One of the arguments for building the pipeline is that it will diversify our market. Right now we ship to the US only.

Unfortunately, there aren’t many plants world-wide that can process raw bitumen. We won’t have much extra diversification by shipping raw bitumen, the pipeline will cost more that a pipeline shipping crude oil, and there is more risk.

I don’t understand why we wouldn’t upgrade the bitumen near the source and ship syncrude. Syncrude is less risk, needs one pipeline instead of two, and can be processed by just about any refinery in the world.

I understand some of David Black’s proposal–he wants to build both an upgrader and a refinery in Kitimat, but there are two things I don’t understand. Why does he want his upgrader in Kitimat? The upgrader should be at the source. Why does he want to build a refinery in Kitimat? Each market already has a refinery in place with spare capacity to process crude or syncrude. What business advantage would there be to having a refinery in Kitimat?

A refinery in Kitmat would allow the refining of stock comming into the port from outside. So we would be able to refine oil stock,s from other importers, a two way street,so-to-speak.

Seems to me that Enbridge is finding out that we are not going to swallow this pipeline as is, so David Black is trying to dress it up with a cherry at the end of it.
If the Chinese are putting up $100 million for promotion, maybe Black is getting a slice of that pie. Once the pipeline is accepted, he can always withdraw or somehow fail the enviromental review for the refinery, thus earning his share of the promotional loot by helping to get the pipeline accepted.

Remember, the pipeline is only part of the equation; do you think the B.C. government is going to lift the tanker moratorium for the rest of this project? They might, and that would be for a product far more dangerous to the enviroment than processed or crude oil. Who knows? Maybe Enbridge is paying Mr. Black to create a diversion to take our minds off the hazards of the pipeline for awhile, sweeten the pot a bit and gently sway our thinking away from the hazards of the pipeline.

What the Liberal Gov’t did with B.C.Rail is just one example of how it can work behind our backs in selling off ‘Made in B.C.’ industry.

The ordinary citizen has no idea at all about the workings of big money. I am simply saying, trust these guys like you would a rattlesnake. Give them an inch and they are going to steal a mile and they will use legal (that means laywers) means to do it.

Are taxpayers really going to have to pay for an environmental review based on one persons pipe dream?

I think “Give More” nailed it when he suggests that Black’s refinery may be a bunch of smoke and mirrors. Offer up the idea of building a huge refinery that employ’s a high number of British Columbians with decent wages and we will change our minds about Enbridges hated pipeline. Then when the pipeline is well under way, announce that because of changing market conditions, government regulations, etc, it is no longer feasible to build the refinery.

“Are taxpayers really going to have to pay for an environmental review based on one persons pipe dream?”

Why not? We pay for a lot of other nonsense that we shouldn’t have to.

Seriously, the proponent is responsible for preparing the environmental assessment.

So why does he not build the refinery near the tar sands and haul the product by rail or maybe a pipe line that will pump a lower risk product to Kitemat.

But I guess he thinks we are stupid snd will accept his PIPE DREAM.

Cheers

http://news.ca.msn.com/top-stories/northern-gateway-review-hobbled-by-budget-cuts-critics-say-1

They haven’t got enough people to do the Enbridge environmental review let alone the refinery one.

Enbridge sure likes to play games!
http://www.everydaymoney.ca/2012/08/enbridge-gets-caught-altering-map.html

“The Polaris Institute, a public interest research and advocacy organization, reports that, according to Enbridge’s own data, between 1999 and 2000, the company experienced 804 spills that released 161,475 barrels of hydrocarbons into the environment.”

Here is an interesting write up on natural oil seeps or spills. Mans spills are more concentrated.

A 2003 study by the National Research Council and a 2009 report by oil spill expert Dagmar Schmidt Etkin indicate that between 560,000 and 1,400,000 barrels per year (1,534 to 3,835 barrels per day) seep into the Gulf of Mexico from natural sources

http://www.theoildrum.com/node/6552

Here is an interesting map- http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2011/09/09/business/energy-environment/pipeline-spills.html

How come people are upset about oil but are quiet when it comes natural land covered by solar cells and hundreds of thousands of birds and bats killed by wind generators? What about the huge infrastructure to build and service these projects, hardly a peep.

Dragon
proponents pay for the environmental review.

Who is going to do it?

Mr Meisner and commenter “icicle” are quite correct in their analysis:

One more: The really profitable part of ENB Gateway is the added pumps station to increase the Gateway capacity to well over 800,000 bbl per day.

So his new refinery has to accommodate this massive input capacity, as this “extra” bitumen cannot go out by supertanker…Right? (no wonder ENB is not onboard, Black is hampering the plans of the founder shippers for future supply bump…of 300,000 bbl per day!

One more: This will be competing with a large state of art FN refinery slated for Upgrader alley near Edmonton, the best place to locate such a facility..

Plus the railway to Alaska to an existing supertanker port at Valdez precludes the need for these pipelines by Enbridge or Kinder Morgan, and…
also to be backed and owned by First Nations…

That’s tough to compete with.

Social license is available for their projects..

but not for these refinery-pipeline combos in BC

@Give more – there is no Tanker Moratorium on the west coast. That’s why tankers routinely go to the Kinder Morgan facility and load up:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/industry-news/energy-and-resources/trans-mountain-the-other-pacific-pipeline/article4462228/?page=all

That is a link to an article about the Kinder Morgan pipeline and the shipping of oil into and out of Vancouver.

Let’s not confuse the issue. The ban has been in place for almost 40 years and deals with the north coast between Haid Gwai and the mainland. It is policy and not law. It followed the Exxon oil spill and was intended to prevent a similar incident off the BC coast. With the length of time it has been in placve, I would think one can support a legal challenge through the notion of “common practice”.

[url]http://pipeupagainstenbridge.ca/images/uploads/resources/KeepingTankersOut2009.pdf[url]

I see Enbridge is promoting the safety of the route out of Kitimat by not showing most of the dozen and more islands which make the route a bit more difficult than they are repressenting.

Enbridge = silght-of-hand.

http://pipeupagainstenbridge.ca/images/uploads/resources/KeepingTankersOut2009.pdf

BTW, I see you are a fan of the shipping of oil through the Northern Gateway, bohemian … must be all that salt air … LOL

Okay… sorry for the screw up on my part … the fedral-provincial agreement predated the Exxon Valdez by about 15 years …. so no hindsight, but a pro-active preventative agreement.

Ships have been using Douglas channel for decades and not near the restrictions these tankers will be under. I have been looking for any incidents and have not found one yet. Anyone else?

So exactly what restrictions will the tankers be under?

Queen of the North….

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MC1GF95aPxk

Listen to the position reporting at the end of the video

N 53 19 29 W113 29 37

That is in Nisku, Alberta ……

No wonder it ran aground …..

gus: “So exactly what restrictions will the tankers be under?”

gus, did your search engine fail you?

http://www.northerngateway.ca/project-details/marine-information-and-plan/

The marine strategy will include the following standards:

•All vessels entering Kitimat Marine Terminal will be modern and double-hulled
•Operational safety limits will be established to cover visibility, wind and sea conditions
•The escort tugs will have extensive first response capabilities to provide immediate assistance if required (available to any ship in distress)
•Northern Gateway will install an advanced radar system to cover important route sections to provide guidance to pilots and all marine traffic on the Northwest coast
•Additional navigational aids will be installed, such as navigation beacons, buoys and lights throughout the confined channel area
•Prior to arrival in Canadian waters, all vessels will be vetted by independent, third-party agencies and will be required to meet Northern Gateway’s safety and environmental standards
•Vessel speed will be reduced in the marine channels to between 8 and 12 knots
•All tankers visiting the Kitimat Marine Terminal will be safely guided by certified marine pilots
•While docked at the Northern Gateway Kitimat Marine Terminal, tankers loading export oil will be surrounded by a containment boom
•Information from new weather stations along the route will be available to all vessels
•Northern Gateway will significantly increase the emergency response capabilities along the main northern shipping routes, making the routes safer, not just for tankers but for everyone

I Realy don’t care about any more crap from Enbridge. Their pipelines do eventually fail and the product that leaks into our mountains and streams is that dreaded tary bitumen (DILBIT) and it is impossable to clean up. If Alberta wants to ship oil out of our ports it will have to be refined first then shipped with all safety requirements. This how we do buisness in BC. If the Chinese want our oil BC will alow it to be delivered, but in made in BC constraints. We are generally a happy and accomodating people as long as you obey our laws.

Enbridge doesn’t have any credibility JohnnyB to actually follow through with their claims. They ignore saftey and maintenance prodedures now so what will be different with the Northern Gateway project? Remember that this is a company that knew about a problem with their pipeline for 5 years and did nothing about it. 804 spills from 1999-2000! Really? forget it Enbridge!

No JB, my search engine did not fail me. Far from it. I tried once more to see whether you were able to answer the question with some apprropriat4e knowledge.
You see, like most expert computer programs, search engines are only as good as the people using them. Gibberish in … gibberish out.

You have presented us with meaningless and unenforceable statements from Enbridge. An upper level high school student who has the capacity to go on to be successful at university, is able to put holes into what Enbridge presents. Certainly a first year university student is able to do better than that.

The following indicates the types of headings establishing such standards would require:
1.Ship standards
2.Channel standards
3.Weather standards
4.Navigation system standards
5.Captain and crew standards
6.Pilot standards
7.Escort standards
8.Payload standards
9.Loading standards

For each of the above the following type of systematic information should be presented. That information will tend to be separable into proactive (preventative) standards as well as reactive (response) standards.
1.existing standards in Canadian waters
2.improved standards
3.approximate cost to implement standards
4.quality assurance process
5.procedures and penalties for non-compliance, including appeal process
6.governing authority/authorities for each.

For the entire review of existing and proposed standards, policies and procedures, the joint team which is responsible for creating the recommendation document must be identified, including the decision making process as well as veto power.

As an example of the lack of credibility is the simple statement you said is presented on their web site:
While docked at the Northern Gateway Kitimat Marine Terminal, tankers loading export oil will be surrounded by a containment boom.

How effective will a normal floating boom be in containing a heavier than water bitumen spill?

So, after I posted the above, I thought I would just find out how hollow the first statment by Enbridge is:

“All vessels entering Kitimat Marine Terminal will be modern and double-hulled”

1. It appears that the United Nations has phased out single hulled tankers under its standards.
[url]
http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/dec2003/2003-12-05-04.asp%5B/url%5D

2. In accordance with the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships, 1973, all single-hulled tankers around the world will be phased out by 2026.

So, the other thing we will require Enbridge to do for us is identify the Canadian and local standards, the worlwide “industry standard”, which of those Enbridge will abide by and which ones Enbridge will exceed and who will enforce that.

Useless hyperbole is all that page from Enbridge is.

http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/dec2003/2003-12-05-04.asp

gus: “You have presented us with meaningless and unenforceable statements from Enbridge.”

I didn’t present you with anything. You asked what restrictions the tankers would be under and I directed you to the page in question.

Then as usual, you asked a bunch of other questions, which go beyond the scope of the information on the site.

I suggest if you’re looking for more answers you show up to the JRP and ask them yourself.

Gus funny you picked up on that. I had the same question… how does a containment boom contain bitumen that sinks being heavier than water?

As per the tankers… the gamble shipping out of Vancouver Burrard Inlet IMO is a massive disaster waiting to happen regardless of single haul or double haul considerations.

Most don’t know this but existing tankers can only traverse the inlet during high tide when they have only 3 meters of clearance from the rocks below their haul. This means if they get caught up from a mechanical failure and don’t get through on high tide they risk being high centered on the rocks where the weight of the vessel will break the ship into two whether its double hauled or not. All of Vancouver would need to be evacuated because of the harmful fumes from the spill. The cost to BC would bankrupt the province for generations to come.

I think the answer is to build a slip which has barriers and gates that can close. Very much similar to a lock.

Underwater cameras, suction and bottom racking apparatus that can be actvated in case of an actual spill.

It is a simple engineering problem. One would likely have to build at least 2 and better still 3 to 4 in case one is down for mechanical reasons and in case another one is in a cleaning stage while a new ship is coming in. Logistics will determine the number required.

“This means if they get caught up from a mechanical failure”

That is apparently the other thing about these super tankers; they only have one engine. That goes, and they are dead in the water. I mean, the more I look into this, the more I am starting to realize that these things are really the most basic of vessels.

I asked questions “which go beyond the scope of the information on the site”

Yes, I asked obvious questions such as anyone who has the ability and the desire to question what one reads. Shipping dangerous products is not my area of expertise.

Report writing is.

So is how to find the gaps in reports (including my own) and how to fix those gaps with defensible information before the people who get to read them in order to assess them for approval or rejection.

By that time it is too late.

“I suggest if you’re looking for more answers you show up to the JRP and ask them yourself.”

I did that once on a major case and was one of the reasons for the project not going ahead. Did many on other types of cases under administrative hearings and won most of them.

Very time consuming for someone as detailed as I typically am.

The Enbridge record is out there. So is the Harper’s. Neither is very good.

I am a realist. This is too big a project to direct into a different mindset. There are people and organizations in a much better position to effect change in this case. Whether they will do so or not, we will see over the next few years.

gus: “I did that once on a major case and was one of the reasons for the project not going ahead. Did many on other types of cases under administrative hearings and won most of them.”

And you’re telling us this because…?

It is easier to sit on the sidelines and complain. I suspect the JRP will be filled with chest thumpers and hand wringers. Your questions would’ve been a breath of fresh air I’m sure. Oh well.

JB …. I wrote that to basically say I have been there, done that …. it is someone else’s turn. I have done my duty.

I still reserve the right to comment ….

You know, I wonder what it would be like to sit around a table with you having a discussion. You keep hitting too many dud balls back over the net …. nothing much there to continue a good, interesting, lively game …..

In fact, I think you seem to be playing table tennis while I am playing lawn tennis. ;-)

“It is easier to sit on the sidelines and complain”

Don’t I know that from experience!!! Not likely to get threatened in a parking lot for one’s beliefs and positions one takes publicly.

gus: “You know, I wonder what it would be like to sit around a table with you having a discussion. “

Me too. But you’d likely be too busy looking in the mirror and patting yourself on the back to notice much else.

You’ve said that before …. bet you do not remember that …. ;-)

This notion that listening to complainers is bad fro your brain is a very interesting one.

If you apply that in the same way as smoking is bad for your lungs, listening to complainers becomes a workplace hazard for those who do so professionally – arbitrators, members of administrative appeal panels, city councils at public zoning hearing presentations, purchase return desks, telephone technical help operators, marriage counsellors … in fact, there are lots of professionals who have to listen to complainers in their line of work.

Of course, this has been known for some time. It used to be called job stress.