Cullen Wants Local Input On Oil Movement By Rail
Sunday, September 29, 2013 @ 5:27 AM
Prince George, B.C. – The Member of Parliament for Skeena-Bulkley Valley is suggesting the thought of moving Alberta oil to the west coast by rail is not sound.
NDP opposition house leader Nathan Cullen says the Harper government and CN Rail appear “keen to move raw bitumen sourced from Nexen, which is a company that was bought by China recently with the support of the Conservatives and Liberals, by rail.” Cullen feels that would be an enormous mistake. “After the disaster in (Lac-) Megantic in Quebec, it seems like not only poor timing but a potentially very, very bad idea to move the kinds of volumes that they’re talking about. It would make the volumes in Quebec seem like nothing.”
Cullen says any discussion about moving oil product by rail must, first and foremost, include people at the community level. “There is not enough being done, and that’s not me saying that, that’s our local fire chiefs and mayors. It just feels like more and more is coming down the line and CN hasn’t done a great job in bringing communities alongside and funding both the safety infrastructure that we need in certain places, as well as the training that is required if something were to go wrong.”
Cullen says “if that’s the current environment, for someone to come in and propose literally thousands and thousands of tankers with bitumen in them, in light of the disaster in Quebec it seems like a recipe to turn the public off even before the conversation starts.”
The MP says he is wary of the issue. “I don’t know if running this stuff on rail is any better than in a pipeline, and the pipeline is fraught with risk. It feels like a bit of a pipe dream to be honest and you can never tell with these public disclosures if someone is playing some sort of political game, some angle or how serious they actually are. But I can tell you the public is very wary of this idea in the north because so many of these trains go right through our communities, virtually within 50 feet of the downtown, somewhat like Quebec. If anything were to go wrong, we can see how wrong it goes. People end up hurt.”
Cullen says he’ll be posing questions to the government about these issues. However he also noted that “it’s all happening behind closed doors right now which shouldn’t give anybody a whole heap of confidence.”
Comments
Oh joy, another free ad for the ndp. In the spirit of fairness, why is’t there a comment here fom CN, who ctually have an exellent safty record. And by the way, Nexen might tink twice about shipping by rail when they get the cost estimate from CN.
They are just trying to scare you into agreeing to the pipeline which should be safer than rail.
Oil traveling to the coast by either rail or pipeline will happen at the same time that David Blacks refinery is built. Which is to say never.
Cullen “It feels like a bit of a pipe dream”
LOL
A CN employee I know says the company is gearing up to haul the oil to Rupert. Which is worse: a derailment into the Fraser River while they are switching cars, or a derailment along the banks of the Nechako, into Fraser Lake, the Bulkley, or the Skeena Rivers, never mind the communities along the way??!? Somehow, methinks a pipeline might be a bit better, but the whole thing is pretty scary to me.
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, pipelines are statistically far safer than rail.
these guys seem to find fault in everything. don’t they run grain and lumber and all the containers that bring the goodies in to walmart etc.no one seems too concerned about that.
Here’s the NDP mouthing off again and basically saying BC is not open for business and the jobs it creates. Somone remind them again they lost and badly in May.
“who ctually have an exellent safty record”
Too Funny!
” these guys seem to find fault in everything. don’t they run grain and lumber and all the containers that bring the goodies in to walmart etc.no one seems too concerned about that”
Grain and lumber quite often finds it’s way into our lakes and rivers.
Don’t the statistics from Enbridge reveal that they have had over 800 spills in a decade?
I am sure nobody manipulated them.
The train option is not an option either. Too many derailments, too much air pollution from diesel engines. With all the abundant clean hydro power in B.C. one would think that they had electrified all the tracks decades ago…
contractor states; “Oh joy, another free ad for the ndp.”
retired senior states; “Here’s the NDP mouthing off again…”
Yes I am beginning to wonder about all the NDP press coverage as well, but what can the media do when it is only the NDP that is willing to make public comment on all these difficult and controversial issues.
All I hear are the sounds of crickets coming from our elected provincial government!
Prince George there is a huge infrastructure cost to electrifying a railroad especially with our geography and long distances.
http://reasonrail.blogspot.ca/2012/05/why-freight-will-never-electrify.html
Here is an interesting concept, electric trolley semis. Again huge infrastructure cost.
A very interesting read on oil tank cars
http://business.financialpost.com/2013/02/22/demand-for-tank-cars-to-ship-crude-oil-by-rail-rises-at-breakneck-speed/?__lsa=e8bf-e4b7
Ya think rail is safer than pipelines
http://railroaded.wordpress.com/2012/07/04/move-oil-by-tanker-rail-cars-or-pipelines/
My god seamutt, can’t you follow the instructions for including links in your comments? Those instruction are below the “Post Comment” button.
How long have you been posting to this site, yet have not learned how to properly post links?
Your unwillingness to learn is reflected in the nature and contents of your comments. *shakes head*
Seamutt. You are comparing apples to oranges again.
Remember, there is a pipeline proposed which will cost something like 6 billion I think.
That railway has a double tracking cost of 2/3rds of that (cannot tell if electrification is included with that) over a distance of 700+ miles.
A pipeline has one use only. Cannot ship lumber or pineapples through pipelines.
Doubletrack the rail, electrify it, improve tanker car safety further, and strengthen the ability to contain spills in some key environmental locations and one has a much more usable transportation system which addresses needs beyond oil.
The problem is that we have government departments which do not integrate their responsibilities and we have private industry which also has blinders on because they have their single purposed operations.
http://business.financialpost.com/2013/02/22/demand-for-tank-cars-to-ship-crude-oil-by-rail-rises-at-breakneck-speed/?__lsa=e8bf-e4b7
http://railroaded.wordpress.com/2012/07/04/move-oil-by-tanker-rail-cars-or-pipelines/
“After the disaster in (Lac-) Megantic in Quebec, it seems like not only poor timing but a potentially very, very bad idea to move the kinds of volumes that theyâre talking about. It would make the volumes in Quebec seem like nothingâ
Per the Globe and Mail on Sep 13th:
The mystery locomotive fire that touched off the Lac-Mégantic rail disaster was started by a broken piston in the trainâs engine, sparking a series of tragic events that led to the explosive derailment in the heart of the Quebec town, according to a preliminary investigation . . .
In a nutshell, the broken piston caused the fire, which sent the firefighters out to extinguish the blaze and turn off the engine, which eventually caused the air brakes to fail and because not enough hand brakes were applied, the train rolled down the hill into town and exploded.
You probably couldn’t re-create this disaster if you tried (thank God for that). It was a tragedy, but it was also a freak situation if you look at the chain of events. Saying that oil shouldn’t be moved by rail because of what happened in Lac-Mégantic is very irresponsible IMHO.
“The IEA found the risk of a rail spill is six times as high as the risk of a pipeline spill, but pipelines simply spill more when they rupture.” note: the IEA stands for the International Energy Agency
http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2013/05/14/pipeline-oil-spills-rail-spills_n_3273725.html
Great, a whole bunch of smaller rail tanker oil spills or one big oil pipeline spill? Not a great choice, yet that is what they seem to be presenting to us.
The one thing they do not want to discuss is the fact that both methods of transportation brings the oil to Kitimat and this brings super sized oil tankers to our pristine coastline.
The discussion of rail or pipeline transportation of oil does not address the risks of oil spills on our coast and in our ocean. Many First Nations that still rely on the ocean as a food source, and a lot of west coast industry (tourism, commercial and recreational fisheries, etc.) are against oil tankers off our coast.
In consideration of this fact, I am actually against both rail and pipeline transportation of oil to our coast… it’s just not worth the risk!
People chill out dude. You are a laugh riot.
Why do we have seamut …. and seamutt? Twins? His and hers? Hers and hers? His and his?
Maybe little mut and big mutt?
I think that people forget that Canada relies on the sale of Natural Gas, and Oil to fund its many programs, Health and Welfare being the big one.
Our best customer at this time is the good old USA, who buys our crude oil, and natural gas. The problem is that because of fracking there is a glut of both crude oil and LNG, and as a consequence the Americans are reducing their imports of these products. Canada’s oil and gas industry cannot survive without the American market or an alternative market like Japan, or China, or other Countries.
This means that we need to move this product via Pipeline or Rail. We actually have little choice in the matter.
During the last serious downturn in the world economy it was the oil and gas industry that kept Canada afloat. **How soon we forget**
Neither Christie Clark, or Stephen Harper will admit at this point in time that we face a serious problem on the world stage getting rid of our gas and oil.
Without the American market, and without the ability to ship this product via pipeline or rail, we are dead in the water. The consequence of that will be huge unemployment, and debt, which in turn will mean big increases in taxes.
Most people don’t know s..t about pipelines or railways, (this includes Cullen) and basically just repeat BS they have picked up along the way.
If we don’t move this product then we had better have a pretty good **Plan Two** because without it we are royally screwed.
Fracking has changed how oil and gas will be sold on the world stage. We cannot afford to be sitting on our asses while the Russians, Americans, Australians, and others take us to the cleaners.
Waxing philosophically about the pro’s and con’s of this issue, and tying it up with all the environmental restrictions, is a recipe for disaster which will have a much bigger effect on the Country than the possibility of an oil spill.
It will not be much longer before Harper will have to announce that shipping crude via pipeline and rail to the West Coast is in the national interest, and that will be that.
Good post Palopu. There are a startling number of people living in fantasy land.
Umm.. Palopu this story is about the transportation of Alberta Tar Sands oil through BC and to our pristine coast, via rail or pipeline. This story it is not about BC’s oil and gas industry.
Mis-posted… please ignore my last comment Palopu.
We need to lean further away from fossil fuels not push them onto the world, which is telling us they would rather not have. So I don’t know what century you want to live in, but a growing number of folks in the world are putting their bets on alternative energies. It will be Canada that will be left behind because we allowed old fossil fuel type men and women sun the show for to long.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fossil_fuel
“run” not sun
I hear you got to test for weed and everything else while working in that industry anyway’s. Maybe that’s why there are so many crack heads and drunks. Big money, yeah sure.
See from what I am being told the coke and alcohol flush out of the system fast. So you got these young bucks with fat heads. Next in line for detox, losers! What’s that 40 buck an hour or more job doin for ya now eh.
Governments as well as pipeline companies are slow to move.
When a new feedstock for existing refineries is found, what transportation systems are quick to react? Easy; the ones which do not have fixed capacity â roads, rail and water.
From the Wall Street Journal a month ago: âMore crude oil is moving around the U.S. on trucks, barges and trains than at any point since the government began keeping records in 1981, as the energy industry devises ways to get around a pipeline-capacity shortage to take petroleum from new wells to refineries.â
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323838204579003093413317418.html
Here is the work going on at the Cherry Point plant in Washington State.
http://www.bellinghamherald.com/2013/06/28/3072303/whatcom-refineries-gear-up-for.html
Frank Holmes, spokesman for Western States Petroleum Association, noted that oil production from Alaska has been the traditional mainstay for Washington refineries, but that production is falling. At its peak, Alaska produced about 2 million barrels a day, but that has declined to about 500,000 barrels a day. At the same time, the use of fracking technology has generated a boom in North Dakota’s Bakken formation, with production there now estimated at 790,000 barrels a day.
He is also concerned that Northwest ports could eventually be used to export North Dakota crude that would be carried to the coast by rail. Under current law, U.S. crude oil cannot be exported, but the law could be changed. And current law would not prohibit using U.S. ports to ship out Canadian crude oil that also could be sent south by rail.
=================================
The bigger picture here is that we have been entering the age when conventional oil in the world is being depleted and we are transitioning into accessing more expensive extraction reserves through new technology.
Those who transport crude through pipelines have simply not been ready. Pipelines are single purpose transportation systems. Road, rail and water vessels are much more flexible, being able to handle multiple types of goods.
=================================
Some might be interested in this, especially given an off again, on again, interest in the Dease Lake rail line.
http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/diane-francis/canada-oil-valdez-alaska-_b_2148646.html
A group of Canadian businessmen has obtained the blessing of Alaskan tribes and Canadian First Nations to build a railroad through their lands that could carry up to five million barrels per day from the oil sands to the super tanker port in Valdez, Alaska.
This is truly a nation-building project that must be seriously evaluated by all governments and the oil industry. Preliminary feelers have been placed and it’s clear that the concept is the most viable and pragmatic solution for Canada’s logistical problems.
The proposed 2,400-kilometre railway would link Fort McMurray, Alta., with the Alaska oil pipeline system then on to the Valdez for export.
The proposal, conceived a few years ago in studies commissioned by Alaska and Yukon, would liberate the stranded oil sands and bypass opposition to new pipelines in both countries.
====================
As they say, it ainât over till the fat lady sings.
All I see is this fat a… sitting in a rig smoking tailor made cigs, throwing the wrapping out the window and fart. This isn’t a man I am thinking of. It’s an old girlfriend from Fort McMurray that says she is tired of making min wage at Star Bucks. Spends most of the days slamming anyone that doesn’t think like them. One of those miserable types you just can’t stand. Lets face it. Anyone with any kind of conscious can see that they wouldn’t live long in the patch, but why not it’s 40 buck an hour isn’t. That person may very well get a harsh Cancer for working in the area, but what the hell it’s big money right, right!
from the above: “Under current law, U.S. crude oil cannot be exported”
We have the resource, why are we not adding value here by building some more refinery capacity? Why are we not adding further value?
gus, I think the simple answer to that is that Canadians have no leadership or vision whatsoever when it comes to developing and/or leveraging our natural resource economies.
We have raw resources that people need and we also have raw resources that can be turned into other products that people need. Maybe we are just too nice and would prefer to give other people jobs refining those products and gaining maximum value. You know, the whole Canadian thing. If we actually did extract maximum value from our natural resources, we’d probably apologize before selling them . . .
seamutt:”PrinceGeorge there is a huge infrastructure cost to electrifying a railroad especially with our geography and long distances.”
True enough! That’s why they should have started 30 years ago and spread the cost over 30 years!
It proves that we haven’t had any person with the vision of a W.A.C. Bennett leading the province…
Mediocre play it safe minions sitting in comfortable ivory towers, afraid to take a stand in favour of something with significant long range benefits for all.
NMG: “We have raw resources that people need and we also have raw resources that can be turned into other products that people need. Maybe we are just too nice “
Yeah, that’s gotta be it. Nothing to do with having some of the highest business costs, wages, and benefits in the world, which we would then pass onto…?
“Prince George there is a huge infrastructure cost to electrifying a railroad especially with our geography and long distances.”
The reason why I wrote that seamutt is comparing apples to oranges is that we have to compare the cost of continuing to operate a railway line to Rupert/Kitimat PLUS building a pipeline.
One has to make sure one understands the intent of the project – to deliver crude from Alberta to an ocean port in Kitimat.
Two options
1. improve the rail line to a state of the art transportation system.
2 Add a pipeline and leave the railroad to fend for itself.
Put that in the context of likely needing to upgrade the capacity of the rail anyway in order to accept possible increased general cargo – double tracking, decrease at-grade crossings, improve environmental safety in key areas most sensitive to ANY cargo spills and add electricity for more motive power and cleaner operation.
“Nothing to do with having some of the highest business costs, wages, and benefits in the world, which we would then pass onto”
JB, tell that to countries like Germany. Does not seem to deter them. In fact, it spurs them on to compete even more.
Sorry, this country was born to supply the rest of the world with resources, from the time of the fur traders to now. It is what we are known for.
There are very few companies in Canada that can compete with the suppliers of mechanical and electronic machinery which allow us to extract modern resources. We do not design it or build it. Others do.
No rail shipping! Build pipeline to Kitimat and build humungous refinery. Then we will get an honest dollar for our resource. Screw the USA and the 50 bucks a barrel “special” Canadian price. Are we nuts?? What the hell is wrong with these governments we have? We aren’t dependant on the USA and could get along quite nicely without them stealing our resources. Does any other country sell oil to them that cheap?? NO.
What is your problem Gus? I just posted some information to think about. Sorry to step into your orderly little world.
Upgrading the railway is a huge cost then adding electrification is another huge cost on it’s own. A little more involved than just stringing wire between poles. May be done if economic.
You do not get it as normal. Don’t have to go ad hominem on me. Stick to the facts.
I’ll keep it simple.
Rail can transport oil, gas, coal, lumber, grain, pulp, packaged housing, toys, whatever you want.
Pipelines are limited to normally on type of product in a liquid or gaseous form.
We have rail …. we can transport oil on it right now and we are doing that.
If we want to transport more, we take the 6 or so billion dollars and rather than putting in a single purpose pipeline, we use it to increase the capacity, the safety, and the environmental quality of it. That will likely save money, will increase capacity for ALL goods thus improve flexibility and will last longer than any pipeline so far in our history.
If you are so stupid as to not understand integrated planning and the frequent efficiency of that, I am sorry but I cannot help you.
=======================================
I know that adding electrification is a little more involved than stringing wires between poles, that is why some railways in the world, including railways in inclement weather conditions such as ours, use a third rail which is much cheaper.
I know, let’s just say that is the European way and we would not stoop that low ….. other than for skytrain.
==============================
Just to remind you, you cut and pasted a link to a story about why rail freight would never electrify in this god-forsaken country. All I did was respond ….. sorry I did.
I will try to remember you do not like to be responded to, but I will do it anyway, because that is how this blog works.
Comments for this article are closed.