bitumen, it should make more sense and should be more cost effective and profitable to export upgraded synthetic crude oil.

One problem with the proposed Northern Gateway pipeline project is that the cost of pipelining non-upgraded high-viscosity bitumen, or heavy oil, from Alberta is much higher than the cost of pipelining upgraded low-viscosity light oil.

For the proposed Northern Gateway project, a westbound pipeline would transport both high-viscosity heavy oil or bitumen and diluent, and an eastbound pipeline would transport diluent.

Compared to the alternative of instead just pumping upgraded low-viscosity light oil on a westbound pipeline, power costs would be higher and more pipeline space would be required because:

(1) more fluid volume, a combination of diluent and heavy oil or bitumen, will be pumped; and,

(2) on the extra eastbound pipeline, diluent will be pumped uphill from sea level elevation to a higher elevation near Edmonton.

Power costs are the biggest part of Enbridge’s operating costs.

Despite the fact that the proposed Northern Gateway pipeline project is not a “must”, Alison Redford claims that it “is of national importance and is critical to Canada's future economic strength”, according to this CTV article.

good stuff, thanks.

[fellowtraveller]

good stuff, thanks.

missing from that info is the fact that 60% of bitumen output from the oil sands is already upgraded in Alberta, into synthetic crude

[Guest Peeves]

missing from that info is the fact that 60% of bitumen output from the oil sands is already upgraded in Alberta, into synthetic crude

How do the 'greeners' conclude that shipping oil is less a potential for eco disaster I wonder.

[Battletoads]

I have no problem with it, The government of Alberta and the corporate interests involved just need to legally be on the line for any environmental damage, both immediate and long term. Not a big request, seeing as we have these super-safe never leak tankers.

Oh, and I'm sure the pipeline could never leak either.

Edited January 10, 2012 by Battletoads

[prairiechickin]

Oh, and I'm sure the pipeline could never leak either.

I'm sure the potential for leaks exists, but then again airplanes crash but we don't stop flying. I must say I'm a little confused at all this sudden concern about pipelines. There are tens of thousands of miles of pipelines connecting the American and Canadian energy sectors and these systems have been in place for decades without much fuss, and suddenly in the past two years there is a great hue and cry over pipelines.

The only other time I remember such a fuss was over the proposed Mackenzie Valley Pipeline back in the '70s. That one rightfully came under much scrutiny because its proposed route was through some pretty harsh terrain that was ecologically quite sensitive, and there was a new found concern over the impct on Native peoples living there. The Berger Inquiry was launched, did its job, and the pipeline was put on hold.

That one made sense, but the opposition to the pipeline to Texas and now this one to Kitimat seem, to me, to be based on something other than simply ecological concerns. Pipelines themselves are a pretty safe way of moving large amounts of liquids or gas -- sure there have been leaks, but I can't recall any major disasters relative to the enormous volumes involved. Seems to me there's something else at work here since Kitimat is hardly pristine wilderness. Wasn't it built around a giant filthy smelter? I'm starting to think pipelines have just become the flavor-of-the-month for the environmental movement since I'm at a loss to explain why 5,000 groups and individuals are lining up to do battle over something that, five years ago, would have only have been of interest to the principles involved. Am I missing something here?

[waldo]

That one made sense, but the opposition to the pipeline to Texas and now this one to Kitimat seem, to me, to be based on something other than simply ecological concerns. Pipelines themselves are a pretty safe way of moving large amounts of liquids or gas -- sure there have been leaks, but I can't recall any major disasters relative to the enormous volumes involved. Seems to me there's something else at work here since Kitimat is hardly pristine wilderness. Wasn't it built around a giant filthy smelter? I'm starting to think pipelines have just become the flavor-of-the-month for the environmental movement since I'm at a loss to explain why 5,000 groups and individuals are lining up to do battle over something that, five years ago, would have only have been of interest to the principles involved. Am I missing something here?

are you missing something? Yes, several things: you see the word pipeline and improperly attempt to equate your two examples. The scope of your 'ecological concern' understanding as emphasized by your emphasis on leaks/spills (only), is narrow. Notwithstanding unique facets to each of your two examples, the end-point of one (Gateway) couples concerns over tanker passage. One of your examples (KXL) had unique resistance brought upon by a lack of confidence in the credibility and integrity surrounding it's initial environmental impact study... similar concerns are being raised about the Gateway review given perceived interference in the environmental review process by Harper Conservatives. Notwithstanding your perception of the level of engagement '5 years ago' is most generalized and questionable, as climate change impacts exasperate, concerned persons are becoming more engaged. Etc., etc., etc.

[prairiechickin]

are you missing something? Yes, several things: you see the word pipeline and improperly attempt to equate your two examples. The scope of your 'ecological concern' understanding as emphasized by your emphasis on leaks/spills (only), is narrow. Notwithstanding unique facets to each of your two examples, the end-point of one (Gateway) couples concerns over tanker passage. One of your examples (KXL) had unique resistance brought upon by a lack of confidence in the credibility and integrity surrounding it's initial environmental impact study... similar concerns are being raised about the Gateway review given perceived interference in the environmental review process by Harper Conservatives. Notwithstanding your perception of the level of engagement '5 years ago' is most generalized and questionable, as climate change impacts exasperate, concerned persons are becoming more engaged. Etc., etc., etc.

Tanker passage? Those things come and go every day, what makes Kitimat so special? As for the KXL protests, all I saw was a bunch of Hollywood celebrities that I'm guessing (and this is a generalization) know less about pipelines than my cat. "as climate change impacts exasperates..." I ran that through several translation software applications and none could make any sense of it. Ect., ect. ect.

[waldo]

Tanker passage? Those things come and go every day, what makes Kitimat so special? As for the KXL protests, all I saw was a bunch of Hollywood celebrities that I'm guessing (and this is a generalization) know less about pipelines than my cat.

apparently many within BC have a vivid recall of the Exxon Valdez - go figure! In any case, don't let your generalized view keep your attention fixated upon 'Hollywood celebrities'... apparently there were even Nebraska farmers and ranchers opposed - imagine!

"as climate change impacts exasperates..." I ran that through several translation software applications and none could make any sense of it. Ect., ect. ect.

coupled with your recent reply to me in another concurrently running thread, it appears you have comprehension difficulty - good on ya for attempting to leverage technology. (Note: you've pluralized both 'impacts' and 'exasperates'... perhaps that threw your translation apps off, or maybe you need better apps, hey?)

[PIK]

The world needs this pipeline, and canadians better smarten up, this attack on canada and that is what it is a attack on canada ,must be fought tooth and nailo, by all canadians.This meetimngh where 4500 people have signed up to talk ,is the biggest joke going, most people do not even live here ,but seem to have a say in how we conduct our own business. This green religion , has gone waaaay past the enviroment, but now it is to shut down this country, and the assholes in this country better start wondering if they do , where is the money going to come from to pay for all your social programs. This is the perfect time to say ''becareful what you wish for''

[guyser]

The world needs this pipeline,

Debatable. Lots of other ways out there.

and canadians better smarten up, this attack on canada and that is what it is a attack on canada

No it isnt unless one can show people are against this because it is Canada (and they cant/wont)

,must be fought tooth and nailo, by all canadians.

EVen if they disagree? Why? Because you said so?

This meetimngh where 4500 people have signed up to talk ,is the biggest joke going, most people do not even live here ,but seem to have a say in how we conduct our own business. This green religion , has gone waaaay past the enviroment, but now it is to shut down this country, and the assholes in this country better start wondering if they do , where is the money going to come from to pay for all your social programs. This is the perfect time to say ''becareful what you wish for''

Im am only guessing one who calls other Canucks A******s is likely a good bet to be off their rocker.

[Guest Peeves]

The world needs this pipeline, and canadians better smarten up, this attack on canada and that is what it is a attack on canada ,must be fought tooth and nailo, by all canadians.This meetimngh where 4500 people have signed up to talk ,is the biggest joke going, most people do not even live here ,but seem to have a say in how we conduct our own business. This green religion , has gone waaaay past the enviroment, but now it is to shut down this country, and the assholes in this country better start wondering if they do , where is the money going to come from to pay for all your social programs. This is the perfect time to say ''becareful what you wish for''

There has been an increasingly public exposure of foreign funding and foreign celebs taking on Canada's oil pipeline plans. While that may be acceptable for US interests IN THE USA, if they push here,if they spend money in supporting the 'Green' lobby, they should be sent packing.

I'm always wondering what work, actual WORK, these lobbyist by the thousand do that allows them it seems unlimited time to attend demonstrations for weeks on time.

Most working people go to their jobs, not to rallies.

[guyser]

I'm always wondering what work, actual WORK, these lobbyist by the thousand do that allows them it seems unlimited time to attend demonstrations for weeks on time.

Most working people go to their jobs, not to rallies.

They lobby.

Its called work, or a job, or employment to lobby.

Sudoku and crosswords between 1 and 2PM though. Just like....other working people?

[Wild Bill]

They lobby.

Its called work, or a job, or employment to lobby.

Sudoku and crosswords between 1 and 2PM though. Just like....other working people?

They lobby. Who pays them? Saudi Arabia?

Screw them all and the horses they rode in on! If you're not a Canadian you should be banned from lobbying in our country.

The Saudis and Chinese use their money and power for their OWN interests, NOT for OURS!