Northern Gateway a must?

[dre]

TransCanada Corp. is proposing a major shift in the way oil moves across Canada, urging the oil patch to consider a massive $5.6-billion new pipeline system that would carry large volumes of western crude to refineries in Ontario, Quebec and beyond.

Now THIS actually makes a lot more sense. Why export when we import more than 1/2 of what we need from Venezuela?

[waldo]

imagine... more capacity than advertised! Result: more tankers... many, many more tankers!

Gateway Designed to Pump Far More Crude than Advertised - Pipes could carry 60 per cent more than now proposed. Result: hundreds more tankers off BC's coast.

British Columbians are becoming more aware of two major oil pipeline proposals -- Enbridge's Northern Gateway and Kinder Morgan's Trans Mountain pipeline. These pipelines have been advanced by the government of Canada on behalf of large, multinational oil companies as well as the Chinese government's mega national oil companies, Sinopec, PetroChina and China National Offshore Oil Company.

These are huge companies with a huge appetite for getting crude oil to Asia as quickly as possible. To make sure the pipelines go ahead, the Harper government has introduced a new Canadian Environmental Assessment Act allowing cabinet to overrule a National Energy Board no-go decision on both the Northern Gateway and Kinder Morgan's proposals. The new federal rules speed up the process and limit the participation of many individuals and organizations in public hearings.

But Prime Minister Stephen Harper may need to do more than rush these projects through under cover of legislative shelter. Particularly when British Columbians learn the true magnitude of what these projects mean for tanker traffic.

We've also been told that Enbridge's Northern Gateway project represents 525,000 barrels a day of crude oil flowing along the pipeline into Kitimat, and 193,000 barrels a day of condensate flowing along a pipeline in the other direction, out of Kitimat. Every year, 220 tankers will navigate the difficult and vulnerable Douglas Channel in order to pick up raw crude and drop off toxic condensate.

What most people don't know is Northern Gateway has been designed to carry 60 per cent more crude oil and 40 per cent more condensate -- all that's required is an increase in pumping power along the pipeline route.

Buried details of expansion 'scenarios'

Detailed designs with four upgrading phases have been submitted by Enbridge to the National Energy Board. What this means is 850,000 barrels per day of crude oil and 275,000 barrels a day of condensate can readily be accommodated by the Northern Gateway project.

And the supertankers needed to transport it?

Well, its not 220, but closer to 340 -- almost an oil tanker a day in B.C.'s northern coastal waters.

More crude, more condensate, more tankers, more risk -- way more risk.

[fellowtraveller]

Does our economy run on oil!

Did anybody answer this yet?

I'll have a crack at it.

Yes, pretty much. It used to be oil/gas and manufacturing. Manufacturing of course is fleeing the Land of McGuinty as fast as they can lock up the front doors, and natural gas no longer has any value in North America and we have failed to build the necessary infrastructure to sell it where there are profits to be made, like Asia. Countries like Australia and the Gulf States beat us to those natural gas markets by a few years and have locked up some prime customers in long term and extremely profitable deals..

So, oil it is.

[eyeball]

Northern Gateway a must?

Less and less it seems all the time.

With Keystone and Gateway in political limbo, pipeline advocates turn to Canada’s East Coast

EDMONTON - The movement to ship Alberta bitumen to Canada’s eastern provinces is gathering momentum as plans to build the Gateway and Keystone lines languish in political limbo.

Story

Maybe the worm is finally turning, I sure hope so.

Edited May 21, 2012 by eyeball

[punked]

Less and less it seems all the time.

Maybe the worm is finally turning, I sure hope so.

I am personally all for building pipelines across our country to keep it strong.

[eyeball]

I am personally all for building pipelines across our country to keep it strong.

I'm not against pipelines either it's just that I'm also for protecting our salmon runs and fisheries for more or less the same reason, to keep our people strong.

[waldo]

is B.C. premier Christy Clark that calculating... that much of a strategic thinker... to presume to (attempt to) put a cost to Northern Gateway risks that, potentially, could see a full-blown "constitutional crisis", uhhhh... spill forward? Notwithstanding all polls show an overwhelming lead for the provincial NDP (which formally opposes Northern Gateway), preliminary polling shows Clark's demands are receiving favourable response internally within British Columbia. Accepting to the predictable Alberta negative response from its premier Redford, was this simply a way for Clark to come out against Northern Gateway... without formally being against Northern Gateway? Calculating... strategic - Christy Clark???

in responding to B.C. Premier Clark, it would seem the Harper Conservatives initial marching orders have applied the obligatory "gate" concern suffix - "tollgate"!

Harper Conservative Foreign Affairs Minister John Baird

: We can’t have a Canada where we try to

tollgate

different goods and services in different parts of the country. Alberta has a great resource, it’s a great resource for Canada, and they obviously have to get that resource to market.

Harper Conservative Immigration Minister Jason Kenney

: I think taking a balkanized approach to the federation is unhelpful. The notion that there are 10 separate fiefdoms and you have to

tollgate

everything you move from east to west would massively undermine the whole concept of an economic union and efficient operation of the Canadian economy.

[Argus]

is B.C. premier Christy Clark that calculating... that much of a strategic thinker... to presume to (attempt to) put a cost to Northern Gateway risks that, potentially, could see a full-blown "constitutional crisis",

There is no constitutional crisis. The constitution is quite clear that the province has no say in what pipelines pass through it. That's a federal responsibility. And an editorial in the Post yesterday pointed out that for all the verbiage about risk, Clark is demanding the province assume none of it. The document she released is demanding the oil companies assume all risk; Ie, any and all costs deriving from any type of spill or environmental problem. 100% of costs of all such issues would be assumed by the pipeline and oil companies. So where, exactly is this risk she feels justified in demanding vast sums to her government to ameliorate?

[Canuckistani]

There is no constitutional crisis. The constitution is quite clear that the province has no say in what pipelines pass through it. That's a federal responsibility. And an editorial in the Post yesterday pointed out that for all the verbiage about risk, Clark is demanding the province assume none of it. The document she released is demanding the oil companies assume all risk; Ie, any and all costs deriving from any type of spill or environmental problem. 100% of costs of all such issues would be assumed by the pipeline and oil companies. So where, exactly is this risk she feels justified in demanding vast sums to her government to ameliorate?

BS. Our liability laws place a cap of 1.3 billion for the company to bear. A spill on the coast could cost 10 times that to clean up, with lasting damage that can't be cleaned up. BC takes a huge proportion of the risk for very little reward.

[waldo]

There is no constitutional crisis. The constitution is quite clear that the province has no say in what pipelines pass through it. That's a federal responsibility. And an editorial in the Post yesterday pointed out that for all the verbiage about risk, Clark is demanding the province assume none of it. The document she released is demanding the oil companies assume all risk; Ie, any and all costs deriving from any type of spill or environmental problem. 100% of costs of all such issues would be assumed by the pipeline and oil companies. So where, exactly is this risk she feels justified in demanding vast sums to her government to ameliorate?

play it through... sure you can. The B.C. NDP forming the next provincial government refuses to sanction Northern Gateway - then what? Play that through.

just what risk cost is Enbridge assuming - exactly what risk cost? Is B.C. being hung out to dry?

... there is currently no guarantee that the project will have sufficient ‘leak and burst’ insurance. In fact, it might not have any insurance, as this appears not to be a requirement for the project.

Second, it is possible that there will not be any company money to deal with a major spill, as the project’s financial plan states that any profits will be distributed annually as dividends to the shareholders (unit-holders). Money will not be retained or reinvested in the company.

Finally, the Northern Gateway project is structured as a limited liability partnership (LLP). Enbridge intends to own only half of the project. Rights to the rest of the units are being sold to a number of companies, including Sinopec, a national oil company owned by the Chinese government. One unit was reserved for First Nations participation in the project.

LLPs are not an unusual structure; they make it easier to secure financing and can protect investors from tax and other obligations, such as the inability of Northern Gateway to pay for liabilities. However, with assets consisting solely of the pipeline and the marine terminal, says Allan, Northern Gateway is unique as a stand-alone project. As an LLP that will have no cash, very few assets, and little to no insurance, this project is a threat to the public purse.

[Canuckistani]

play it through... sure you can. The B.C. NDP forming the next provincial government refuses to sanction Northern Gateway - then what? Play that through.

just what risk cost is Enbridge assuming - exactly what risk cost? Is B.C. being hung out to dry?

Interesting article, but it doesn't even address the area of main concern - the BC coast. While Enbridge may not own the tankers that transport the oil, no tankers, no pipeline. And it's the threat of a spill on the coast that has people really exercised. The Exxon Valdez cost 6 billion to clean up in today's dollars. Many claims are still outstanding 20+ years later. The risk to the marine environment has to go into any calculation of the project.

[g_bambino]

The B.C. NDP forming the next provincial government refuses to sanction Northern Gateway - then what?

It appears their "sanction" doesn't matter. The constitution allows the federal parliament to approve the construction of "Lines of Steam or other Ships, Railways, Canals, Telegraphs, and other Works and Undertakings connecting the Province with any other or others of the Provinces, or extending beyond the Limits of the Province... Such Works as, although wholly situate within the Province, are before or after their Execution declared by the Parliament of Canada to be for the general Advantage of Canada or for the Advantage of Two or more of the Provinces."

[waldo]

Interesting article, but it doesn't even address the area of main concern - the BC coast. While Enbridge may not own the tankers that transport the oil, no tankers, no pipeline. And it's the threat of a spill on the coast that has people really exercised. The Exxon Valdez cost 6 billion to clean up in today's dollars. Many claims are still outstanding 20+ years later. The risk to the marine environment has to go into any calculation of the project.

the article is somewhat generalized; however, it does specifically reference to the, "twin pipeline and Kitimat marine terminal as one operating system".

another slice particularly relevant to Enbridge and the (relatively) recent Michigan spill... carrying the same diluted bitumen. Apparently, the technology doesn't even exist to deal with sunken bitumen on the ocean floor!

[wyly]

Interesting article, but it doesn't even address the area of main concern - the BC coast. While Enbridge may not own the tankers that transport the oil, no tankers, no pipeline. And it's the threat of a spill on the coast that has people really exercised. The Exxon Valdez cost 6 billion to clean up in today's dollars. Many claims are still outstanding 20+ years later. The risk to the marine environment has to go into any calculation of the project.

I can understand the concern in BC it indeed is taking all the risk the spill isn't happening on alberta's coast...enbridge can say they will clean up the damage from a spill but that's like an automotive manufacturer saying they'll fix a defective car after people have been killed, which is good but they can't ever compensate adequately for those that are dead or injured the damage can't be undone...enbridge saying because of the extra concern they will now increase their safety systems and improve the pipe design, really! only because of concern they are improving it? in other words they were going to use the least expensive technology they could get away with, not until they were pushed did they offer more...this the issue with corporations their guiding principles are the "bottom line" and nothing else...

the oil needs to get to market but safety issues must be addressed if BC can't be assured of pipeline safety then it needs to stopped until it does...if enbridge and the federal government are so confident let them put a $100 billion bond that be will lost if there is a spill...

[Canuckistani]

the article is somewhat generalized; however, it does specifically reference to the, "twin pipeline and Kitimat marine terminal as one operating system".

another slice particularly relevant to Enbridge and the (relatively) recent Michigan spill... carrying the same diluted bitumen. Apparently, the technology doesn't even exist to deal with sunken bitumen on the ocean floor!

The terminal aren't the tankers that have to navigate those waters. http://www.vancouverobserver.com/blogs/earthmatters/master-mariners-critique-proposed-enbridge-tanker-routes

There is no separate and large pollution clean-up fund as in the Arctic where petroleum producers are required to establish such a fund. There is no ‘user-pay’ system in place and the producers of bitumen will not accept liability for spills of their cargo. And the Coast Guard is underfunded and not equipped with the resources required to deal with significant oil spills, on behalf of the Canadian taxpayer.

Kitimat is a poor choice for a major new Gateway port for the shipment of crude oil. The questions about tanker transits in confined waters and in severe West Coast winter weather conditions are too many and the risks to the marine environment too great.

[Canuckistani]

the oil needs to get to market but safety issues must be addressed if BC can't be assured of pipeline safety then it needs to stopped until it does...if enbridge and the federal government are so confident let them put a $100 billion bond that be will lost if there is a spill...

I don't know if that's feasible, but that's my thinking too.

[waldo]

It appears their "sanction" doesn't matter. The constitution allows the federal parliament to approve the construction of "Lines of Steam or other Ships, Railways, Canals, Telegraphs, and other Works and Undertakings connecting the Province with any other or others of the Provinces, or extending beyond the Limits of the Province... Such Works as, although wholly situate within the Province, are before or after their Execution declared by the Parliament of Canada to be for the general Advantage of Canada or for the Advantage of Two or more of the Provinces."

notwithstanding there are an assortment of provincial permits required... speculation on a constitutional impact is, yes, apparently unfounded. However, the oft played analogy with Newfoundland/Quebec and inter-provincial 'transport' of hydro underscores the essence at play... the federal power to regulate versus the political willingness to exercise that power - notwithstanding timing that could see the Northern Gateway project tied up until a new federal sheriff hits town.

[Canuckistani]

notwithstanding there are an assortment of provincial permits required... speculation on a constitutional impact is, yes, apparently unfounded. However, the oft played analogy with Newfoundland/Quebec and inter-provincial 'transport' of hydro underscores the essence at play... the federal power to regulate versus the political willingness to exercise that power - notwithstanding timing that could see the Northern Gateway project tied up until a new federal sheriff hits town.

Between the province and the Natives this project could be tied up in court for years, no matter if the feds approve it. If things get bad enough, non-Navites just might join the Natives on the barricades, as they did in the 'war of the woods' (Clayoquot Sound). Not sure if the CPC is willing to lose every seat in BC.

Edited July 27, 2012 by Canuckistani

[waldo]

The terminal aren't the tankers that have to navigate those waters. http://www.vancouverobserver.com/blogs/earthmatters/master-mariners-critique-proposed-enbridge-tanker-routes

thanks scoop!

as for your direct question, start in around 31:00 of the film to gain an appreciation of the overall complexities in the tanker passage route, to see graphic representation and comparisons of, and to, the sunken BC ferry, 'Queen of the North' & the Exxon Valdez spill.

[Argus]

BS. Our liability laws place a cap of 1.3 billion for the company to bear. A spill on the coast could cost 10 times that to clean up, with lasting damage that can't be cleaned up. BC takes a huge proportion of the risk for very little reward.

The document BC is putting out with its requirements state that the pipelines and oil companies must agree to bear 100% of costs, direct and indirect, of any spill or environmental issues.

Then on top of that it demands some kind of royalty payments for assuming 'risk'.

[Argus]

play it through... sure you can. The B.C. NDP forming the next provincial government refuses to sanction Northern Gateway - then what? Play that through.

just what risk cost is Enbridge assuming - exactly what risk cost? Is B.C. being hung out to dry?

I consider BC's demand that the pipelines and oil companies assume full responsibility for cleanup costs to be legitimate and I would support it. After that, there is no real risk to them.

As for playing it through. If the NDP says no, Harper says, "Too bad, so sad, it's going through" and that's that.

[punked]

I consider BC's demand that the pipelines and oil companies assume full responsibility for cleanup costs to be legitimate and I would support it. After that, there is no real risk to them.

As for playing it through. If the NDP says no, Harper says, "Too bad, so sad, it's going through" and that's that.

Build it to the east if you can't build it to the west.

[wyly]

Not sure if the CPC is willing to lose every seat in BC.

they could lose every seat which would more than offset any gains of new seats in alberta and those seats would likely go to the NDP which could be the edge required to form the next make it the next government...timing of all this critical too as it will coincide with next federal election...

[Canuckistani]

Depending on the timing, this could kill off the nascent BC Conservatives and give hope to Christie Clark and the BC Liberals.

[wyly]

Depending on the timing, this could kill off the nascent BC Conservatives and give hope to Christie Clark and the BC Liberals.

I doubt that, her party is in serious trouble for other issues, having the same stance as the NDP on this issue won't help her...in fact if the public views her as not being tough and caving to enbridge and the federal conservatives she'll lose even more support..