Pipeline Politics - Is Canada the only "sucker" Nation?

[waldo]

Petrophiles eh, yea, that's right, im sure you are completely oil free, im sure that all of the other people who are against this pipeline are as well.

Ultimately this is more about an anti oil philosophy for most of you than an anti pipeline philosophy, of course it's difficult to bring that philosophy through the front door to a society that needs and wants oil, not even to mention the economic importance to a nation with lots of it, so the anti pipeline movement is simply the more dishonest back door. But you know what's good for us, the ends, the means, and all that.

apparently, the MLW member cybercoma's labeling 'petrophile' was just too much... he went over and above... he crossed the line! Is there any latitude in your described anti-philosophies to consider a position of persons calling for forceful environmental protections and proper independent risk assessments with accompanying appropriate risk attachments?

.

[jacee]

Why is it that we are the only nation on earth that faces almost insurmountable obstacles to build new pipelines. We've had 100,000 kilometers of pipeline running virtually free of problems for decades.

Not true.

/massive-alberta-oil-spill-bigger-kalamazoo-disaster

http://www.cbc.ca/beta/news/canada/alberta-pipelines-5-major-oil-spills-in-recent-history-1.3156604

http://activehistory.ca/2015/07/the-biggest-oil-pipeline-spills-in-canadian-history/

And remember ... we're talking about dilbit, tar diluted with volatile compounds:

Kalamazoo ... Spill from Hell!

Unlike conventional crude, diluted bitumen or "dilbit" is a mixture of unrefined tar that is often heavier than water and "diluent." This is usually a cocktail of volatile solvents like naphtha or natural gas condensate that allows the thick bitumen to be pumped through the pipeline.

A toxic cloud released

The local residents and EPA responders near Kalamazoo quickly learned that bitumen and diluent do not stay together once released into the environment.

Volatile portions of the diluent containing toxic fumes of benzene and toluene began off-gassing in the area, impacting the health of almost 60 per cent of the local population with symptoms such as nausea, dizziness, headaches, coughing and fatigue. Clean-up crews were issued respirators to protect them from toxic fumes.

Local residents interviewed by the Tyee reported that even weeks after the Kalamazoo spill, they could still smell the fumes up to 50 kilometres away. The local health department went to door-to-door in the days after the spill to assess acute symptoms. They also instituted a voluntary evacuation within about one mile of the river to limit people's exposure to benzene fumes -- a known carcinogen.

Sunken tar sinks to bottom

As the lighter chemicals evaporated into the surrounding area, the bitumen portion began to sink to the bottom and become mixed with river sediments. Conventional clean-up equipment such as skimmers and oil booms proved useless in recovering the large amounts of submerged oil that now covers an area of river bottom estimated to be approximately 200 acres.

"This was the first time the EPA or anyone has done a submerged cleanup of this magnitude," Ralph Dollhopf, the EPA Incident Commander for the Kalamazoo spill told the local media.

"I would never have expected... that we would have spent two or three times longer working on the submerged oil than surface oil. I don't think anyone at the EPA anticipated that, I don't think anyone at the state level anticipated that, I don't think anyone in industry anticipated that."

In the absence of any previous experience in dealing with spilled Alberta bitumen, the EPA had to "write the book" on figuring out how to recover large amounts of oil that doesn't float.

The US has over two million kilometers of pipelines criss-crossing their nation - again, virtually free of problems

Not true either.

Google it.

and Obama brags that his administration has built enough new pipelines to circle the world. Where is the clamour to shut down oil production in the Gulf of Mexico - or the North Sea? Where is the outrage in Denmark or Norway? Why is Canada singled out?

What is it about Canada that allows foreign-funded activist groups to continually disparage our oil? Why is the mainstream media - and now this new Liberal government - so ignorant of the difference between "pipeline safety" and the forces that want to keep all oil in the ground?

We're suckers. We need to stand up for our country and our economy - the right to responsibly extract and deliver our product to market - like every other nation in the world. Until we do, we'll be the only "sucker" nation in the world.

Here's a list of all countries who have pipelines - and the number of kilometers for each:

Link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_total_length_of_pipelines

Now Google leaks, spills and seepage. Edited January 30, 2016 by jacee

[Smallc]

how much 'closer' to consensus is required, in your opinion, to move forward on any of thse projects?

That's a simple question to answer - close enough to allow them to proceed when they have the scientific merit to do so.

[69cat]

So is bitumen dangerous or toxic for the environment? It is sure being made to sound that way. We dig it out of the ground where it has lain and polluted that area for thousands of years and then go dump it on the ground all over Canada in thousands upon thousands of tons a year, along side water ways, fresh water, where ever. In fact, the closer one is to an urban environment the more and more tons we dump on the ground.

And lets not forget that our urban centres destroy more of the environment yearly then oil sands development does but there seems no end to that. Cant grow trees and grass in a parking lot, nor is there a diverse wildlife population in a city.

And as for Canadas petro dollar, oil was around 7% of gdp in 2014 and expected to be about 3 to 4% this year or next. I do not beleive any government has put all of Canadas eggs in one basket but certainly people like to beleive that.

The reality is that if a pipeline is built in the next two years it will have nothing to do with changes in environmental standards. The only change will be how the propaganda is shifted. And that is ultimately what the goal is, after years of saying how bad oil is the new government needs time to reverse the propaganda machine and make it sound like a resource industry including oil is good for Canada. Then we will have our 'social license'. To date i have not heard a specific example where our environmental standards are questionable for pipelines. Just sat through an Enbridge environmental video, there is certainly an extensive degree of third party approvals required but i guess there will always be those who say that if any development is done then most definitely people must have been bought off. It is impossible for a government to establish rules and a private company be held accountable.

I cleaned up an oil spill a few years ago. I must be meeting the wrong people because no one presented themselves as someone i could give some money to and make the issue go away. How does it work to become part of the elite who does not follow rules?

[waldo]

So is bitumen dangerous or toxic for the environment? It is sure being made to sound that way. We dig it out of the ground where it has lain and polluted that area for thousands of years and then go dump it on the ground all over Canada in thousands upon thousands of tons a year, along side water ways, fresh water, where ever. In fact, the closer one is to an urban environment the more and more tons we dump on the ground.

bitumen is not dilbit! Wait a minute... let me take the liberty to also highlight the "loophole" Exxon exercised to avoid pipeline leak cleanup costs (a pipeline carrying Alberta sourced dilbit)... because bitumen is not oil! Whaa! Now this reference is the U.S. and is a couple of years old now... I'll wait for someone to advise if the technicality has been dealt with or if/how it might be relevant directly to Canadian pipelines (within Canada).

.

[69cat]

The rationale is that US environmental policies must automatically apply to Canada and thus Canada should not build pipelines?

And sending a raw product (bitumen) is not nearly as bad as sending a mixed product (dilbit)? And then what about when a pipeline sends LNG, diesel, jet fuel, or condensate through the same pipe through 3 provinces during one week, is that OK because they are not blended?

And regarding the possibility of a pipeline spill and the environmental impact. Does someone want to calculate how many millions of barrels of bitumen are spread on the ground in Canada intentionally per year? I do not know what the environmental cleanup cost will be to restore a city like Montreal to its natural habitat in the future but you can bet there will be enough crude on and in the ground to make any Canadian pipeline spill look trivial.

[waldo]

And sending a raw product (bitumen) is not nearly as bad as sending a mixed product (dilbit)? And then what about when a pipeline sends LNG, diesel, jet fuel, or condensate through the same pipe through 3 provinces during one week, is that OK because they are not blended?

as I'm aware pipeline coating tech to allow raw bitumen to flow within a pipeline is still within a lab setting and hasn't been scaled to a real-world application level... are you suggesting there are pipelines today carrying raw bitumen (without being diluted to/with dilbit to allow pipeline flow)?

in any case, a recent paper speaking to dilbit toxicity: Biological effects and toxicity of diluted bitumen and its constituents in freshwater systems --- "Dilbit is likely to provide ecological impacts that are similar to and extend from those that follow from exposure to lighter crude oil, but the prospect of bitumen settling after binding to suspended sediments elevates the risk for benthic impacts in streams and lakes."

.

And regarding the possibility of a pipeline spill and the environmental impact. Does someone want to calculate how many millions of barrels of bitumen are spread on the ground in Canada intentionally per year?

not quite sure how you presume to draw a parallel between the environmental impact of a pipeline spill on an affected ecosystem to that of the asphalt percentage within asphalt concrete for roadway application.

.

[ReeferMadness]

So is bitumen dangerous or toxic for the environment?

Bitumen is oil with more carbon than hydrogen. It also tends to contain more impurities like nitrogen and heavy metals. I wouldn't eat it if I were you.

We dig it out of the ground where it has lain and polluted that area for thousands of years

There are a lot of things we dig out the ground - lead, asbestos, arsenic, mercury, uranium. Just because it occurs naturally in the ground, doesn't mean it's a good idea to dig it up and tamper with it.

and then go dump it on the ground all over Canada in thousands upon thousands of tons a year, along side water ways, fresh water, where ever. In fact, the closer one is to an urban environment the more and more tons we dump on the ground.

Two points. First, that bitumen is bound in a tightly packed aggregate designed to be highly resistant to water (otherwise our roads would wash away). Used aggregate must be disposed of properly and nobody dumps bitumen into a waterway (or they're not supposed to anyway). Second, the fact that we do something doesn't make it good. Countries around the world have been operating nuclear power plants for decades despite the fact that most of them don't have a viable long term plan for dealing with the waste. That's daft but there you have it.

And lets not forget that our urban centres destroy more of the environment yearly then oil sands development does but there seems no end to that. Cant grow trees and grass in a parking lot, nor is there a diverse wildlife population in a city.

Unless you're proposing to cull humanity, I'm not sure of your point.

And as for Canadas petro dollar, oil was around 7% of gdp in 2014 and expected to be about 3 to 4% this year or next. I do not beleive any government has put all of Canadas eggs in one basket but certainly people like to beleive that.

So, Harper's claim to making Canada an energy superpower was just hot air? Find a reputable economist who will say that the correlation between the gyrations of the dollar and the price of oil was just a cosmic coincidence and then we'll talk.

The reality is that if a pipeline is built in the next two years

If a pipeline is built in 2 years, it will be divine intervention. The construction phase will take 9 years so this turkey is at least 10 years out. So linking it to Alberta's and Saskatchewan's current economic problems is complete nonsense. But, hey. Brad Wall has a constituency to manipulate.

it will have nothing to do with changes in environmental standards.

Agreed. This has nothing to do with environmental standards because no matter what they do, spills are going to happen. And dilbit is nasty when it hits the environment. Instead, it has to local communities. Do they have control over what oil companies do in their area or not? And it has to do with science. Are we willing to face up to the reality that we need to get off of fossil fuels or are we just going to keep dancing around it?

Just sat through an Enbridge environmental video, there is certainly an extensive degree of third party approvals required but i guess there will always be those who say that if any development is done then most definitely people must have been bought off. It is impossible for a government to establish rules and a private company be held accountable.

Did this Enbridge environmental video cover the Kalamazoo River oil spill? Did they mention that the spill contaminated 37 miles of river? Did they say that despite an alarm that went off around 6 PM, it wasn't until the next day when someone told them their oil was flowing down the river than they bothered to respond? Close to 18 hours. Did they tell you that the fine that they received for this gross malfeasance was a paltry $3.7 million? But please. Do tell us all about how private companies are held responsible.

How does it work to become part of the elite who does not follow rules?

You mean how does one become and oil company executive? idk.

Edited January 31, 2016 by ReeferMadness

[Argus]

If aboriginal people don't have their wishes accounted for, good luck getting anything done.

So natives rule in Canada now under the Liberal government? They have a veto on all development?

[Argus]

Though you'll never get complete consensus, you can get a lot closer than the Conservatives did.

How? There is no circumstance which would in any way cause pipeline opponents to be any less shrill in their opposition, no amount of hearings, no amount of guarantees, no regulations, nothing which will ever convince the brainless, drooling imbeciles of the so-called 'environment' movement that pipelines are necessary and safe. These are fanatics and zealots. If you tell them that people will lose their jobs, that homes can't be heated, that there'll be no fuel for cars and trucks, their answer will be a big smile. They're not living in the real world.

[Argus]

What you and I see as an issue is, in this case, irrelevant. Their constitutionally enshrined rights exists. That isn't the case in any other country that I know of.

Unless the pipelines across cross their reservations the only rights they have are meaningful consultation. So we consult them then build.

[Argus]

That's a simple question to answer - close enough to allow them to proceed when they have the scientific merit to do so.

All of the pipeline projects have the scientific merit to continue. The opposition is not based on science, but emotion.

[Smallc]

Unless the pipelines across cross their reservations the only rights they have are meaningful consultation. So we consult them then build.

That's absolutely incorrect. I don't like the current situation, but it exists in reality. If a project crosses their traditional there irony and if a treaty exists, they must be consulted. If a treaty doesn't exist and the project is not mandatory infrastructure, the company needs their consent to proceed.

[Smallc]

All of the pipeline projects have the scientific merit to continue. The opposition is not based on science, but emotion.

I used to support Northern Gateway. Learning about how dill bit and water react changed my mind.

Edited January 31, 2016 by Smallc

[Argus]

That's absolutely incorrect. I don't like the current situation, but it exists in reality. If a project crosses their traditional there irony and if a treaty exists, they must be consulted. If a treaty doesn't exist and the project is not mandatory infrastructure, the company needs their consent to proceed.

Consultation does not mean veto.

[Smallc]

Consultation does not mean veto.

When you're dealing with an area not covered in a treaty, according to the 2014 decision re aboriginal title, you need aboriginal consent. For Northern Gateway and possibly Transmountain, that's definitely a veto.By cancelling Northern Gateway, and increasing your environmental cred, you should be better able to convince people that you're serious about the environment. Combine that with a more rigorous process, and it's easier to get things like Trans Mountain and Energy East done in the end.

[overthere]

That's a simple question to answer - close enough to allow them to proceed when they have the scientific merit to do so.

What an extremely bizarre response.

Our Prime Minister has required and you have agreed that there must be 'social licence' , 'meaningful consultation' and 'consensus' on any pipeline projects.

I'll ask you again, what are your specific metrics that would measure these elements which are now part of the approval process for Energy East and Kinder Morgan? Add in scientific merits if you wish.

I know that the pipleline companies and oil companies are both asking themselves the same question, which is "what is actually required of us ? How many more billions do we spend trying to nail Jello to a wall in advance of getting pipe into the ground".

The reality is that there are no metrics, the science has nothing to do with it now, and these projects are dead. The only thing left is for the companies to withdraw, which will enable Trudeau and others to claim they had nothing to do with that project collapse. He'll be a hero for those on the breadlines..

Edited January 31, 2016 by overthere

[69cat]

Ok, so if i inderstand the issue it is dilbit that is the problem, also known as naptha, also known as a primary component of jet fuel. So is the end goal to stop the transport of jet fuel via pipeline because the risk is far too great.

Unrefined bitumen is a problem but refined bitumen dumped on the ground is ok? Is that correct? And destroying the environment to put down a 4 lane highway built with bitumen is ok in the name of progress but destroying the environment that will be reused after the pipe is in the ground is not ok in the name of progress.

Trying to get a handle on the hot buttons as it seems one form of progress is good and another is bad. A pipeline failure damages an ecosystem for what, 10 years to be very loose where as city development damages an ecosystem for centuries but still goes ahead. I am trying to get a handle on the rational of Denis Coderre and why he hasnt been able to defend his position.

Also a pipeline that starts within 2 years i will certainly consider a done deal. That means all the regulations and approvals are in place and the project is considered to meet all requirements. After that it is just a matter of time.

Regarding the Kalamazoo spill, no it wasnt mentioned. Was it mentioned that Tuesday evening around 5 pm that Enbridge shut down line 1 (this is from Gretna, Mb to its origin in northern Alberta) because a farmer noticed the ground settled around a road side valve and thought he smelled something? Line was down within minutes of the call and did not wait for an Enbridge rep to check it out. Cuts my day short on site when i cant test motors because the line was shut down while i am working in the electrical room. And by the way, there was no issue with the line as the issue was the frozen ground dug up in November around a valve had thawed and settled.

[Smallc]

The reality is that there are no metrics, the science has nothing to do with it now, and these projects are dead.

Since all the new requirements have to do with scientific metrics, I'm not sure where you get that from. Social license has to do with getting buy in from community groups and aboriginal groups with a veto and or consultation rights. I can't give you metrics on that, only the affected groups can.

[On Guard for Thee]

How? There is no circumstance which would in any way cause pipeline opponents to be any less shrill in their opposition, no amount of hearings, no amount of guarantees, no regulations, nothing which will ever convince the brainless, drooling imbeciles of the so-called 'environment' movement that pipelines are necessary and safe. These are fanatics and zealots. If you tell them that people will lose their jobs, that homes can't be heated, that there'll be no fuel for cars and trucks, their answer will be a big smile. They're not living in the real world.

My, my Argus, this type of clap trap from the guy who so often whinges that he's been insulted when someone points out the xenophobic nature of some of his posts? The double standard is rather apparent wouldn't you say?

[waldo]

Ok, so if i inderstand the issue it is dilbit that is the problem, also known as naptha, also known as a primary component of jet fuel. So is the end goal to stop the transport of jet fuel via pipeline because the risk is far too great.

Unrefined bitumen is a problem but refined bitumen dumped on the ground is ok? Is that correct? And destroying the environment to put down a 4 lane highway built with bitumen is ok in the name of progress but destroying the environment that will be reused after the pipe is in the ground is not ok in the name of progress.

you asked questions related to dilbit - you received responses and proceed to strawman "dilbit as the problem". And you draw an immediate equivalency between dilbit and jet-fuel... choosing to, apparently, completely ignore all the scientific based aspects of sediment impacting upon dilbit and what that means to leaks/discharges affecting freshwater/ocean ecosystems. Unless you're drawing an equivalency between oil sheen on surface water and dilbit sitting on a river/ocean bottom. Now, dilbit is 'a' problem/concern to certain people/agencies/organizations/etc..; one you can choose to narrowly elevate to 'the' problem/concern.

since you ignored my question asking you about your statements on pipelines and raw bitumen... does this mean you confirm my statement that, in effect, as I'm aware, any pipeline coating tech to support raw bitumen pipeline passage is still within a 'lab concept' and hasn't been scaled to a real-world deployment. Is that what you're saying with your ignoring of that question?

since you're once again mentioning asphalt roadway and trying to draw some equivalency, I'll note you also didn't reply to the direct pointed comment put to you; I'll try again: "not quite sure how you presume to draw a parallel between the environmental impact of a pipeline spill on an affected ecosystem to that of the asphalt percentage within asphalt concrete for roadway application."

.

[Argus]

When you're dealing with an area not covered in a treaty, according to the 2014 decision re aboriginal title, you need aboriginal consent.

Second, the decision does not give first nations a veto over government-authorized projects that affect their lands. In fact, the eight justices ruled that for purposes of “building up infrastructure’ or “general economic development,” federal and provincial governments can override the wishes of first nations — even those that possess clear aboriginal title to their territory through treaties or court decisions.

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2014/06/27/supreme_court_decision_hands_aboriginals_pipeline_power_walkom.html

Edited February 1, 2016 by Argus

[Smallc]

Second, the decision does not give first nations a veto over government-authorized projects that affect their lands. In fact, the eight justices ruled that for purposes of “building up infrastructure’ or “general economic development,” federal and provincial governments can override the wishes of first nations — even those that possess clear aboriginal title to their territory through treaties or court decisions.

Well that's good to know then. Still, I think this might be a grey area given that there is little support for something like Northern Gateway even in non aboriginal communities.

[Argus]

Well that's good to know then. Still, I think this might be a grey area given that there is little support for something like Northern Gateway even in non aboriginal communities.

The problem is that people are swayed by horror stories of big ugly black oil spills, though pipeline spills have all been strictly limited in area and damage, while the counter argument is much more difficult to grasp and not as graphic - more jobs, more taxes, a better economy.

[waldo]

All of the pipeline projects have the scientific merit to continue. The opposition is not based on science, but emotion.

and here I thought Energy East was just before the NEB... and it's proceedings are no where near complete - who knew... you knew!

when RonaConservatives (the former muzzler's of scientists and posers on climate change action) say they want pipelines "decided by science", just what are they saying, hey MLW member Argus?