Northern pipeline worked started?

[Topaz]

By an article, the First Nations say that in the Fraser Watershed in British Columbia, work has began with the pipeline, even though no decide has been made. The First Nations are wondering why the permits from the province. is allowing to start work. I thought the B.C was totally against this and I wonder what changed, if anything. Anyone from B.C. on here know any more info on this? http://www.news1130.com/2013/10/13/first-nations-say-work-already-starting-on-northern-gateway/%C2'>

[eyeball]

Moving oil through BC will be like Harper legalizing pot. We'll be totally against it but we'll allow it anyway.

[waldo]

say it ain't so... say government isn't aiding/abetting Northern Gateway development prior to completion of the NEB approval process... prior to approval being officially stated/granted! Say it ain't so. Oh, wait:

“… the project in question, of course, is subject to a joint review panel process. Obviously, we believe in the rule of law and in adjudicating these things based on scientific and policy concerns. The government will obviously withhold its decision on the matter until we see the results of the panel and its work.”

withhold its decision??? Is that what Harper Conservatives call spending $120 million to do research for industry... for Enbridge?

The Federal Government is moving forward over the next two years with a $100 million plus, ‘Complementary Measures Project’ (now called ‘World Class’) to research and model the complex waterways in the Kitimat and Hecate Straights region. In essence this is a federal government subsidy to the Northern Gateway Project, as they are unable to satisfy basic safety, environmental and regulatory requirements. In fact documents from the Department of Fisheries and Oceans identified that: “Behaviour models specific to dilbit spills do not exist, and existing commercial models for conventional oil do not allow parameter specific modifications.”

On the federal level contrary to what Stephen Harper has said about awaiting the evidence and panel results, the Government of Canada has been pushing ahead with spending over $100 million to support what should be industry based research. This comes at a time of major cuts to science funding for climate change, marine contaminants and ELA.

.

[jacee]

http://www.torontosun.com/2013/12/18/northern-gateway-pipeline-plan-madness-mulcair

The day before a critical report from the National Energy Board (NEB) is released, the official Opposition remains implacably opposed to the Enbridge Northern Gateway pipeline.

NDP Leader Tom Mulcair told an Ottawa press conference Wednesday that his opposition to the Northern Gateway was "categorical.""Allowing tankers into the Douglas Channel is madness," he said.

NEB report tomorrow ... !

[overthere]

Prediction: approved with conditions and perhaps a different route to Kitimat.

[Wilber]

http://www.torontosun.com/2013/12/18/northern-gateway-pipeline-plan-madness-mulcair

The day before a critical report from the National Energy Board (NEB) is released, the official Opposition remains implacably opposed to the Enbridge Northern Gateway pipeline.

NDP Leader Tom Mulcair told an Ottawa press conference Wednesday that his opposition to the Northern Gateway was "categorical.""Allowing tankers into the Douglas Channel is madness," he said.

NEB report tomorrow ... !

Enbridge doesn't give a crap about tankers. Their liability ends when the oil leaves their pipe.

[jacee]

Northern Gateway pipeline recommended for federal approval, with conditions

A joint review panel has recommended the federal government approve Enbridge's Northern Gateway pipeline project, with conditions.

The approval hinges on 209 required conditions, including developing a marine mammal protection plan, researching heavy oil cleanup and conducting emergency response exercises.

[The_Squid]

Very few (perhaps none) of the conditions are even measurable, What does a "marine mammal protection plan" even mean? How does one measure the effectiveness of such a plan? Research heavy oilk cleanup... does that mean that someone has to be actually effective at cleaning it up when it happens? How is it measurable?

It seems like a rubber-stamping procedure to try and appease the public more than anything actually meaningful.

[jacee]

http://www.montrealgazette.com/touch/story.html?id=9303887

The final decision rests with the federal government, which has roughly six months to respond.

Federal Natural Resources Minister Joe Oliver said the government will thoroughly review the report and consult with aboriginal groups before making that decision.

Taking a reserved approach, not being aggressive and cocky ... so far.

Long way to go before this will ever be reality, if ever.

[eyeball]

What does a "marine mammal protection plan" even mean?

Absolutely nothing, after a spill.

A friend of mine, an expert on pinnipeds, along with a disentanglement team just recently successfully rescued a Sea-lion from death by entanglement and strangulation, from plastic strapping that was around it's neck, like the fellow below.

It took days of patiently waiting for the right sea conditions and opportunity to anaesthetize the thing - far enough from the water that it would be knocked out before jumping into the sea and drowning, which is what often happens when this is attempted.

If a spill happens there'll be zippedy do da that anyone can do for marine mammals. Anyone who says they have a plan doesn't have a clue. I suppose if the spill happens in flat calm conditions and those conditions stay flat calm for weeks you might save a few, but that's rare on the open exposed coast.

Strangely enough, the Nestucca Spill in the winter of 88/89 happened in flat calm bitterly cold conditions. They had about 10 days in which it stayed calm during which huge blobs of oil landed on flat sand beaches hereabouts and they stayed congealed because of the cold. A few excavators and dump trucks dispatched in a timely fashion as was immediately suggested by some of more knowledgeable locals, could have easily picked up lots of these off the beach. Instead the government dithered, in apparent confusion for about 10 days, at which point a huge Pacific frontal system roared ashore and turned hundreds of these 10 - 20 foot wide "pancakes" of oil into billions of dime sized bloblets that can still be found to this day on local beaches.

They have a plan do they?

Edited December 20, 2013 by eyeball

[jacee]

I doubt it.

http://www.theprovince.com/touch/story.html?id=9308971

What are the environmental risks to B.C.?

There is the risk of a pipeline leaking, similar to the 2010 leak of an Enbridge pipeline into Michigan's Kalamazoo River. That was the largest inland oil pipeline spill in U.S. history.

Even if the pipe doesn't leak a drop, though, if a tanker were to crash and spill "it would be a nightmare for the coast of British Columbia," said Caitlyn Vernon, campaigns director for Sierra Club B.C. Vernon pointed out that the waters of Hecate Strait near Kitimat are often dangerous, and if there were an oil spill, effective response could be difficult or impossible.

[overthere]

Given the imminent horrific danger, when will they stop sending all those tankers up the St Lawrence River? Burrard Inlet?

[The_Squid]

The environmental risks are simply not worth the benefits to BC.

[overthere]

The environmental risks are simply not worth the benefits to BC.

The risks in Vancouver Harbour are much greater. Would you agree that all tanker traffic there and in the Straits of Juan de Fuca should be forcibly terminated immediately?

[The_Squid]

The risks in Vancouver Harbour are much greater. Would you agree that all tanker traffic there and in the Straits of Juan de Fuca should be forcibly terminated immediately?

1 - The risks are not greater in Vancouver Harbour. This is simply a dumb thing to say. Look at a map.

Kitimat

Vancouver Harbour

2 - No, I don't agree that this should happen.

[overthere]

The risks are not greater in Vancouver Harbour

Of course the risk of an accident and the consequences of a major spill wouldf be far worse in Vancouver: Fraser Estuary at serious risk. Far, far more shipping traffic vastly increases the risk of all those tankers leaving the Burnaby refinery. Doesn't that worry you?

[The_Squid]

Of course the risk of an accident and the consequences of a major spill wouldf be far worse in Vancouver: Fraser Estuary at serious risk. Far, far more shipping traffic vastly increases the risk of all those tankers leaving the Burnaby refinery. Doesn't that worry you?

no. The risk of it happening is far less and is much easier to get to. The infrastructure is there. It is an established port. The topography is different. The weather is nowhere near as bad as it is up north.

You are setting up a false dichotomy... as if our choice is to have no tankers anywhere or tankers everywhere. This is not reality.

Edited December 20, 2013 by The_Squid

[Wilber]

The risks in Vancouver Harbour are much greater. Would you agree that all tanker traffic there and in the Straits of Juan de Fuca should be forcibly terminated immediately?

Not so, the tankers used from Vancouver are much smaller than the supertankers proposed for Northern Gateway, Tankers have been bringing Alaskan crude through the Straight of Juan de Fuca to refineries in Anacortes and Ferndale since the Alaskan pipeline was finished in 1977..

Personally, if I had to chose, I would rather see an expansion of the Kinder Morgan line than see Northern Gateway built, even though it would run through my town. I think the environmental risks are higher with Northern Gateway. The terrain is more rugged and remote, the weather is worse and dealing with a spill would present much greater problems.

Edited December 20, 2013 by Wilber

[eyeball]

Northern Gateway will cross around 1000 watercourses, most fish bearing, on its way to the sea. Alberta's Tar Sands will start having a lasting adverse impact on coastal people long before it even reaches the coast. I can't think of any mega-project in BC that was developed around rivers, streams and creeks that didn't kill fish or wreck their habitat and impact the livelihoods of people living in coastal communities.

Of course this time around, Ottawa has really rubbed things in our nose by gutting the Fisheries Act and removing much of the environmental protection in the 2012 omnibus budget Bill C-38. They should really call these ominous bills.

Story.

This oil should be piped east, not west.

Edited December 20, 2013 by eyeball

[DogOnPorch]

Not so, the tankers used from Vancouver are much smaller than the supertankers proposed for Northern Gateway, Tankers have been bringing Alaskan crude through the Straight of Juan de Fuca to refineries in Anacortes and Ferndale since the Alaskan pipeline was finished in 1977..

Personally, if I had to chose, I would rather see an expansion of the Kinder Morgan line than see Northern Gateway built, even though it would run through my town. I think the environmental risks are higher with Northern Gateway. The terrain is more rugged and remote, the weather is worse and dealing with a spill would present much greater problems.

Yup...they're blowing smoke up our rears saying they can get to a given spill up North. It's hard enough getting into certain areas during good, hot, Summer weather let alone the deepest darkest parts of Winter.

[nocentre53]

There are a number of points to consider:

1. A gateway pipeline south to the U.S. ? Remote.The Republicans and Democrats have been and are still locked in a bitter political civil war that should leave the American people feeling outraged and betrayed.As of 2012 Congress had nearly 2000 pieces of legislation to deal with and dealt with a mere 100 To my mind America is at a point in it's history,similar to the height of the Roman Empire,which experienced a gradual decline and fall.

2. The rising power region and future power brokers will be in the Far East: Japan,Russia,India,China and so on.

3. We need to diversify our national economic portfolio:much as you would not put all your financial investments into only one sector.With Canada so closely tied to the U.S. it makes sense to diversify our trade folio: the EU and The Far East are logical choices.

4. We are in a sense a merchant with a product to sell and we need buyers to give us money for the sale of our product.In our case we have oil and we need a steady and consistent customer to sell too.

5. With fast growing economies in the Far East whose growth will be fuelled by reliable supplies of oil,then politics aside,it is for Canada a pragmatic business decision.

6. Instability in the Middle East and surrounding regions make Canada seem more the go to choice as a stable and reliable supplier of oil.

6. It seems to me from a business perspective,only logical to project our product into thirsty Far Eastern markets with all possible speed: oil sitting in the ground does not earn us a cent.

[DogOnPorch]

Oil sitting in the ground grows in value. No sign of that hydrogen powered car, yet...

[Wilber]

Yup...they're blowing smoke up our rears saying they can get to a given spill up North. It's hard enough getting into certain areas during good, hot, Summer weather let alone the deepest darkest parts of Winter.

Ya, I used to fly into Terrace and Rupert quite a bit, It's one of the most beautiful places on the planet to fly in on a good day and one of the most challenging when it isn't. To me, the assertion they could adequately deal with a major spill in that region is utter bullshit.

[DogOnPorch]

Ya, I used to fly into Terrace and Rupert quite a bit, It's one of the most beautiful places on the planet to fly in on a good day and one of the most challenging when it isn't. To me, the assertion they could adequately deal with a major spill in that region is utter bullshit.

It's truly BS. Look at Vancouver today...a few snowflakes equals disaster. Now multiply that by 1000...that's Prince George or Quesnel. Now go into the bush...multiply by another thousand....

Northern Guy: What exactly were you fellers planing to do on these snowmobiles?

Oil Workers: We're going to try and find the break in the pipeline!

Northern Guy: I'll notify yer next of kin.

Edited December 20, 2013 by DogOnPorch

[jacee]

Northern Guy: What exactly were you fellers planing to do on these snowmobiles?

Oil Workers: We're going to try and find the break in the pipeline!

Northern Guy: I'll notify yer next of kin.

Too true!

And ...

http://m.princegeorgecitizen.com/article/20131223/PRINCEGEORGE0304/312239993/-1/PRINCEGEORGE/christmas-lumps-of-oil&template=JQMArticle

A mixture of butanes and similar compounds which are very volatile, very flammable, and able to dilute bitumen to turn it from a hockey puck into something that has properties similar to heavy crude oil.

The problem with this dilbit or diluted bitumen is that if the condensate evaporates, you have something that resembles a hockey puck. Or, as the panel points out: Raw bitumen does not flow easily through pipelines...What happens when dilbit is spilled? The condensate evaporates and you now have something with the density of a hockey puck. If this is in Douglas Channel, well, ever seen what happens to a hockey puck when you drop it overboard? It sinks.

Or just imagine what a small leak in the pipe will do. A massive hockey puck blocking the way and ensuring that the whole thing ruptures.