Elizabeth May Destroys Pipeline Arguments

[ReeferMadness]

So she is in favour of making the crude by rail the primary means of moving crude? Will she support the creation of a new rail corridor to carry crude or does she think the existing rail traffic should be simply pushed off to make room for crude? Frankly, nothing May has to say about the risks associated with anything has any credibility.

She didn't say that. She was responding to the refrain (repeated ad nauseum) that pipelines are the safest way to transport oil. She points out that it is safer (for human safety and the environment) to transport bitumen by rail than dilbit in a pipeline. If you're going to respond to a point, respond to the point made, not your own politically and ideologically motivated interpretation.

A hypocritical statement from someone who thinks CO2 emitting industries like bitumen upgraders should be shutdown. As long as Alberta is attacked for CO2 emissions there will be an incentive to refine elsewhere and make those emissions someone else's problem. Lastly, if no one believes that SCO pipelines would not be blocked by the same people for the same reason. If May really want SCO production in Alberta she should emphatically support the development of SCO pipelines.

Clearly Ms May accepts climate science and understands that all fossil fuels should be shut down. Until they are, however, there are different ways to exploit the resource. It's simply undeniable that the Alberta government has chosen a way that maximizes industry profit instead of maximizing value to the province or its workers. The pain that laid off Alberta workers today are feeling is a direct consequence of that gross mismanagement.

The claim by you and others that people who accept climate science somehow have no right to an opinion on how bitumen is exploited is just one more way that you wish to silence people who won't bow to the alter of unregulated capitalism.

Now this is just nonsense. Some imported product is used to facilitate the transport of oil sands crude and that means it does not reduce our dependency on foreign oil? Nonsense. Every barrel that refined in Montreal or NB is a barrel that does not need to be imported and it reduces our dependence.

The existing refineries in eastern Canada couldn't process all of Energy East capacity. And I've not read one indication that any of the refineries along the way will be upgrading their facilities to process dilbit. In fact, the Valero refinery in Montreal (Canada's second largest refinery) publicly distanced itself from Energy East, saying it has "no firm interest" and has already made significant sourcing commitments.

The fact is that most, if not all, of the dilbit that would go into Energy East would be exported.

[On Guard for Thee]

By posting her own misinformation, you mean?

Care to point out her "misinformation", or just a shot in the dark?

[ReeferMadness]

Anyone who thinks its cheaper and safer to move oil by rail than by pipeline is gobsmackingly stupid or insane. Period. End of story. Why in hell would anyone need to debate that?

So, I assume that you mean that when Enbridge spent a billion dollars and 6+ years cleaning up their mess in the Kalamazoo River, it was only because they are "gobsmackingly stupid"? Maybe if they had someone with your superior intellect to advise them, they wouldn't have needed to spend roughly $40,000 for every barrel spilled to dredge the river.

[TimG]

If we're all just going to make stuff up (i.e., not accept things at face value), then what's the point of the discussion?

You wish to imply that the meaning I am inferring is from May's words is wrong or invalid. It is not. The meaning I am inferring is quite reasonable given who May is and what she has said on other occasions. What May is doing is creating a false narrative to avoid saying what she really wants to say which is 'block all oil exports from Alberta'. In this false narrative May suggests that pipelines should be blocked because they are not exporting oil in the 'right way' which validates the opinion of people opposed to pipelines. Such narratives are powerful and don't have to be correct - they just need to sound logically consistent.

Now, the reasonable response to my argument would provide some argument to suggest that May is sincere and would actually support exports of oil if they were done differently. Simply complaining that I am 'making stuff up' misses the point and is just another dishonest tactic designed to validated the false narrative that May is trying to create.

[Smallc]

You wish to imply that the meaning I am inferring is from May's words is wrong or invalid. It is not.

That is only your opinion.

[TimG]

She didn't say that. She was responding to the refrain (repeated ad nauseum) that pipelines are the safest way to transport oil.

There are two aspects of safety: the chance of an incident happening and the scale of the incident when it does happen. May is arguing that the scale of incidents is larger with with pipelines but that does not make pipelines less safe if the chances of an incident is orders of magnitude smaller. May's argument is a red herring.

It's simply undeniable that the Alberta government has chosen a way that maximizes industry profit instead of maximizing value to the province or its workers. The pain that laid off Alberta workers today are feeling is a direct consequence of that gross mismanagement.

Anyone who thinks an industry should be shutdown because of their opinion on how to best deal with CO2 induced warming cannot claim to be looking out for the interests of Alberta or Alberta workers. The fact that she uses this argument illustrates how deluded and/or dishonest she is.

The SCO issue illustrates how ridiculous it is to look and CO2 emissions by jurisdiction because converting bitumen to SCO emits CO2. If this is done in Alberta these emissions are allocated to Alberta and Alberta gets criticized and is expected to pay. If the same amount of CO2 is emitted by Texas or Shanghai the criticism would less to non-existent because the additional emissions would be small compared to the current emissions of Texas or Shanghai. This kind of myopic thinking completely undermines the case for processing bitumen in Alberta and until that problem is addressed an SCO refinery in Alberta would be impossible to justify from an economic perspective.

The fact is that most, if not all, of the dilbit that would go into Energy East would be exported.

Well that is neat thing about fungible commodities. It makes no difference if oil A is exported while oil B imported. What matters is net demand for imports drops and it would. So May is wrong. Edited February 26, 2016 by TimG

[ReeferMadness]

There are two aspects of safety: the chance of an incident happening and the scale of the incident when it does happen. May is arguing that the scale of incidents is larger with with pipelines but that does not make pipelines less safe if the chances of an incident is orders of magnitude smaller. May's argument is a red herring.

And the Kalamazoo River disaster proved that the industry cannot deal with a dilbit spill. Period.

Anyone who thinks an industry should be shutdown because of their opinion on how to best deal with CO2 induced warming cannot claim to be looking out for the interests of Alberta or Alberta workers. The fact that she uses this argument illustrates how deluded and/or dishonest she is.

The industry is incredibly ecologically destructive on so many levels, it needs to go away. And now we see how economically destructive that seesawing oil prices are as well. I know that is hard news for people who are deeply invested (economically, emotionally and ideologically) in fossil fuels but it's a fact. I can suggest some good 12 step programs for people who have trouble dealing with it.

The SCO issue illustrates how ridiculous it is to look and CO2 emissions by jurisdiction because converting bitumen to SCO emits CO2. If this is done in Alberta these emissions are allocated to Alberta and Alberta gets criticized and is expected to pay. If the same amount of CO2 is emitted by Texas or Shanghai the criticism would less to non-existent because the additional emissions would be small compared to the current emissions of Texas or Shanghai. This kind of myopic thinking completely undermines the case for processing bitumen in Alberta and until that problem is addressed an SCO refinery in Alberta would be impossible to justify from an economic perspective.

So your argument is that by not refining in Alberta, it's easier for the industry to play a shell game with the emissions. I can't understand how May could fail to be swayed by that logic. :rolleyes:

Well that is neat thing about fungible commodities. It makes no difference if oil A is exported while oil B imported. What matters is net demand for imports drops and it would. So May is wrong.

Your argument is nonsensical. By your "logic", we are already self sufficient so the pipeline is unnecessary.

[TimG]

And the Kalamazoo River disaster proved that the industry cannot deal with a dilbit spill. Period.

'deal with' is a subjective statement and no matter what Enbridge did you would find some way to claim it was not good enough. It does not change the fact that the chances of an incident with a pipeline are orders of magnitude less than the chance of an incident with a railway.

The industry is incredibly ecologically destructive on so many levels, it needs to go away.

Which is my point: May is like you and wants to shut down the industry so any words she says about protecting jobs for Albertans are outright lies.

So your argument is that by not refining in Alberta, it's easier for the industry to play a shell game with the emissions. I can't understand how May could fail to be swayed by that logic.

It is not about convincing May of anything. It is about establishing that May's statements on the topic are duplicitous and that she would not support any attempt to export oil.

Your argument is nonsensical. By your "logic", we are already self sufficient so the pipeline is unnecessary.

No it is reality. And yes it technically means that we are already self sufficient but the advantage of energy east is it would allow the Quebec and NB refineries to use the oil sands oil if the economics makes sense for them (e.g. the cost of Saudi light crude got too expensive). So there is a net benefit to people in the east. Edited February 26, 2016 by TimG

[Accountability Now]

The existing refineries in eastern Canada couldn't process all of Energy East capacity. And I've not read one indication that any of the refineries along the way will be upgrading their facilities to process dilbit. In fact, the Valero refinery in Montreal (Canada's second largest refinery) publicly distanced itself from Energy East, saying it has "no firm interest" and has already made significant sourcing commitments.

It doesn't need to process all of Energy East's capacity, it only needs to process a good portion. The rest can be exported. Its a win win. I do agree with some of what you are saying however Elizabeth May doesn't say it the way you did. She said it this way:

Why is it Canada has not one refinery capable of processing bitumen?

I like how she worded this.....'refinery'. She purposely leaves out the various upgraders that do exist which or the NorthWest Upgrader refinery currently being built. She also misses out on the fact that the Imperial refinery in Sarnia actually can process raw bitumen:

Eastern Canadian refineries can process synthetic crude oil from Alberta and even some heavy crudes, but only Imperial’s 121,000-barrels-per-day Sarnia, Ont. refinery has a plugged-in coking facility that can process raw bitumen, Mr. Simpkins said

http://business.financialpost.com/news/energy/can-eastern-pipelines-boost-refineries?__lsa=1909-85cb

And of course....if you build it they will come:

The Sarnia-based Bowman Centre, led by Clem Bowman, announced this week it's proceeding with the next stage of its long-term project to build a case for a new $10-billion refinery to process more Western Canadian oil sands bitumen domestically.

http://www.theobserver.ca/2015/09/22/group-promoting-new-sarnia-refinery-not-waiting-on-queens-park

The key thing that I find misleading about her question/claim is that Energy East is that it not just carrying bitumen but a variety of crude types that will be accessible to other refineries.

Crude oil is a fossil fuel or hydrocarbon made primarily of hydrogen and carbon. Depending on sulphur content, crude oil ranges from light to heavy and from sweet to sour. Energy East will move a variety of crude types, including conventional crude oil, diluted bitumen and synthetic crude oil. - See more at: http://www.energyeastpipeline.com/facts/oil-and-pipelines-101-2/#sthash.89xOCvL9.dpuf

The other part that May leaves out is the two refinery projects that were tabled in BC if the Northern Gateway or something similar were built to feed the refinery.

Of course, last but not least....her line that no refineries in Canada process bitumen is again proven untrue as the Irving refinery can process bitumen in small amounts.

The only eastern Canada refinery capable of processing bitumen is the Irving refinery. Their bitumen processing capability is estimated to be about 25 Kb/d, or about 10% of crude capacity.

http://docs.nrdc.org/energy/files/ene_14011601a.pdf

But the key is that all they need to fully process is a coker. Sure...its a $2B investment however not bad since they would be saving $1.2B per year with this:

A study commissioned by TransCanada and prepared by Deloitte calculated that the pipeline’s access to cheaper crude from the west would save as much as $1.2-billion per year for a refinery owned by the Irvings...

http://canadians.org/blog/irving-behind-push-energy-east-pipeline

Speaking of cokers, Suncor in Montreal is 'actively' seeking to upgrade their facility with a coker:

Suncor Energy Inc. is actively pursuing plans to add a coker unit to its Montreal refinery, which would allow it to process oil sands bitumen, and will make a decision next year, chief executive officer Steve Williams said Wednesday.

Source

The Calgary-based company has been keen to switch its 137,000-barrel-a-day Montreal plant off a diet of more expensive imported crude to process cheaper North American feedstock and a coker would expand its ability to refine diluted bitumen without requiring the ultraheavy oil sands production to be upgraded first in Alberta.

http://www.24news.ca/the-news/economic-news/150840-suncor-seeks-to-add-coker-unit-at-montreal-plant

All said....I don't think Elizabeth May is all up to date on what the oil industry is doing and instead is pushing an anti-oil meme that is often seen similar in your posts.

[overthere]

Quote

Enbridge's submission to the NEB said the west-east section of its twin pipeline would ship diluent purchased from Saudi Arabia to mix with bitumen in order to ship dilbit the other way in the east-west section.

Why is it Canada has not one refinery capable of processing bitumen? It is fascinating that MacKay's article makes no mention of the falling price of a barrel of oil. The market is slowing development in the oil sands far more than a lack of pipelines. Low oil prices make bitumen production a non-profit activity.

Is this a joke by May, or an intentional lie? I vote for a lie.

You cannot refine bitumen until it is upgraded into crude oil. This is specifically done by Suncor in Fort Mac and has been for about half a century. They have two large upgraders. It has been done by Syncrude in fort Mac(get it, SYNtheticCRUDE?) since the 1970s. Shell refines the synhetic crude oil in Edmonton, where there are also two other large refineries. There is also another new upgrader /refinery underway in Sturgeon Heartland, which takes bitumen and upgrades it then refines into diesel..

And the bladeblah about output is another lie. The reality is that we have three companies(Enbridge, Trans Canada and Kinder Morgan) ready to build major pipelines to tidewater. Now it is down to two since Trudeau took the unilateral backstab of sideswiping Gateway. Of course, the other two are almost certainly DOA now as Trudeau has taken two actions lately to delay the applications, and will certainly take more to kill them while pretending he is 'just a referee'.. He wasn't a referee in the killing of the already approved Gateway project, he won't be with the others based on his actual actions so far.

All three have customers willing to fill those pipleines with tax generating oil for the next 50 years or so.

Please stop spreading the lies of May . Thanks.

[ReeferMadness]

'deal with' is a subjective statement and no matter what Enbridge did you would find some way to claim it was not good enough. It does not change the fact that the chances of an incident with a pipeline are orders of magnitude less than the chance of an incident with a railway.

The fact is nobody can clean up major oil spills. It was proven by the Exxon Valdez. It was proven by the BP mess in the Gulf of Mexico. And it was proven by the Enbridge mess.

The Kalamazoo River spill that cost Enbridge over $1 billion involved an amount of oil that would flow through Energy East in about a half hour and occurred in a relatively remote area. What do you suppose the damages are if the same spill happens in Montreal? They had to evacuate the area near the spill - who is going to pay to evacuate Montreal? And who is going to pay for the economic damages? If there is a major spill in a major metropolitan area, there will be a lot of human health issues that won't be fixed by any amount of fossil fuel dollars. And if the damages start to run into the tens of billions (which they easily could), the companies involved will either find a way to duck responsibility or they will simply declare bankruptcy. Either way, it will fall to the Quebec and Canadian Governments to step in and clean up the mess.

It is not about convincing May of anything. It is about establishing that May's statements on the topic are duplicitous and that she would not support any attempt to export oil.

You just explained how the current method of exporting Alberta sludge allows the oil companies to play shell games with emissions. And you have the nerve to call May duplicitous?

[ReeferMadness]

I like how she worded this.....'refinery'. She purposely leaves out the various upgraders that do exist which or the NorthWest Upgrader refinery currently being built.

That's awesome! If Alberta will just upgrade its own toxic sludge, there will be no need to ship dilbit across the rest of North America. Let us know when that's done.

[ReeferMadness]

You cannot refine bitumen until it is upgraded into crude oil. This is specifically done by Suncor in Fort Mac and has been for about half a century. They have two large upgraders. It has been done by Syncrude in fort Mac(get it, SYNtheticCRUDE?) since the 1970s. Shell refines the synhetic crude oil in Edmonton, where there are also two other large refineries. There is also another new upgrader /refinery underway in Sturgeon Heartland, which takes bitumen and upgrades it then refines into diesel..

Perfect. So then there is no reason to Alberta to import explosive condensate and ship dilbit across North America. Is that what you're saying?

[overthere]

No, I'm saying your source is either ignorant or a liar.

[ReeferMadness]

No, I'm saying your source is either ignorant or a liar.

Seems like your post is contrary to forum rules but I'll let the mods decide that.

You just said that Alberta can upgrade its own sludge. Perfect - so now it can stop importing dangerous, explosive condensate and stop exporting nasty dilbit. That's great news.

[Accountability Now]

That's awesome! If Alberta will just upgrade its own toxic sludge, there will be no need to ship dilbit across the rest of North America. Let us know when that's done.

I guess you missed the other parts showing that other parts of the country are already upgrading it plan on upgrading it once it goes through. But then again...you miss a lot when it comes to these sort of things. I do like how you deflect from what your hero actually said to this recent post. Perhaps you should change the thread title to Elizabeth May Misunderstands Pipeline Arguments. That would be more appropriate.

Seems like your post is contrary to forum rules but I'll let the mods decide that.

LMFAO!!! No....no...it's not. Not even close! Overthere and myself have both proven that her comment about no refining capacity in Canada is simply not true. So either she was ignorant to the fact that various facilities are currently doing this OR she flat out lied about it. Is that seriously that hard for you to understand?

[On Guard for Thee]

I guess you missed the other parts showing that other parts of the country are already upgrading it plan on upgrading it once it goes through. But then again...you miss a lot when it comes to these sort of things. I do like how you deflect from what your hero actually said to this recent post. Perhaps you should change the thread title to Elizabeth May Misunderstands Pipeline Arguments. That would be more appropriate.

LMFAO!!! No....no...it's not. Not even close! Overthere and myself have both proven that her comment about no refining capacity in Canada is simply not true. So either she was ignorant to the fact that various facilities are currently doing this OR she flat out lied about it. Is that seriously that hard for you to understand?

Right then, so what RM has pointed out we don't need to be shipping any more diluent across the country. That's good news.

[TimG]

You just explained how the current method of exporting Alberta sludge allows the oil companies to play shell games with emissions. And you have the nerve to call May duplicitous?

To be duplicitous I would have to claim that reducing CO2 is a worthwhile goal. I am only pointing how the political climate related to CO2 emissions undermines the economic case for building refining capacity in Alberta.

May is duplicitous because she implies that she cares about oil sands jobs when she clearly wants all those jobs to disappear.

Edited February 26, 2016 by TimG

[Accountability Now]

Right then, so what RM has pointed out we don't need to be shipping any more diluent across the country. That's good news.

No....clearly you missed the point too. These upgraders in Alberta are only taking part of the flow. The rest of the flow is to be handled by existing refineries across the country. Sarnia, Montreal and St Johns. Additionally, refining the product is only part of the equation with the other part being able to export the crude which needs to happen at tidewater. Get it now?

[On Guard for Thee]

No....clearly you missed the point too. These upgraders in Alberta are only taking part of the flow. The rest of the flow is to be handled by existing refineries across the country. Sarnia, Montreal and St Johns. Additionally, refining the product is only part of the equation with the other part being able to export the crude which needs to happen at tidewater. Get it now?

The point is about 60% of the sludge from Alta. is sent unrefined to the states. One thing May clearly laments in the piece is the lack of availability of refinery capacity here.

[ReeferMadness]

These upgraders in Alberta are only taking part of the flow.

Well, it took you a while to admit that but finally the truth comes out. Alberta has recklessly allowed bitumen mining to run amuck and instead of doing the responsible thing and developing the capacity to upgrade its sludge, it is demanding that the rest of North America accept the risk dilbit spills (which, as we know, can't properly be cleaned up).

Thanks for clarifying (eventually).

[ReeferMadness]

Albertans should be angry at the way they've been sold out by their government to the oil companies. At least those who care about the long term future of the province should.

Oil company executives, investors and others who are raking in big bucks through the short term, gold rush mentality know that when the good times are over, they can take their money and move somewhere else. Those that are left are going to be stuck with a hell of a mess. And no resources to clean it up.

[Accountability Now]

Well, it took you a while to admit that but finally the truth comes out.

You are either delusional or simply trolling for the purpose of being inflammatory. I went to great lengths to show you that other facilities are being used and are required to handle this flow. Your outright deflection of that thread was noted and continues to be noted as you realize that you staking your glorious leader's claim about there being no current refineries was shown to be utterly false. I only used the Alberta examples to add to the examples in Sarnia (Ontario) and St. Johns (NB) showing that there are some locations in place....contrary to what she said. I also added the fact that other refineries are preparing themselves to upgrade their plants OR build new ones to accommodate this flow. I guess that was just too many 'facts' for you?

[Accountability Now]

Albertans should be angry at the way they've been sold out by their government to the oil companies. At least those who care about the long term future of the province should

Last time I checked, Alberta gives $15-20 billion more than it receives to the federal coffers per year all due to oil. I think all Canadians have benefited from it.

[Accountability Now]

The point is about 60% of the sludge from Alta. is sent unrefined to the states. One thing May clearly laments in the piece is the lack of availability of refinery capacity here.

And do you think she is advocating for more?