Grain or oil

[TimG]

People with environmental concerns= all idiots out to destroy the country

Well, it is possible for environmentalists to be constructive - when they look for ways to allow projects to move forward while looking after the environment. The trouble is that does not happen - they just want to shut down all development that has a chance of generating revenue. The only way the economy can move forward is to ignore them.

The opposition to pipelines is what has tipped the scales and shown the enviros for the self centered SOBs that they have become. Pipelines are the cleanest and safest way to transport oil products yet they face endless delays. They cannot claim any moral high ground when they oppose rational development.

Edited March 7, 2014 by TimG

[WestCoastRunner]

The only way the economy can move forward is to ignore them.

Why would we want to sacrifice British Columbia and the west coast (and pretty much BC's economy) just to ship bitumen to Communist China.

[TimG]

Why would we want to sacrifice British Columbia and the west coast (and pretty much BC's economy) just to ship bitumen to Communist China.

China pays good money for that bitumen - money that is necessary for Canadians to pay for all of the goods imported from China.

The fact is Canada must export stuff to maintain its standard of living. Whether you like or not resources are the the competitive advantage that Canada has in the world and we are able to generate more net income from them than any other industry (nearly 25% of the total from energy alone). http://www.statcan.gc.ca/tables-tableaux/sum-som/l01/cst01/gblec04-eng.htm

How do you think Canada will pay for all of those social programs if you kill off 25% of Canada's export revenue?

That said, we don't need all of the pipelines. If the North Gateway is too risky then expand the southern one to Vancouver and expedite a new one going east. But saying we don't need to build these pipelines is nonsense.

Edited March 7, 2014 by TimG

[Spiderfish]

Their profitability is linked to being able to sell their product. The cost of fossil fuels means dick if they have no income to buy them.

Right. But grain farmers are facing the same challenge as the oil and gas industry... lack of product is not the issue, finding a buyer for the product is not the issue, it's getting the product to the buyer that is the problem. And there are viable solutions, but we have to start putting a process in place that encourages more efficient transport of all products. Instead of trying to control and limit production of our resources by creating logistical bottlenecks in delivery, it would seem to make sense from a business perspective to find safer, cheaper, and more environmentally friendly solutions that will eliminate or reduce the problem of transporting product to market.

[Spiderfish]

Why would we want to sacrifice British Columbia and the west coast (and pretty much BC's economy) just to ship bitumen to Communist China.

Don't worry, if BC doesn't want in on the economic benefit from Alberta oil, there are other provinces who do.

TransCanada west-east pipeline in first stage of approval

[Wilber]

Don't worry, if BC doesn't want in on the economic benefit from Alberta oil, there are other provinces who do.

TransCanada west-east pipeline in first stage of approval

I think most British Columbians would have little problem with this. There is little economic benefit and a lot of risk.

[Spiderfish]

I think most British Columbians would have little problem with this. There is little economic benefit and a lot of risk.

Yeah...10,000 jobs and $10 billion in GDP during development and construction phase (according to an independent Delloite & Touche projection analysis) is really nothing....nothing at all.

And the majority of this project utilizes an existing operating pipeline, so much of the risk has already been assumed.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/new-brunswick/energy-east-pipeline-may-create-10-000-jobs-study-says-1.1699614

TransCanada Corp.'s proposed west-east pipeline could create 10,000 jobs and generate $10 billion in additional GDP during the development and construction phase, according to an economic analysis released on Tuesday.

The project could generate an additional $25.3 billion in GDP during its estimated 40 years of operation and sustain 1,000 direct full-time jobs, the independent report prepared by Deloitte & Touche found.

Energy East could also generate $10 billion in tax revenues for all levels of government over the life of the project, which is expected to extend beyond 40 years with regular maintenance, Deloitte projected.

Edited March 7, 2014 by Spiderfish

[WestCoastRunner]

Yeah...10,000 jobs and $10 billion in GDP during development and construction phase (according to an independent Delloite & Touche projection analysis) is really nothing....nothing at all.

And the majority of this project utilizes an existing operating pipeline, so much of the risk has already been assumed.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/new-brunswick/energy-east-pipeline-may-create-10-000-jobs-study-says-1.1699614

You should read the link you provided. That route is going east from Alberta. It won't be going through BC.

[Spiderfish]

You should read the link you provided. That route is going east from Alberta. It won't be going through BC.

Try to keep up.

[Spiderfish]

That route is going east from Alberta. It won't be going through BC.

Do you think there will be little economic benefit to a pipeline construction through BC? As I said, if BC doesn't want in on the economic benefit from Alberta oil, there are other provinces who do.

[Wilber]

Yeah...10,000 jobs and $10 billion in GDP during development and construction phase (according to an independent Delloite & Touche projection analysis) is really nothing....nothing at all.

And the majority of this project utilizes an existing operating pipeline, so much of the risk has already been assumed.

286 long term jobs according to the Review Panel and open ended risk. Short term gain for potential long term pain.

Which pipeline are we talking about? Northern Gateway is completely new.

[Spiderfish]

Which pipeline are we talking about? Northern Gateway is completely new.

Correct, the NGP is completely new, the west-east option is not. Both options would surely offer positive economic benefit for their respective regions.

I'm not sure what the chances are of the NGP getting final approval and surviving the inevitable appeal process if it does. I understand the resistance to this option and the potential environmental risks. The west-east option seems like it would satisfy all parties, BC would be left alone, and the eastern provinces could reap the economic benefit from transporting it east.

[Smallc]

We need all the proposed pipelines...the amount of oil coming out of the ground in the oil sands is going to more than double.

[Wilber]

We need all the proposed pipelines...the amount of oil coming out of the ground in the oil sands is going to more than double.

Not all of "We" would agree with you when it comes to "all"..

[Wilber]

Correct, the NGP is completely new, the west-east option is not. Both options would surely offer positive economic benefit for their respective regions.

I'm not sure what the chances are of the NGP getting final approval and surviving the inevitable appeal process if it does. I understand the resistance to this option and the potential environmental risks. The west-east option seems like it would satisfy all parties, BC would be left alone, and the eastern provinces could reap the economic benefit from transporting it east.

The Kinder Morgan proposal to twin the existing line through BC isn't new either. If I had to choose, I would prefer that to the NGP, because I think it presents less environmental risk from both the pipeline and tanker traffic..

How much economic benefit is there to other provinces after the lines are built, unless they are an end user? That is what each province will have to decide for itself.

[TimG]

The Kinder Morgan proposal to twin the existing line through BC isn't new either. If I had to choose, I would prefer that to the NGP, because I think it presents less environmental risk from both the pipeline and tanker traffic.

I agree. And this the kind I constructive discussion that I think is worth having. i.e. figure out a way to make the risk manageable from the perspective of BC residents. Edited March 8, 2014 by TimG

[waldo]

The Kinder Morgan proposal to twin the existing line through BC isn't new either. If I had to choose, I would prefer that to the NGP, because I think it presents less environmental risk from both the pipeline and tanker traffic..

given tanker traffic numbers and the route, how much is 'less'?

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)".

re: Kinder Morgan's Trans Mountain pipeline (expansion) proposal:

[Wilber]

given tanker traffic numbers and the route, how much is 'less'?

Quite a bit less. The route is much more accessible in the event of a spill and the ships are smaller than those proposed for NG. Tankers have been delivering Alaskan oil to six refineries in Puget Sound and Georgia Straight since the seventies without a major incident.

[waldo]

the route begs the question: why is the expansion centered around the Burnaby/Westridge terminus? Clearly, the existing Washington State ports have both inbound/outbound... isn't this just a way to avoid the U.S. State Department/Obama admin making another decision that involves crossing the border? A decision that puts more risk on Vancouver city/Burrard inlet?

quite obviously, the routes are not the same... proposing to expand the Canadian route seven-fold is a dramatic increase. In a past post I highlighted the constraints ships from the Burnaby/Westridge terminus are under... given draft restrictions, an 80% of capacity load limit is imposed on tanker traffic within the Burrard Inlet. Additionally, when loaded to that level, ships must wait for the tide given there is but a 1.5 meter clearance to the harbour floor. My earlier reference to keeping to the existing Aframax (245m) class ship was... possibly... premature. I'm reading suggestion that there is a possible intent to extend to also include the Suez-Max (285m) class ship. This, of course, requires berthing and channel dredging of the inlet and 1st/2nd narrows.

[bush_cheney2004]

Clearly, the existing Washington State ports have both inbound/outbound... isn't this just a way to avoid the U.S. State Department/Obama admin making another decision that involves crossing the border?

Yes....just another example of the practical impact of "The Border". Always...The Border. Nothing special about British Columbia...no pain...no gain.

[WestCoastRunner]

There are also risks around the gulf islands and the Juan de Fuca Strait. And with larger tankers and a higher volume of tankers, the risk increases significantly.

A Pacific States/British Columbia Oil Spill Task Force reported that tankers may hole up in the gulf islands during a storm. In 2009, a bulk carrier dragged anchor in high winds and was blown onto a rocky reef near Mayne Island. No oil was spilled but the risk was very high. There is also a serious risk of collision at the western entrance to the Juan de Fuca Strait where ships converge in a narrower channel and local pilots are not required. This puts the Swiftsure Bank at great risk and would be disastrous to this area rich in sea life.

While there will be more safety measures put it place, again, the risks far outweigh the benefits to BC.

I would suggest that anyone who has not sailed around the BC coast and the gulf islands do so before they put their support behind these pipelines.

[Smallc]

Let's just give up then.

[Wilber]

the route begs the question: why is the expansion centered around the Burnaby/Westridge terminus? Clearly, the existing Washington State ports have both inbound/outbound... isn't this just a way to avoid the U.S. State Department/Obama admin making another decision that involves crossing the border? A decision that puts more risk on Vancouver city/Burrard inlet?

quite obviously, the routes are not the same... proposing to expand the Canadian route seven-fold is a dramatic increase. In a past post I highlighted the constraints ships from the Burnaby/Westridge terminus are under... given draft restrictions, an 80% of capacity load limit is imposed on tanker traffic within the Burrard Inlet. Additionally, when loaded to that level, ships must wait for the tide given there is but a 1.5 meter clearance to the harbour floor. My earlier reference to keeping to the existing Aframax (245m) class ship was... possibly... premature. I'm reading suggestion that there is a possible intent to extend to also include the Suez-Max (285m) class ship. This, of course, requires berthing and channel dredging of the inlet and 1st/2nd narrows.

I'm trying to figure out what your point is with the Americans. Are you saying they are a problem if they don't want us shipping it down the channel they use? Why would they volunteer to do that if we aren't even willing to ship it in our own waters? Do you want them to ship it for us out of their terminals? If that's the case we should have no objection to shipping their coal out of Delta Port should we? The routes are basically the same. One goes down the east side of the San Juan's and the other goes down the west side. The route follows the border and any spill on the west side would be just as likely to affect Americans as us.

So we do some berthing improvements and dredging. Vancouver is a port and that's what ports do all the time. It is not like Burrard inlet is the mouth of a major fish bearing river.

Clearly, Georgia Strait is too dangerous for any large shipping and we should shut Vancouver down altogether.

[bush_cheney2004]

I'm trying to figure out what your point is with the Americans. Are you saying they are a problem if they don't want us shipping it down the channel they use? Why would they volunteer to do that if we aren't even willing to ship it in our own waters?

Well stated...I don't understand the difference. Is the BC side some kind of special paradise compared to Washington state ? Except when it comes to the discharge of raw sewage ?

[Wilber]

There is also a serious risk of collision at the western entrance to the Juan de Fuca Strait where ships converge in a narrower channel and local pilots are not required. This puts the Swiftsure Bank at great risk and would be disastrous to this area rich in sea life.

Come on, the strait is 10 miles wide at its narrowest point. Just because pilots are not required now doesn't mean they can't be. We are talking about increasing the combined traffic from two of the largest ports in North America by 30 ships a month.