The Bitumen is steam heated so that it can be loaded into rail cars, and then re heated with steam at the destination so that the cars can be unloaded. In fact even with steam heat, and some condensate in the rail cars, it takes approx. 30 minutes to unload a rail car.

One would think that if we had a derailment that this bitumen would just stay in the car, or ooze out very slowly. In the winter months, at minus 20-30 it probably would not even ooze.

So either Coleman doesn’t know what he is talking about, or he hopes that the general public is not aware how this product would be shipped by rail. To compare it to Lac Megantic makes no sense what so ever.

To move a similar amount via rail would require something like seven 150 car trains per day. Which of course means seven 150 car trains empty going back. (Possibly some with condensate)

This would mean a huge expenditure in rail cars, loading and unloading facilities, plus the high cost of shipping this product via rail. It can be done, but it would be very expensive.

My guess is that the Liberal Government are really behind the pipeline option, and not really looking very hard for an alternative.

Rail capacity is only at 30%?? He really is clueless. When what should be a 4-6 hour run turns into 10-12 hours due to the amount of traffic and meets, I’d say rail capacity is pretty close to maxed out. And that is not counting the potash which is still rumored to start shipping to the coast. The only way it would work in the BC North is to double track at least from Tete Jaune to the coast.

If Northern Gateway is not approved, three other pipelines can move the bitumen to tidewater.

TransCanadas’Keystone can move tar sands to the Gulf of Mexico, and its Energy east pipeline can move it to New Brunswick. Enbridge can reverse line 9 to also bring oil to Eastern Canada.

Lost in the discussion,however, is the need to bring it to tidewater. Canada imports far more oil than the capacity of Northern Gateway. We can simply use it all here at home. Benefits would include a higher price for Alberta oil, more jobs in Canada(especially in Eastern Canada), and a safe and stable oil source for Eastern Canada.

Those who insist on sending oil to Prince Rupert must simply have been bribed by foreign interests. There is no logical or compelling reason for Canadians to agree to such a ludicrous plan.

The auto ignition temperature of light sweet crude is about 200-280C.

The auto ignition temperature of bitument is about 400-480C.

That is a bit of a difference. To compare a bitumen rail crash to a light sweet crude rail crash is a stretch…

Bitumen is not light crude.

I still say, if they want to get it to the coast so badly, why don’t they build a tunnel about a mile underground? That way, none of our rivers or anything else would be affected if there was a mishap. That still leaves the passage out to open water though. So they could tunnel out to open water for that matter too. Build the loading facility out on an island.

Moving oil to port is only an option if the federal and provincial governments ignore the moratorium on tanker traffic off the Northwest coast of British Columbia that has been in place for 41 years and reaffirmed several times by each level of government over that period.

Suddenly it’s invisible? Now it’s all of a sudden claimed to be null and void. Since when?

There comes a time when a patriot must defend their country, even from their own government. I wonder if we don’t approach that point now.

Give: “I still say, if they want to get it to the coast so badly, why don’t they build a tunnel about a mile underground?”

Where else in the world has this been done at this scale?

If people are concerned about spills, they should not be supporting rail transport. Pipelines are far safer than rail.

Keep it all out of BC as far as I’m concerned!

Too late, NoWay. Oil is already being transported by pipeline in BC.

I am with Herbster, Sine Nomine and NoWay on this one. The Liberals are presenting pipeline or rail to us as a choice, I say no to both because either one means oil tanker traffic off our pristine coast.

Respect the moratorium!!!

JB: The Railway has been hauling dangerous commodities through the City of Prince George to the west coast for almost 100 years. How many spills have taken place, I can’t think of one.
Trains are safer and provide more job opportunities then a pipe line. After the initial construction of the pipe line, what jobs would be needed, maybe a couple of guys in a pickup truck looking for leaks..Instead of building a pipeline, double track to the west coast…

Cheetos: “Trains are safer and provide more job opportunities then a pipe line.”

They are? The people of Lac Magantic would probably disagree.

interesting article in the Vancouver Sun today about worker safety involving the transport of oil …. pretty clear which option is the safest from a workers point of view

http://www.vancouversun.com/business/energy/Pipelines+safer+workers+than+rail+truck+transport+study/9038545/story.html?__lsa=673c-c765

The people of BC have never approved of bitumen shipments off our coast. The Kinder Morgon line was originally to bring oil to be refined in BC, and was later switched to bitumen without any environmental approval process.

Ditto for shipping by rail. The railways were deregulated and they just started doing this on their own.

At the end of the day we still have the moratorium on oil shipments by tanker off the coast and I haven’t heard of any politicians stepping forward with their name to remove that ban….

“In relation to spills, road transportation had the highest chance of spills with almost 20 incidents per billion ton-miles.
Rail transportation had slightly over two incidents per billion ton-miles.
Pipelines had less than 0.6 per billion ton-miles.”

JB: What happened at Lac Magantic was the result of greed. A two-bit railway (poor equipment, poor track, grossly understaffed) Again JB – Trains have been hauling dangerous commodities through Prince George to the West Coast for almost a century….how many spills have you seen? At the end of the day, if we are selling our valuable commodities to off shore interests, shouldn’t we create as many jobs as possible for Canadians because when these valuable commodities are gone,,,they are gone.

We at this time are solely dependent on the USA for the sale of our oil and natural gas. The USA is looking to become self sufficient in both oil and gas. In fact they will start to export natural gas in the not to distant future.

So if the US market is reduced, then we need to find another market for our oil, sell to the US for less, or go out of business. Either way we are going to lose revenue, and jobs.

So whats the solution. We need the money from the sale of oil and gas to fund all our health and educational needs, etc;

This situation is not whether we should or shouldn’t find a solution. Its about what do we do if we don’t find a solution.

There are probably 150,000 jobs or more in Canada dependent on oil and gas exploration, and export.

So again whats the solution.?

The Government is not going to (at this time) tell you how serious it will be for Canada, if we lose the American market and do not have an alternative.

There us a voluntary tanker exclusion off the west coast…
Not sure where people get this tanker moratorium from but we do have a moratorium on oil and gas exploration off the coast NOT for tanker storage or movement. Look it up before you start quoting what the Green Party thinks is in place.

Cheetos: “JB: What happened at Lac Magantic was the result of greed. A two-bit railway (poor equipment, poor track, grossly understaffed)”

Funny how so many people are willing to forgive and forget the rail industry for such things as Lac Megantic. Could you imagine the uproar if Lac Megantic was a pipeline accident?

“Again JB – Trains have been hauling dangerous commodities through Prince George to the West Coast for almost a century”

So have pipelines, so what was your point again?

Again, the statistics don’t lie. Pipelines are safer than rail.

The comparison between hauling oil by pipeline and rail was in ton miles hauled.

The railways had more accidents per ton mile, however the amount of oil spilled was insignificant in relation to the amount of oil spilled from a rupture in a pipeline.

The two modes of transportation cannot be compared.

They either get their pipeline or they move it to a place where they can get their pipeline. Either way, it’s a pipeline.

The Lac Megantic spill was twice the size of Kalamazoo and no one died.

Slinky is correct that the moratorium off the BC coast for the past 30+ years is for oil and gas exploration.

However slinky, if the people of BC are so concerned about the environmental impacts of oil and gas on our pristine coastline that we would have that 30+ year moratorium on just it’s exploration, do you not think by extension we would be even more concerned about the direct presence of oil and gas being shipped off our coast?

Oh by the way, and there is a ban on oil tankers off our coast:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/b-c-oil-tanker-ban-motion-passes-in-commons-1.948609

Palopu: “The two modes of transportation cannot be compared.”

Sure they can. Pipelines are heavily regulated whereas rail largely is not. Make up your own mind.

“non-binding” therefor no ban. You have to read your own link.

Here is some interesting information about the so called oil sands pollution. Seems history is ignored. Seems in the oil sands there is a river called tar river, wonder how it got that name.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/01/11/canadian-oil-sands-pollute-nearby-lakes-report-is-blow-to-keystone-pipeline-or-not/

JohnnyBelt. Railways are heavily regulated, and can be further regulated at any time by the Federal Government. Where do you get your info???

Railways have been hauling gasoline, diesel, propane, methane, etc; etc; etc; for decades all over Canada and the USA.

Hauling this product by rail is not new. The problem hauling to Kitimat, Pr Rupert, is more with the logistics because of the sheer volume involved.

@ seamutt or seamut? I did read the “non-binding” part of the motion that passed in the house of commons relating to a ban on oil tanker traffic of our BC coast.

The point is; the motion to ban oil tanker traffic off our BC coast was reached and approved through a democratic process, namely a majority vote in the house of commons supported by a majority of elected officials from a number of political parties.

As usual, the Harper Government will ignore that democratic process, and in typical dictatorship fashion, IMPOSE it’s will that there be oil tanker traffic on our coast, everyone else be dammed!!!

There is absolutely no social contract to pursue this proposed pipeline, rail tanker transport, nor oil tanker traffic off our BC coast. If Harper and/or Christy tries to push this through then Sine Nomine’s comment is very relevant; “There comes a time when a patriot must defend their country, even from their own government. I wonder if we don’t approach that point now.”

People#1, there is not a ban on oil tankers off the coast. Read the first line of my last comment – “There us a voluntary tanker exclusion off the west coast” The voluntary exclusion is for loaded tankers heading to Washington state and not empty ones returning to Alaska to reload. As I said look it up and get edumicated. It is often mistaken for a tanker moratorium, the voluntary route has had many changes in it since 1977.

In Alaska the pipeline is above ground and twists and turns along the highway, probably due to permafrost, too bad they can’t do that here – easy to see a rupture

Typical oil industry shill response; slinky makes the distinction between “loaded” oil tankers and empty ones. How about we apply your distinction of “loaded” and empty oil tankers to the proposed oil terminal at Kitimat?

Let’s absolutely “ban” all “loaded” oil tankers not just “off” our coast but “on” our coast as well. By your oil industry logic once the empty oil tankers, moored at the proposed Kitimat oil terminal, become “loaded”, they are banned from being “on” our coast and must be sent on their merry way to China. Just repeat this process thousands of time per year and poof Enbridge is technically complying with the “full oil tanker ban”.

This is the the actual oil industry mentality we are dealing with folks… bizarre as it is… in a twisted perverse way, it would make sense to them.

Don’t believe me? How about their claim that an “oil spill would be good for the local economy.”

http://www.princegeorgecitizen.com/article/20130227/PRINCEGEORGE0101/302279982/

Read the article throughly folks, as bizarre, twisted and perverse as it is, this is oil industry logic on public display. No matter how hard I, or anyone else tries, there is no debating with that kind of logic!

So where are we going with an oil industry, federal government and provincial government that simply will not take “NO” for an answer? The end of Sine Nomine’s comment seems to ring true.

I will repeat, there is no ban on oil tankers. Tankers running the coast for decades. Smaller tankers running to the villages up and down the coast for decades. Want those banned or just pick and choose size and contents?

There is no ban on tankers.

Do you use oil?

Shipping oil by rail would be the best news we could have! Pipelines create a lot of jobs… until they’re built. Then all they need are a couple guys in a pickup truck for the life of the pipeline! Maybe you don’t own a house in this area and maybe you don’t own a business that depends on local economics, but some of us do. Shipping oil by rail creates jobs, way more than just the train crews themselves. More fuel gets used, more hotel rooms, more meals eaten in restaurants, more houses built and on and on and on.

If you guys are against shipping oil, then sell your vehicles, along with anything you own that was shipped on a fossil fuel burning vehicle (which would include the computer you’re using right now), and then go live in the woods with the draft dodgers. Lead by example!

Actually 560 permanent jobs is stated not just a couple of guys in a truck.

People#1: You misunderstand the entire voluntary tanker exclusion. It is not for ships going to port but rather a proposed lane to follow for industry while traveling up and down the coast, that is all. There is no ban on any traffic headed in or out of any port on the west coast. The tankers would leave port and then follow the route all other tankers follow.

LittleBirdie states; “If you guys are against shipping oil, then sell your vehicles, along with anything you own that was shipped on a fossil fuel burning vehicle… lead by example.”

We honestly and sincerely tried LittleBirdie, but the fossil fuel industry sabotaged our attempts!

Your whole argument about people against oil also being dependant on it is a complete joke! You do realize that it was the oil industry that helped kill the electric car don’t you?

Yup, in the 1990’s the California Air Resources Board reversed it’s zero emissions mandate after relentless pressure from the oil industry. As a result zero emission initiatives like General Motors EV1 electric car, among others, was discontinued and destroyed.

An oil industry that killed the electric car, because it threatened their future, now presenting the argument that if we are against oil, we should not be “stepping on our GAS pedals”, how ironic is that?

Is this the best argument a hypocritical fossil fuel industry can present, in light of the overwhelming evidence that the use of their products is killing our planet?

slinky states; “There is no ban on any traffic headed in or out of any port on the west coast.”

Does everyone see the carefully selected words “west coast” that slinky uses? I constantly make reference to BC’s coast and slinky expands it to include the entire west coast (which includes ports in the states of Alaska, Washington, Oregon and California).

Give it up slinky, if the use of semantics is all you have to offer in a debate, take a hike!

There is no ban on any traffic headed in or out of any port on the BC coast

It is not the oil industry that killed the electric car, it is the infeasibility of it at this time.

Castlegar was just given a free charging station and they are trying to sell it now (and have no takers) due to maintenance costs outweighing its usefulness to the community. How are all those electric cars we the taxpayer provided to the city of PG? How much has that saved us?

@ slinky, there is only one port on the BC coast; namely the Kinder Morgan terminal. Originally designed to carry light crude oil which has been switched to Alberta bitumen. A small terminal that fills 65 oil tankers per year, and there is no way the good people of Vancouver and Burnaby will allow any proposed expansion to this facility.

http://thetyee.ca/News/2010/06/03/VancouverOilTankers/

Slinky states; “It is not the oil industry that killed the electric car, it is the infeasibility of it at this time.”

Oh really?

http://gm-volt.com/2012/07/19/could-the-oil-companies-kill-the-electric-car-again/

Here is a chart showing the weekly U.S. All Grades All Formulations Retail Gasoline Prices from 1994 to 2012.

http://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/hist/LeafHandler.ashx?n=pet&s=emm_epm0_pte_nus_dpg&f=w

The oil industry managed to kill General Motors EV1 electric car in 1999. Anyone notice what year the price of gasoline started to rise in the U.S? … what a coincidence hey!

My first debate on this site was on BIG OIL, and I have no problem exposing this dirty industry for what it truly is.

This is an industry that has taken us to the cleaners, lining it’s pockets with our money, for decades. This industry has done everything it can to stifle and subvert our attempts to promote and utilize clean green energy.

I have presented to you nothing but the facts and the truth! There is much more about this dirty industry that I will share with you in the near future, all backed up by facts and credible sources.

Time to wake up sheeple!!!

Prince Rupert has a port, Kitimat has a port, Nanaimo has a port, Victoria has a port… do you even know what you are talking about?

Your link even says the same thing, battery operated cars are not competitive, and will not be until at least 2020 when battery prices are expected to come down to an acceptable level. THAT is what kills the battery operated car, the price of batteries versus buying gas. The 10,000 a bank of batteries cost can buy you a whole lot of petrol never mind the juice to charge them up.

Your goofy post says to save the electric car we should raise the price of oil and force people to make the switch thus keeping the electric car afloat… give your head a shake, its not ‘big oil’ making record profits keeping the price of oil down to kill the electric car, they keep the price of oil as high as the market will bear. THAT is why they developed the oil sands, because it became economically feasible. Same will happen with transportation, its turn will come when economics and technology allow it

Please, we are talking about oil tankers here, there is no “loading” of oil tankers at the Prince Rupert, Kitimat, Nanaimo or Victoria ports.

The ONLY port on the BC coast where oil tankers are “loaded” is Vancouver / Burnaby.

Here reading this should help you understand the port situation better!

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/british-columbia/us-concerned-about-oil-tanker-traffic-from-bc/article6989791/

Kind of ironic that the US government seems more concerned about it’s pristine Washington State coastline and thriving fisheries and seafood industry than we are about our own coastline, fisheries and seafood industry. What does that say about us!?

Time to wake up sheeple!!!

No, the website is from General Motors Volt.com… you know, the economically feasible and viable electric car they are currently manufacturing and selling on the market. No other expert and authoritative source knows what happened to the General Motors EV1 electric car than General Motors themselves… give your head a shake and look at the title of the article for goodness sake!

My “goofy” post comes from a GM car company worried about whether oil companies will kill their electric car AGAIN.

Seems to me the article quite rationally calculates the value of gas at $2.00 per per US gallon that would make internal combustion engine (IECs) still viable for oil company profits, anything above that makes Electric Volt (EV) cars more and more viable. If you read the gas chart I linked to you will find gas prices have been reaching $4.00 per US gallon more and more frequently.

I am sorry slinky… I can’t hold your hand through the evidence anymore, figure it out for yourself, or have someone else on this discussion board explain it to you.

You seem stuck on autopilot so hopefully this will make it simple for you to understand. There are no barriers for any ship traveling to any port, if there was a oil terminal in Prince Rupert there would be nothing stopping a ‘tanker’ from sailing in and loading up. There is nothing that ‘legally’ stops them from doing so. The Conservatives have passed some new rules which this ship must follow but nothing bars it from going to port and loading up as long as they follow these rules. That applies to the ports in Delta, the port of Kitimat, the port in Nanaimo, etc.

The moratorium for exploration and drilling also applies to the Vancouver area of the coast which has ‘tankers’, not just the north. So not sure where you are going on this

LOL slinky :-D

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BNsrK6P9QvI

You have no idea what you are reading. take for instance the Nissan Leaf – cost $34,570 versus a Toyota Corolla $17,460 for similar equipped vehicles according to one website. The Corolla is $17,110 cheaper. At $1.20 a liter of fuel that is 14,258 liters you have to burn just to start your mileage comparison. At 13.6km per liter your Corolla will travel 193,986km before it even reaches the price just to BUY the Leaf

THAT is what is killing the electric car, don’t care what a poster from GM says 3 tears ago. The Leaf just had a record sales year in 2013 so it will happen, just will take time for technology and economics to catch up

Sigh… not if you have a progressive future sighted government that backs EV over ICE vehicles, through zero emission rebates and/or EV purchase incentives.

http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/taxcenter.shtml

The US government provides a tax credit up to $7,500 per electric vehicle, why not Canada? Why?… because BIG OIL Harper backs the oil industry and their ICEs fossil fuel vehicles, that’s why!

With the absence of a leaderless Harper Government to encourage Canadians to move towards clean zero emission vehicles the province of BC, Ontario and Quebec are the only provinces that promote the purchase and use of zero emission (clean energy) vehicles through purchase discounts and rebates.

The maximum amount for clean energy vehicles purchases in BC is $5,000. So kindly subtract that amount from the purchase price.

http://www.cevforbc.ca/eligible-vehicles

The point being, if we had any kind of leadership to move this country towards zero emission vehicles it should come from our Federal Government, which of course it does not! By the way, no big surprise Alberta offers no incentives to purchase zero emission electric vehicles… hmm… we wonder why?

Regardless slinky, this whole rush on fossil fuel extraction and push to get it to oversea’s markets is about the fossil fuel industry knowing the rest of the world is moving away from it’s products and towards clean renewable energy sources.

The timeline to get their dirty carbon emitting crap out of the ground and to market is closing, and they know it! They don’t care how any more billions of tonnes of CO2 are pumped into our atmosphere, as long as they get their money!

The desperation is there, and we all know it! Why else would our wimpy PM insist that Canada will not take NO for an answer on the Keystone XL Pipeline.

That’s not us as a country talking, that is BIG OIL talking through our puppet government. Now more recently Canada have been caught spying on Brazil’s Ministry of Mining and Energy. But we all know it is BIG OIL & GAS that is engaging Canada in industrial espionage, using our tax dollars and publicly funded agency (CSEC) to do their dirty work.

Last week Malaysian company Petronas announced plans to spend $35 billion on LNG development in BC. There are at least 6 other LNG proposals coming along.

How big a maroon must one be to still be talking about exporting oil? No clear benefit to BC, and lots of risk.

Come on people, look at the big picture!

Still stuck on those EVs…sigh… the Volt is 7-10,000 bucks more than the Leaf. That is why I used the example of the Leaf. Even dropping the difference to 10,000 dollars before taxes you can still buy and take your Corolla 130,000km before you come to the purchase price of a Leaf. There are incentives on other new cars as well as EVs. If you think people will buy the same car they can’t even go on a trip for 10 to 20 thousand more you are off your rocker. ‘Nuff said.

Don’t forget to add depreciation to your archaic ICE Corolla, heck drop it’s value by another $3K as soon as you drive it off the lot because it would officially be declared a “used” car!

One would think, by your definition, there would be an even great gap in value to make up between the Leaf and the Corolla.

Yup try and sell your cheap Corolla after 130,000 kms for a pitiful price, while the Leaf would resale for quadruple that amount. You buy CHEAP you get CHEAP!!!

So when do we get back to the topic at hand? Namely the transport of dirty Alberta Tars Sands Oil through BC and onto our pristine coastline! The majority of British Columbians have stated through recent polls that they are opposed to the Enbridge Northern Gateway Pipeline because the “risk” to our environment is just too great.

So now half baked Christy Crackers, oil addicted Alison Redford, and BIG OIL puppet Harper think that the transport of Alberta Tar Sands Oil through BC by rail, which is an even more dangerous method to transporting bitumen, would be OK with British Columbians? Give your heads a shake!!!

Herbster states; “Last week Malaysian company Petronas announced plans to spend $35 billion on LNG development in BC. There are at least 6 other LNG proposals coming along.

How big a maroon must one be to still be talking about exporting oil? No clear benefit to BC, and lots of risk. Come on people, look at the big picture!”

Hmm…

As big a maroon (moron) to have voted for the Harper Government and the Provincial Lib-Con Government in the first place, one would suppose…

People#1: “The majority of British Columbians have stated through recent polls that they are opposed to the Enbridge Northern Gateway Pipeline because the “risk” to our environment is just too great.”

I have to assume that you put the word “risk” in quotes because most British Columbians have no idea what the risk actually is.