Does anyone know where our Mayor does air her opinions? They did give Enbridge a business licence for their ‘new main office’

If in fact a refinery would be built, then why would it not be built in Ft McMurray, any other location does not make sense.

A refinery has to be closer to its’ market.
With all the different products separated and refined from the crude ( or in this case; dil-bit ) transportation costs of the saleable products would be too high.
Not only that, but we would see one heck of a lot more truck and rail traffic transporting refined products, probably more hazardous than a pipeline in the long run. Just an opinion.
metalman.

A refinery in FT McMurray, would allow the finished product to go to the USA, Eastern Canada, plus to the West Coast as it all does now.

Having the refinery in Kitimat restricts your production to go via ship to South East Asia, India, or the USA via California.

I think the talk of a refinery in Kitimat is a **pig in a poke**.

It would cost 2-3 times as much to build it in Ft Mac! Use cheaper labor to build it off shore, then transport it in big components by ship right to its coastal location! To take materials to Ft. Mac and have 100/hr workers build it won’t happen any time soon ! Cost would be 50 billion then you could not transport the finished product cost effectively!

A refinery in Fort mac would reguire multiple pipelines to deliver the finished products. People are complaining about two.

Pipelines can carry more than one product. From Kinder Morgans website:

Products in the Pipeline
TMPL transports crude oil, refined and semi-refined products together in the same line. This process, known as “batching,” means that a series of products can follow one another through the pipeline in a “batch train.”

A typical batch train in the mainline is made up of a variety of materials being transported for different shippers. Products next to each other in the pipeline can mix. This mixing – or product interface – is kept to a minimum by putting the products in a specific sequence. Any products that do mix are re-refined for use.

Councilor Frank Everitt is quoted as saying: “I believe we must go through the environmental review, as well as (holding) consultation through the area of the suggested route. Once that has been done and has been approved, then and only then does it make sense to have a plan.”

Planning is an iterative process, not a linear process. Plans start with a germ of an idea which is then refined (appropriate pun, I thought) further along the way till there is either a viable project and includes the various components and partners involved, or it is found that the project is not viable. As an aside, sustainable seems to be the term more commonly used by us these days even though it has a very different meaning and I defy anyone to tell me how one actually measures sustainability over say, 7 generations.

Along the way of a project planning process, partners may change, scope may change, costs may change and, more importantly in this case, development quality may change.

It is a total waste of time and raises unnecessary concerns of people and communities who will be affected with half baked ideas being thrown out, especially if done so without proper explanation as to how the entire process works and where the opportunities to get info out and put info in are for various publics.

We must not forget that there are environmental and social concerns for those on the coast (and there are plenty of stickers and other items on sale in those communities to support the cause there) as well as in the interior.
http://www.livetosurf.com/2008/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/no-tankers.jpg

As always, all of us look at these things with a focused, blindered vision of our area without looking at the entire picture from the different regional points of view as well as the environmental, social and economic point of view. We really do not seem to have a full review going on. It appears, to me to be piecemeal. When will we learn how to do a full, integrated review of such mega projects? This still seems to be very primitive in this hinterland of ours – that includes Canada, the provinces and the communities within the provinces..

Here is a transcript from Hansard – morning session Monday, May 16, 2011 which debated the oil tanker question.

Read the debate regarding MOTION 4 — OIL TANKER BAN ON NORTH COAST which starts about 3/5 of the way into the document.
http://www.leg.bc.ca/hansard/39th3rd/H0516am-01.pdf

BTW, the notion that the waters off the cost of BC are not some of the worst in the world seems to be refuted in the debate as quoted from Environment Canada.
“Environment Canada has categorized Dixon strait, Hecate Strait and Queen Charlotte Sound as some of the most dangerous navigable waters in the world. That’s what we’re talking about this morning.”

And …. “According to research by Environment Canada in 2006, 100 small, ten moderate and one major spill are predicted every year based on current levels of tanker traffic, and a catastrophic spill of 10,000 tonnes once every 15 years. More recent stats: with the amount of oil shipped by Enbridge, there will be a catastrophic spill once every 12 years. Only 15 percent of the oil spill is recovered from major tanker incidents, and that’s considered a success.”