Topaz Posted December 26, 2013 Author Report Share Posted December 26, 2013 It seems Harper is going to have problems with the West-East pipeline too. The state of Maine want nothing to do with the oil because of the risk of damage from the pipeline if/when it breaks. Why don't we just build our own refineries and get it over with? http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/26/portland-maine-tar-sands-protest_n_2558694.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jacee Posted December 27, 2013 Report Share Posted December 27, 2013 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hitops Posted January 10, 2014 Report Share Posted January 10, 2014 A lesson in the logic of those opposed to oil projects: "I don't want any pipelines" --- "hey why are there so many more accidents by rail causing spills???" "We shouldn't allow the use of any new ports" --- "hey why are more ships clogging our available ports, causing spills???" It's active, willful refusal to connect the dots. Don't expect this to improve. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Squid Posted January 10, 2014 Report Share Posted January 10, 2014 A lesson in the logic of those opposed to oil projects:"I don't want any pipelines" --- "hey why are there so many more accidents by rail causing spills???""We shouldn't allow the use of any new ports" --- "hey why are more ships clogging our available ports, causing spills???"It's active, willful refusal to connect the dots. Don't expect this to improve. You are creating false dilemmas. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bleeding heart Posted January 10, 2014 Report Share Posted January 10, 2014 Yes, inserting quotation marks around straw men is like placing a stovepipe hat on a snowman....it brings it to life! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
overthere Posted January 10, 2014 Report Share Posted January 10, 2014 "Not so, the tankers used from Vancouver are much smaller than the supertankers proposed for Northern Gateway, " Not for long. When Kinder-Morgan expands, the choice will be either lots more small tankers or fewer big tankers in the Port of Vancouver. Kinder Morgan will be larger than Gateway in volume, and the new oil won't be going to Cherry Point via pipeline, it will go to Asia by tanker. That will be an interesting battle, since there has been crude oil and other products shipped through the port of Vancouver(up to 120,000 ton tankers)for the last 60 years. I'm wondering how much money BC gets now from the constant stream of Alaskan supertankers running down their coast for the last 3 decades? Anybody know? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted January 11, 2014 Report Share Posted January 11, 2014 (edited) "Not so, the tankers used from Vancouver are much smaller than the supertankers proposed for Northern Gateway, " Not for long. When Kinder-Morgan expands, the choice will be either lots more small tankers or fewer big tankers in the Port of Vancouver. Kinder Morgan will be larger than Gateway in volume, and the new oil won't be going to Cherry Point via pipeline, it will go to Asia by tanker. That will be an interesting battle, since there has been crude oil and other products shipped through the port of Vancouver(up to 120,000 ton tankers)for the last 60 years. I'm wondering how much money BC gets now from the constant stream of Alaskan supertankers running down their coast for the last 3 decades? Anybody know? I didn't find anything definitive to outline any 'passage transfer' type monies to BC realized through TAPS (Trans Alaska Pipeline System) shipping traffic... however, in regards respective tanker numbers existing and projected travelling through: 1. - the Juan de Fuca Strait (re: from TAPS (Trans Alaska Pipeline System) shipping oil between Valdez Alaska and Washington State ports); 2. - the port of Kitimat BC (re: between Kitimat and Asian ports, shipping 'DilBit' & condensate to/from Enbridge's proposed Northern Gateway pipeline & BC's own designs on shipping LNG (liquefied natural gas) from BC gas fields); 3. - Port Metro Vancouver BC (re: shipping 'various hydrocarbon products, including DilBit' from Kinder Morgan's Trans Mountain expansion proposal) 1. - the Juan de Fuca Strait (re: from TAPS (Trans Alaska Pipeline System) shipping oil between Valdez Alaska and Washington State ports): ~730 tankers per year, existing: "In the 1970's the Trans Alaska Pipeline System (TAPS) was completed. The line runs from Prudhoe Bay to Valdez, Alaska. Since that time, tankers varying in size from 50,000 to 250,000 DWT have been transporting crude oil from Valdez to U.S. west coast ports. On average there is one loaded tanker entering the Juan de Fuca Strait every day and conversely, a tanker, in ballast, exits the straits for Alaska."..... I've found this same stat (2 tankers per day, including ballast return) in several locations... I also presume there to be 'some tanker traffic' that travels past the Juan de Fuca Strait (and Washington refineries) to more southerly U.S. west coast ports; however, I didn't bother to pursue this. 2. - the port of Kitimat BC (re: between Kitimat and Asian ports, shipping 'DilBit' & condensate to/from Enbridge's proposed Northern Gateway pipeline & BC's own designs on shipping LNG (liquefied natural gas) from BC gas fields): ~700 tankers per year, proposed: - per the formal Enbridge Northern Gateway proposal to the National Energy Board’s Joint Review Panel, - shipping 500,000 bbls/day, ~225 tankers per year carrying tarsands Diluted Bitumen Oil (DilBit) from Kitimat to Asian ports. The proposal intent is to ship the DilBit splitting the yearly cargo across a probable mix of tanker sizes: ~55 "Aframax class tankers (120,000 dwt)", ~120 "Suezmax class tankers (200,000 dwt)", ~50 "VLCC class super-tankers (330,000 dwt)". - shipping ~ 200,000 bbls/day, ~225 tankers per year carrying natural gas condensate from Asia in support of refining raw tarsands bitumen 'sludge' into DilBit and, - per BC's own designs on shipping 25,000,000 tons/year of liquefied natural gas (LNG), ~250 tankers per year from BC gas fields to Asian ports. 3. - Port Metro Vancouver BC (re: shipping 'various hydrocarbon products, including Dilbit') from Kinder Morgan's Trans Mountain expansion proposal): from existing ~60 tankers per year, to proposed ~410 tankers per year: - per the formal Kinder Morgan proposed expansion, intent is to go from shipping 350,000 bbls/day to 890,000 bbls/day; a 2.5 times increase and, accordingly increase tanker traffic from the existing ~60/year to ~410/year. The proposal also states an intent not to increase ship size beyond the present "Aframax class tanker (120,000 dwt)". Edited January 11, 2014 by waldo Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
overthere Posted January 11, 2014 Report Share Posted January 11, 2014 "per the formal Kinder Morgan proposed expansion, intent is to go from shipping 350,000 bbls/day to 890,000 bbls/day; a 2.5 times increase and, accordingly increase tanker traffic from the existing ~60/year to ~410/year. The proposal also states an intent not to increase ship size beyond the present "Aframax class tanker (120,000 dwt)". something does not add up here....a 250% increase in volume shipped, use the same class of ships, and there will be a 700% increase in the number of ships in Vancouver Harbour? "I didn't find anything definitive to outline any 'passage transfer' type monies to BC realized through TAPS (Trans Alaska Pipeline System) shipping traffic... " Why hasn't there been an uproar over this injustice? Or are the Alaskan tankers - some 25,000 of them so far by your count,steaming past the same BC coast(north to south for 1,000 kms of costs as compared to heading west to deep water from Kitimat). Are they not a constant threat to our environment? Why isn't Alaska being asked to meet BCs 5 conditions? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted January 11, 2014 Report Share Posted January 11, 2014 hey 'overthere' guy... the waldo took the time/effort to attempt to answer your questions. You're most welcome! "per the formal Kinder Morgan proposed expansion, intent is to go from shipping 350,000 bbls/day to 890,000 bbls/day; a 2.5 times increase and, accordingly increase tanker traffic from the existing ~60/year to ~410/year. The proposal also states an intent not to increase ship size beyond the present "Aframax class tanker (120,000 dwt)".something does not add up here....a 250% increase in volume shipped, use the same class of ships, and there will be a 700% increase in the number of ships in Vancouver Harbour? here... since you appear unwilling to put your own effort into it... 120,000 dwt is the max deadweight tonnage for the Aframax class (various size ships within that class carry between 80,000 and 120,000 deadweight tons... this equates to between ~500,000 to ~800,000 barrels of crude oil). There is also, as I interpret, given draft restrictions, an 80% of capacity load limit imposed on tanker traffic within the Burrard Inlet reducing that to between ~400,000 to ~640,000 barrels.(as an aside, you may want to check how you calculate percentage increase... try 150% shipping load increase & 580% tanker number increase). In any case, I look forward to you bringing forward more accurate/complete numbers.. "I didn't find anything definitive to outline any 'passage transfer' type monies to BC realized through TAPS (Trans Alaska Pipeline System) shipping traffic... "Why hasn't there been an uproar over this injustice? Or are the Alaskan tankers - some 25,000 of them so far by your count,steaming past the same BC coast(north to south for 1,000 kms of costs as compared to heading west to deep water from Kitimat). Are they not a constant threat to our environment? Why isn't Alaska being asked to meet BCs 5 conditions? uproar? Out of sight... out of mind! In any case, as below, there is an existing "exclusion zone"... apparently, voluntarily agreed to by shipping companies (after various previous other implemented exclusion zones were deemed 'too expensive/uncertain' by shipping companies. per the Canadian Coast Guard: for the purpose of keeping laden tankers west of the zone boundary in an effort to protect the shoreline and coastal waters from a potential risk of pollution. Uhhh... about that Douglas Channel to Kitimat! A tanker exclusion zone (TEZ) has been established off the Pacific coast of Canada as a result of the discontinuance of the Trans Alaska Pipeline Tanker Routes.The purpose of the TEZ is to keep laden tankers west of the zone boundary in an effort to protect the shoreline and coastal waters from a potential risk of pollution.The zone boundary follows the Canada/Alaska border to a point approximately 115 miles west of Langara Island, thence southward to approximately 73 miles southwest of Cape St. James, thence to 40 miles southwest of Amphitrite Point and thence due east to just off Cape Flattery.The TEZ is defined as follows: a line from 54°00'00"N 136°17'00"W thence to 51°05'00"N 132°30'00"W thence to 48°32'00"N 126°30'00"W thence to 48°32'00"N 125°09'00"W Loaded TAPS crude oil tankers transiting along the Pacific coast are requested to remain seaward of this zone boundary. . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted January 11, 2014 Report Share Posted January 11, 2014 (edited) for reference: re: Enbridge's Northern Gateway pipeline proposal: ============================================================================ re: Kinder Morgan's Trans Mountain pipeline (expansion) proposal: Edited January 11, 2014 by waldo Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
overthere Posted January 14, 2014 Report Share Posted January 14, 2014 350,000 bbls/day to 890,000 bbls/day approximately 250% increase in total barrels for Kinder Morgan accordingly increase tanker traffic from the existing ~60/year to ~410/year. the number of tankers will increase about sevenfold The proposal also states an intent not to increase ship size beyond the present "Aframax class tanker (120,000 dwt)". no increase in maximum ship size an 80% of capacity load limit imposed on tanker traffic within the Burrard Inlet reducing that to between ~400,000 to ~640,000 barrels. not even close to accounting for the discrepancy between increase in volume of oil and number of tankers. Unless there is a plan not yet revealed to ship more oil via pipeline from Burnaby to Washington Sate refineries? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted January 14, 2014 Report Share Posted January 14, 2014 not even close to accounting for the discrepancy between increase in volume of oil and number of tankers. hey 'overthere' guy... the waldo took the time/effort to attempt to answer your questions. You're most welcome! (as an aside, you may want to check how you calculate percentage increase... try 150% shipping load increase & 580% tanker number increase). In any case, I look forward to you bringing forward more accurate/complete numbers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted January 14, 2014 Report Share Posted January 14, 2014 - per the formal Kinder Morgan proposed expansion, intent is to go from shipping 350,000 bbls/day to 890,000 bbls/day; a 2.5 times increase and, accordingly increase tanker traffic from the existing ~60/year to ~410/year. The proposal also states an intent not to increase ship size beyond the present "Aframax class tanker (120,000 dwt)". per Kinder Morgan's official Trans Mountain project website: The proposed expansion, if approved, would create a twinned pipeline that would increase the nominal capacity of the system from 300,000 barrels per day, to 890,000 barrels per day. At present, the Westridge Marine Terminal handles approximately five tankers per month. Should the proposed expansion be approved, the number of tankers loaded at the Westridge Marine Terminal could increase to approximately 34 per month. 34/month => 408/year . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ReeferMadness Posted January 15, 2014 Report Share Posted January 15, 2014 The environmental risks are simply not worth the benefits to BC. What benefits??? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.